[Senate Hearing 113-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association
The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA)
for the fiscal year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as
follows:
--Amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to
appropriate $100.4 million for reconstruction of the Unalaska
Hospital and the Atka Island clinic, both of which were
destroyed during World War II.
--Allocate an additional $8.5 million to the IHS to fully fund
Village Built Clinic (VBC) Leases, and direct the IHS to use
its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to fully fund the VBC
leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (IHCIA).
--Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by
moving the program to mandatory spending.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association is a regional non-profit
tribal organization with members consisting of the 13 federally
recognized tribes of the Aleutian Chain and Pribilof Islands Region of
Alaska. APIA provides healthcare services to the Alaska Natives in six
of the tribal communities of this region through funding received from
the IHS under title V of the Indian Self-Determination & Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA). We also provide health-related services to all
13 tribes through various non-IHS grants and agreements.
Funding for Reconstruction of Two Health Care Facilities Destroyed
During World War II.--During World War II, communities within the APIA
region suffered historic losses, not only to their populations due to
deaths arising from inadequate healthcare and poor living conditions
during removal by the U.S. Government to camps in southeast Alaska, but
also to two healthcare facilities that were destroyed and never rebuilt
or accounted for in prior restitution made to the Aleutian and Pribilof
tribal communities.
On June 4, 1942, the Japanese bombed the 24-bed hospital operated
at that time by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Unalaska, Alaska. Since
that time, the closest hospital is located in Anchorage, Alaska--800
air miles away, and not accessible by roads. Ten days later and 350
miles to the east, on June 14, 1942, the residents of Atka Island were
forcibly evacuated from the island by the United States for their
``safety,'' and the U.S. Navy burned all of the structures on the
island to the ground, including the island's health clinic, to prevent
their use by the Japanese.
Congress passed the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act
in 1988 (Public Law 100-383), which led to creation of the Aleutian and
Pribilof Islands Restitution Trust to administer funds appropriated
under the Restitution Act on behalf of the St. Paul, St. George,
Unalaska, Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Biorka, Kashega and Makushin
communities. The Restitution Act provided very limited appropriations
to partially address losses suffered by these communities during
evacuations from 1942 to 1945. During that time, the treatment of the
Aleut people in the evacuation camps lacked even the most basic
attention to health and human safety matters, in extremely crowded,
unheated, abandoned buildings with very poor sanitation conditions. Ten
percent of the Aleuts who were evacuated died in the camps. For those
who returned to their communities, many found their homes and community
facilities destroyed, possessions taken, and churches stripped of
religious icons by the U.S. military.
The time is now to replace the Unalaska hospital and the Atka
Island Clinic. The Aleutian and Pribilof tribal communities are the
most remote within Alaska. The next level of referred specialty and
inpatient care is in Anchorage. To say that our patients suffer from a
lack of access to basic healthcare services is an understatement.
Patients have died en route to Anchorage for emergency care; patients
have died due to inability to receive timely screening of cancer;
patients must leave their families for months at a time when receiving
care 800 miles away in Anchorage. Mothers must leave their families for
4 months to deliver their babies in Anchorage. This is unacceptable
care, by any standard. The replacement hospital facility would directly
serve the 5,000 year-round residents of Atka, Dutch Harbor, Nikolski
and Unalaska, in addition to the typically hundreds of seasonal fishery
workers requiring immediate emergency or primary care. Having a
hospital would eliminate the need to send referrals to Anchorage at an
average airfare cost of $1,400, not to mention the cost of lodging,
meals and the personal hardship of having to leave the community for
days at a time. Atka lies 350 miles away from Unalaska, so until its
clinic has sufficient capacity to meet local need, that population is
at severe risk due to its isolated, weather challenged location.
Based upon APIA budget estimates derived from the IHS Facility
Budget Estimating System (FBES), the Unalaska hospital facility project
cost for design, construction and equipping the total facility is
$96,900,000. Based upon a 2003 Health Clinic Design Report funded by
the Denali Commission, construction of a health clinic sufficient to
meet the needs in Atka, and adjusting from 2003 for current inflation,
will cost $3,500,000. APIA thus requests $100.4 million in funding for
reconstruction of these facilities.
APIA is ranked near the top in the IHS's joint venture program,
however we are unable to move forward without identified construction
resources. For facilities subject to the IHS joint venture program,
construction must be accomplished with non-IHS money. The Restitution
Act offers the best legislative framework for an appropriation from
Congress. We recommend that the Restitution Act be amended to add a new
section 1989C-4(b)(1)(D) to 50 U.S.C., to state as follows: ``(D) One
account for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an
inpatient hospital facility in Unalaska and health clinic in Atka with
a direct appropriation of $100,400,000 for those purposes.'' We ask for
the subcommittee's support of such an amendment and the related
appropriation of funds.
If we are to successfully receive this non-IHS construction project
funding, the joint venture program would allow APIA to enter into a no-
cost lease with the IHS for a period of 20 years; the IHS would in turn
provide staff, equipment and supplies for the operations and
maintenance of the facilities. The joint venture program is a
competitive program and funding is limited. According to the IHS's
budget justification for fiscal year 2014, the IHS signed 17 agreements
for joint ventures between 2001 and 2012, but received 55 ``positive
responses'' to a solicitation for joint ventures during the fiscal
years 2010-2012 cycle. Yet, the IHS has indicated it does not have
adequate resources to fund even those programs ranked highest on its
list of joint venture projects, such as APIA's Unalaska Hospital.
Tribes in Alaska support the IHS joint venture program as one of the
best solutions to immediately address critical healthcare needs in our
communities. The National Congress of American Indians has also
supported APIA's request for assistance with both Unalaska and Atka
facility construction, via resolution. We ask that the subcommittee
appropriate additional funds for staffing and operations of new
facilities; doing so will allow IHS to partner with tribes like APIA
who are anxious to move their projects forward under this successful
joint venture model in fiscal year 2015.
Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.--For the last several
years, APIA has submitted testimony to this subcommittee on the need to
address chronic underfunding of Village Built Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska.
VBCs, which are clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other
entities, are a vital component of the provision of basic healthcare
services in rural Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the
Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) under the IHCIA. The CHAP utilizes
a network of community health aides and practitioners to provide
primary healthcare services in rural and isolated areas where access to
those services might not otherwise exist.
In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding for the
program for that year. Since then, Congress has not provided amounts
specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had
discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. IHS has
needlessly treated the $3 million level as a cap, and has refused to
increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace
with inflation or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated
areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in
deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening
the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural
Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly
maintained VBC space. Our facilities in Atka and Nikolski have been
cited for numerous patient Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and safety issues including no
patient privacy and holes in the floor. In any other community, these
clinics would be condemned, yet the IHS expects us to continue to
provide care with no remedy at hand. It is no wonder that we have a
difficult time recruiting and retaining providers to serve our
communities. Unfortunately, we are not alone in our predicament.
According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska
Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million
is needed to fully fund the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate
is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need.
APIA therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional
$8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use
its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases. It would be
helpful if Congress would also direct the IHS to use its fiscal year
2015 appropriations to fully fund VBC leases in accordance with
Sec. 804 of the IHCIA. It is a matter of patient safety that this be
addressed immediately.
Ensure Contract Support Costs Are a Mandatory Appropriation.--We
are pleased that Congress chose to fully fund contract support costs
(CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2014, and we are glad the
administration has supported that effort in fiscal year 2015. CSC fund
vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that
provide critical services to our members. If contract support costs are
not fully funded, however, our programs and services are adversely
affected because we are forced to divert limited program funding to
cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate
Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries through
to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. However, full funding for CSC must not
come with a penalty--tribes should not have to see a reduction in
program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program
funds. Without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of
CSC remains subject to agency discretion from year to year, even though
tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
with tribes on a permanent solution.
There is a logical permanent solution Congress can implement: CSC
should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the ISDEAA,
the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation,
affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget for CSC is currently
funded and controlled through appropriation acts--as if it were a
discretionary program. Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement for
the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations, recognized that the
current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and
the current approach leaves the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in the ``untenable position of appropriating
discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
support costs.'' Congress also noted that ``[t]ypically obligations of
this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious
solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the
statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
the Congress to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis.
IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.--We support legislation
that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The
goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and
thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-
term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations
for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is
for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich.
Thank you for your consideration of our request to support funding
for the reconstruction of the Unalaska Hospital and Atka Island Clinic
with associated staffing and operating costs. Reconstruction of these
facilities will right a huge wrong in our history and will
significantly improve healthcare for the Aleutian and Pribilof tribal
communities. We also appreciate your consideration of other requests
outlined in this testimony. On behalf of APIA and the people we serve,
I am happy to help provide any additional information desired by the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Community Trees
summary of requests
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service:
--Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Program at $31.3 million.
--Forest and Rangeland Research at $298 million, including $72
million for Forest Inventory and Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
--Recognize the Urban Waters Federal Partnership in funding for EPA
clean water initiatives
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Dave
Forsell and I am the president of Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, a non-
profit organization whose mission is to engage diverse communities and
create vibrant public places, helping people and nature thrive in our
community, often helping people plant and care for trees.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the Alliance for Community
Trees (ACTrees), for whom I serve as president of the board of
directors. ACTrees is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in
1993 by leaders of local tree organizations to establish a national
voice for urban and community forestry. ACTrees' founders shared a
vision of urban trees and ecosystems nurtured by a broad base of
community stewards. Through the efforts of 200 member and program
partner organizations in 44 States, over 5 million volunteers have been
inspired to plant and care for 15 million trees across our Nation, in
cities and towns where 83 percent of Americans live.
My testimony will focus on the critical role of the USDA Forest
Service in providing Federal leadership for and assistance to public
and private partners at the national, State and local levels through
its Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) program and urban forestry
research.
why the forest service's u&cf program and urban forestry research are
important to actrees
The Forest Service's U&CF program and urban forestry research
projects have been models of working with each other through an
integrated approach and partnering with public and private
organizations at the national, State and local levels to provide
information and tools that partners need to effectively plan and
implement urban forestry management programs. The integration between
Forest Service program staff and researchers has been essential to
address the many issues affecting urban trees and forests and the rapid
pace of change in urban environments. In addition, the collaborative
approaches of Forest Service program staff and researchers have been
critical to open and sharing relationships with partners and adaptive
learning and management.
ACTrees members have benefited from both the technical and
financial assistance provided by the U&CF program and the information
and tools developed by urban forestry researchers. Many of our members
have worked directly with Forest Service program staff and researchers
on projects in their communities. Others have benefited from Forest
Service resources provided through State forestry agencies--the U&CF
program's primary partner. While some ACTrees members may not receive
assistance from the Forest Service or through State forestry agencies,
all members benefit from the urban forestry partnerships the Forest
Service has helped create.
ACTrees members recognize the importance of broad partnerships to
advance common goals around urban trees and forests. Partnerships among
public and private organizations enable sharing of expertise, skills,
and resources. Such partnerships result in substantial leveraging of
Federal funding provided to local urban and community forestry
projects. ACTrees members partner with a diverse range of agencies and
organizations at the local level. At the national level, ACTrees works
with public and private partners to advance urban and community
forestry through collaborative initiatives such as the Sustainable
Urban Forests Coalition and the Partners in Community Forestry
conferences organized by the Arbor Day Foundation.
An open and collaborative U&CF program has enabled Federal, State
and local partners to develop a great diversity of projects around the
country, recognizing the wide range of ecosystem types and unique
social, cultural and economic contexts in communities across the
Nation. Here are a few examples of projects on which ACTrees member
organizations have worked to add value to their communities--
neighborhood value, environmental value, cost savings, employment and
training. Such stories are happening in cities and towns across America
thanks to broad public-private partnerships in urban and community
forestry:
--Tree Pittsburgh received a grant from the USDA Forest Service in
2011, through the State's Bureau of Forestry, to create the
city's first Urban Forest Master Plan. It has leveraged the
Federal grant and is developing the Plan, which includes
detailed information, resources needed, and recommendations to
proactively manage and grow a city's tree canopy.
--The Tennessee Urban Forestry Council established a Greenprint
initiative in 1991 to promote Federal, State and local
partnerships toward a strategic goal of doubling the State's
urban forest canopy. The initiative continues to build on its
vision and collaborative strategies.
--The Sacramento Tree Foundation is engaged in cooperative research
efforts with the U.S. Forest Service and California's forestry
agency to explore the relationships between human health and
tree canopy cover.
--The Morton Arboretum near Chicago is cooperating with the USDA
Forest Service's National Institute of Applied Science on an
Urban Forest Climate Adaptation project.
--The California Urban Forest Council and California ReLeaf are
working to advance urban forestry projects through the State's
climate change legislation and policies, recently seeking $18
million in cap-and-trade funding for urban forestry projects in
underserved communities.
--Tree People in Los Angeles is advancing innovative projects to
address drought impacts on trees, such as using recycled water
from treatment plants to water trees in urban parks.
In Indianapolis, the power of community and urban forestry is very
real! Due to an EPA consent decree, our local water utility, Citizens
Energy Group, is spending more than $1 billion to eliminate all but 5
percent of raw sewage overflows into our river and streams. My
organization, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful (KIB), is partnering with
Citizens in a pilot program in a west side neighborhood. KIB will be
installing 34 beautiful stormwater planters up and down neighborhood
streets as part of a stormwater sewer separation project. They'll be
planted with 10,000 native perennials and grasses, adding value to
front yards; and 200 trees will be added to the landscape for their
power to mitigate stormwater runoff. This 100 percent green solution
will save Citizens considerable dollars compared to a standard gray
solution. The best part? This work is supporting jobs and training for
high school and college students who'll plant and tend trees; they'll
also have an opportunity to work alongside engineers and ecological
services professionals in the process.
why the u&cf program and urban forestry research are critical to the
federal government
In recent years, policymakers and natural resource managers have
been calling attention to the increasing importance of urban areas as
we look to the future. Our Nation's cities, towns, and metropolitan
centers present critical challenges and opportunities as our population
centers grow. The Forest Service's U&CF program and urban forestry
research are uniquely positioned in the Federal Government to help
address urban challenges and opportunities as they relate to
environmental and natural resource issues--particularly those related
to the roles of urban trees and forests as assets for: building and
restoring green space and parks for recreation, supporting
opportunities for green businesses and jobs in underserved
neighborhoods, and providing environmental services essential to
community well-being and quality of life, such as clean water, clean
air, energy conservation, stormwater management, and atmospheric carbon
exchange. No other Federal agency has the expertise and can provide the
leadership necessary to help our Nation address urban challenges and
opportunities with trees and forests.
The Forest Service has recognized the U&CF program as the key
program to help achieve one of seven priority goals in its current
strategic plan. Goal 6 is ``Engaging Urban America with Forest Service
Programs.'' Similarly, the Forest Service Research branch has
identified Urban Natural Resources Research as one of seven Priority
Research Areas. Looking to the future--as reflected in the agency's
``2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment and 2010 National Report on
Sustainable Forests''--urban forests will become increasingly important
for providing environmental services to our Nation's growing urban
populations. In addition, as part of the USDA, the Forest Service's
U&CF program is particularly well-positioned to help address
increasingly important urban-rural challenges, including the expansion
of urban populations into rural landscapes and the lack of
opportunities for urban youth to connect to nature.
actrees' recommendations
Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF).--There are more than 100
million acres of urban forest lands across the Nation, providing
essential environmental, social, and economic services such as energy
conservation, improved air and water quality, recreation and improved
public health to the more than 83 percent of our Nation's population
who live in cities and communities. The Forest Service's U&CF program
is the primary Federal program that reaches out and provides technical
and financial assistance to local communities and non-profit groups for
planting, maintaining, protecting, and restoring these urban forests.
In fiscal year 2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial,
educational, and research assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly
198 million people, over 60 percent of the U.S. population.
ACTrees urges the subcommittee to provide $31.3 million for the
U&CF program in fiscal year 2015, consistent with the level enacted in
fiscal year 2012. The President's fiscal year 2015 proposal for U&CF is
$23.7 million, a further reduction from the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level of $28 million. While the President's fiscal year 2015 proposal
holds promise for additional funding for urban and community forestry
projects through the Forest Service's new Landscape Scale Restoration
(LSR) program, ACTrees has much to learn about these opportunities. In
addition, ACTrees is excited about the President's proposal for a $1
billion Climate Resilience Fund, which includes $25 million for the
U&CF program to advance urban forestry projects as measures to help
communities adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts.
Urban Forestry Research.--The Forest Service Research branch has
provided essential information and tools to urban forestry groups and
practitioners. It is critical for communities to obtain baseline
information about their urban forests before they can plan and
implement actions. There have been huge strides made in recent years in
developing new technologies and tools, such as the ``i-Tree'' program,
for mapping the urban forest and examining conditions and trends.
Similarly, urban forestry research has been helping policymakers and
practitioners to understand the environmental, economic, and social
services that trees and forests provide.
ACTrees urges the subcommittee to provide funding for Forest and
Rangeland Research at $298 million for fiscal year 2015. This reflects
a funding level for basic forest research at $226 million, consistent
with fiscal year 2014, and funding for Forest Inventory and Analysis
(FIA) at $72 million. While there is no budget line item for urban
forestry research, the Forest Service has recognized ``Urban Natural
Resources Stewardship'' as one of its seven Priority Research Areas. We
urge the subcommittee to recognize the importance of urban forestry
research and direct the agency to provide strong funding in this area,
as it did in its fiscal year 2014 report language. With our request for
$72 million for FIA, ACTrees has joined many partners in the
conservation community recognizing the importance of inventory and
assessment information in supporting forest policy and management
decisions in all contexts, including urban and community forests.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Urban Waters Federal
Partnership.--Launched in 2011, this Federal Partnership has expanded
to 18 pilot cities and includes 14 Federal agencies. EPA coordinates
this important and innovative Partnership through its Office of Water
and the Forest Service participates on behalf of USDA, providing
essential tree and forest expertise. The Partnership aims to stimulate
regional and local economies, create local jobs, improve quality of
life, and protect Americans' health by revitalizing urban waterways in
underserved communities across the Nation. ACTrees urges the
subcommittee to recognize this important Federal Partnership through
its fiscal year 2015 funding of EPA clean water initiatives.
I appreciate your consideration, and the opportunity to testify
today on behalf of ACTrees.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony in my
capacity as president of the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). We
urge your support for at least $154.5 million each in fiscal year 2015
(fiscal year 2015) for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and
the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Within the context of
the NEA, we also urge the committee to include language revising the
Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to increase the total allowable
outstanding indemnity and the limit for any single exhibition. Lastly,
we support $858 million for the Smithsonian Institution, at least $50
million for State Historic Preservation Offices, $15 million for Tribal
Historic Preservation Offices and restored funding for the Save
America's Treasures and Preserve America programs.
AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation's museums--
including aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children's museums,
culturally specific museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime
museums, military museums, national parks, natural history museums,
planetariums, presidential libraries, science and technology centers
and zoos--along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for
and with museums. AAM works on behalf of the 17,500 museums that employ
400,000 people, spend more than $2 billion annually on educational
programming, receive more than 55 million visits each year from primary
and secondary school students and directly contribute $21 billion to
local economies.
Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons:
--Museums are key education providers.--Museums already offer
educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language
arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial
literacy, geography and social studies, in coordination with
State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide
experiential learning opportunities, STEM education, youth
training and job preparedness. They reach beyond the scope of
instructional programming for schoolchildren by also providing
critical teacher training. There is a growing consensus that
whatever the new educational era looks like, it will focus on
the development of a core set of skills: critical thinking, the
ability to synthesize information, the ability to innovate,
creativity and collaboration. Museums are uniquely situated to
help learners develop these core skills.
--Museums create jobs and support local economies.--Museums serve as
economic engines, bolster local infrastructure and spur
tourism. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
Governors Association agree that cultural assets such as
museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled
workforce and local and international tourism.
--Museums address community challenges.--Many museums offer programs
tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs,
persons with disabilities and more, greatly expanding their
reach and impact. For example, some have programs designed
specifically for children on the autism spectrum while others
are teaching English as a Second Language or providing youth
job training opportunities.
--Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to
underserved populations.--Teachers, students and researchers
benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access
to trustworthy information through online collections and
traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need help in
digitizing collections.
The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal
agency created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit
educational institutions--including museums, colleges, universities,
archives and libraries--for educational programming and the care of
collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and
exploration and keepers of our cultural, historical and scientific
heritages.
In 2013, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH's national
program divisions, 55 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over
$3.7 million dollars were awarded to museums, historical societies and
historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and provide access
to our Nation's rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH divisions
(including Preservation and Access, Research, Education, Public
Programs, Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions
received 123 awards totaling over $11.5 million. Demand for humanities
project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far
exceeds available funding. In fiscal year 2013, NEH received 4,701
competitive grant applications representing more than $441 million in
requested funds, but was only able to fund 13.4 percent of these peer-
reviewed project proposals.
NEH also provides annual grants to State humanities councils
located in every State and U.S. territory. In 2012, 53 State councils
supported 3,046 events in museums, reaching a total audience of more
than 13 million people.
Here are two examples of how NEH funding is used to support
museums:
--The Rhode Island Historical Society received $300,000 beginning in
2011 to make environmental control upgrades, building
improvements, and security enhancements to preserve collections
documenting the history of Rhode Island from pre-European
contact to the present.
--The Birmingham Museum of Art in Alabama received a $75,000 grant
for professional development, bringing K-12 teachers together
to study America's transition from an agricultural to an
industrial society as reflected in American art.
The National Endowment for the Arts provides direct Federal funding
to State arts agencies and to non-profit arts institutions including
museums. Its mission is to make art accessible to all and to provide
leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA brings great art
to every congressional district. Its grants to museums help them
exhibit, preserve and interpret visual material through exhibitions,
residencies, publications, commissions, public art works, conservation,
documentation, services to the field and public programs.
In 2013, more than 2,100 museums participated in the Blue Star
Museums initiative, offering free admission to all active duty and
reserve personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor
Day. This particular effort served over 700,000 people, while many
other museums offered military discounts or free admission throughout
the year.
In 2013, NEA made more than 130 awards to museums, totaling over
$4.6 million. Many museums--including art museums--continue to report
economic stress and stretched budgets. Despite the uncertain economy,
museum attendance continues to climb, increasing pressure to serve more
people with limited financial and human resources.
Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported
projects, strengthening museums' ability to attract matching funds from
other public and private funders. On average, each dollar awarded by
the NEA leverages nine dollars from other sources. Forty percent of
NEA's grant funds are distributed to State arts agencies for re-
granting.
Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support
museums:
--Alaska's Seward Association for the Advancement of Marine Science,
in consortium with the Anchorage Museums Association received
$39,000 in 2012 to support the research and development of an
exhibition teaming artists and scientists to bring greater
public attention to the global problem of marine debris.
--The Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, Maryland received $34,000 in
2012 to support an exhibition showing the unexpected and
multifaceted roles played by Africans in Renaissance Europe, as
well as the challenges of stereotyping and racism that faced
them.
The Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act allows museums to apply for
Federal indemnity on major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million
in insurance costs every year. The program, administered by the
National Endowment for the Arts, operates at virtually no cost to the
taxpayer; since 1975 it has paid out a total of just over $100,000.
Strict protocols for care, restrictions on the types of work
indemnified and high deductibles all contribute to these
extraordinarily low costs.
The program has separate limits per exhibition and an overall limit
for both international and domestic exhibitions, and Congress has
periodically raised these limits, most recently in 2007. Museums report
that the current caps are making it difficult to obtain indemnity on
objects that would have been covered in the past, exposing them to
increased insurance costs. We believe that rising prices in the art
market will exacerbate this problem, causing exhibitions to limit their
scope or to fail to go forward entirely. In agreement with the
Association of Art Museum Directors', we urge the committee to consider
language increasing both the total allowable outstanding indemnity and
the limit for any single exhibition under this important program.
The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited
museums in the world, including the National Museum of American
History, the National Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of
Natural History. The Smithsonian reaches out to visitors and learners
of all ages, in the Nation's capital and across the country, with
innovative exhibits and programs. Smithsonian museums attract 30
million visits every year, and their content and curricula are used by
teachers all over the country. Smithsonian exhibits and research cover
vital topics in art, science, history and culture, including global
pandemics, endangered species and the history of our Nation. The use of
digital technology including 3-D scanning and printing of iconic
objects such as Lincoln's life casts, the Wright Flyer and fossil
whales, expands access for America and America's teachers to experts
and collections and creates new knowledge. The President's fiscal year
2015 budget request of $858 million includes critical funding for the
National Museum of African American History and Culture, which will
tell this essential part of American history. Funding for collections
care and facilities maintenance and revitalization allows the
Smithsonian to care for the Nation's treasures and allows greater
access for all.
We enthusiastically support this robust funding proposal, an
increase, for the Smithsonian Institution. However, we have serious
concerns about the President's proposed STEM consolidation plan, which
would eliminate or cut important programs that support museums at the
National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.
State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs and THPOs)
carry out the historic preservation work of the Federal Government on
State and tribal lands. These duties include finding America's historic
places, making nominations to the National Register of Historic Places,
reviewing impacts of Federal projects, providing assistance to
developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit, creating alliances with
local government preservation commissions and conducting preservation
education and planning. This Federal-State-local foundation of
America's historic preservation program was established by the National
Historic Preservation Act. We urge you to provide $50 million for SHPOs
and $15 million for THPOs through the Historic Preservation Fund. We
also urge you to restore funding of $25 million for Save America's
Treasures and $4.6 million for Preserve America--which have been
instrumental in preserving some of our Nation's most important
artifacts and structures--but have not been funded in recent years.
The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical
societies and museums concluded that immediate action is needed to
prevent the loss of 190 million artifacts that are in need of
conservation treatment: 59 percent have collections damaged by light;
56 percent have insufficient security to protect their collections; 80
percent do not have an emergency plan that includes collections; 71
percent need additional training and expertise for staff caring for
collections; and only 13 percent have access to endowment funds for
preservation.
Historic preservation programs matter now more than ever--not only
because they are essential to protecting our national heritage, but
because they serve as economic engines and job creators in the
thousands of communities they serve. Funds invested in building
rehabilitation have been shown to create more jobs and more retail
activity than those spent on new construction.
Thank you once again for considering this testimony.
Ford W. Bell, DVM,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Cultural Resources Association
(ACRA)
Request:
--$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
--$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)
--$500,000 for grants for survey and National Register/National
Landmark nominations for underrepresented populations
These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h).
acra members create jobs and support the economy
ACRA is the trade association representing the interests of
cultural resource management (CRM) firms of all sizes, types and
specialties. ACRA's member firms undertake much of the legally mandated
cultural resource management studies and investigations in the United
States.
There are approximately 1,300 CRM firms nationwide that employ over
10,000 cultural resource management professionals, including
archaeologists, preservation architects, architectural historians,
historians, and an increasingly diverse group of other specialists.
These firms generated over $1 billion in revenue in 2012. ACRA firms
create and support jobs, providing employment for American-educated and
trained professionals.
funding shpos and thpos supports development
In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470)
(NHPA), which established historic preservation as a Federal Government
priority. Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and
ordinary in the past is often rare and precious today, and what is
common and ordinary today may be extraordinary in the future.
Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the
Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs and THPOs
to, among other tasks, review all Federal projects for their impact on
historic properties. CRM firms work closely with Federal, State and
local government agencies, private industry and non-profit groups to
conduct the reviews required by the NHPA.
In order for the review process to work smoothly, SHPOs and THPOs
must have adequate funding. Proper financial support for their work
allows SHPOs and THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely
basis, facilitating development, moving projects forward in a timely
and efficient manner, and ensuring that CRM firms can get the job done.
conclusion
On behalf of its 150 member firms, ACRA would like to thank you
Chairman Reed, and all the members of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for the
opportunity to submit testimony.
ACRA also thanks the subcommittee for its commitment to historic
preservation. ACRA members stand committed to identify, protect, and
maintain our Nation's historic heritage.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
Hon. Jack Reed,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The American
Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) serves to advance a sustainable U.S.
pulp, paper, packaging, and wood products manufacturing industry
through fact-based public policy and marketplace advocacy. AF&PA member
companies make products essential for everyday life from renewable and
recyclable resources and are committed to continuous improvement
through the industry's sustainability initiative--``Better Practices,
Better Planet 2020''. The forest products industry accounts for
approximately 4 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP,
manufactures approximately $210 billion in products annually, and
employs nearly 900,000 men and women. The industry meets a payroll of
approximately $50 billion annually and is among the top 10
manufacturing sector employers in 47 States.
Actions are needed to increase funding for programs that provide
basic data about our Nation's forests to inform industry, policymakers,
and academics; and for restoring Federal timber harvests to help ensure
adequate fiber supply and to address forest health priorities on both
Federal and private lands. Within the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, we urge you to direct the United States Forest Service
(USFS) to focus on the needs of the forest products industry and the
vital jobs it supports. Specific recommendations follow.
forest and rangeland research
Forest Inventory and Analysis.--Targeted research and data
collection is needed to monitor forest productivity, forest health, and
economic utilization of fiber. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
program within USFS Research and Development (R&D) is the backbone of
our knowledge about the Nation's forests, and it is a vital technical
resource that allows assessment of the sustainability, health, and
availability of the forest resource. FIA data is utilized by a large
swath of stakeholders interested in the state of America's forests:
forest resource managers at mills, land managers, conservation groups,
and State and Federal agencies look to the program for data about our
Nation's forests.
We are concerned about the cuts to this program over recent years.
With an increased focus on utilizing woody biomass for renewable energy
in addition to traditional forest products, the program, which allows
managers to determine the sustainability and availability of the forest
resource, should not be reduced but rather increased.
AF&PA opposes cuts to this valuable program, and applauds the
subcommittee's increase last year to $72 million. As a good starting
point, AF&PA requests funding levels of at least $72 million for the
FIA program this year, which will allow the USFS to cover the majority
of U.S. forest lands and expedite data availability and analysis. This
level of funding will enable the USFS to better meet the current
demands of the program.
We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D program in
support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership
with universities and the private sector, the Agenda 2020 program works
with USFS on research to develop and deploy wood production systems
that are ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable, and
economically viable to enhance forest conservation and the global
competitiveness of forest product manufacturing and biorefinery
operations in the United States. In particular, we encourage greater
funding for research on forest productivity and utilization at the
Forest Products Lab and Research Stations. Innovative wood and fiber
utilization research, including nanotechnology research, contributes to
conservation and productivity of the forest resource. The development
of new forest products and important research on the efficient use of
wood fiber directly address forest health problems through exploration
of small diameter wood use and bioenergy production.
national forest system, forest products
We applaud the administration for calling for an increase in timber
outputs by 15 percent. To create forest industry jobs, more Federal
timber should be made available for sale. AF&PA requests increasing
funding for the Forest Products program to put people back to work in
our rural communities while improving the health and reducing the risk
of forest fires.
For the 6th year in a row, the administration has proposed creating
the consolidated Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) line item, with
proposed funding of $820 million. AF&PA does not believe IRR will have
the benefits the administration claims, and in those regions where IRR
has been implemented as a pilot project, instead of benefits, we have
seen continued high costs and less accountability for the use of those
funds by the USFS.
national forest system, hazardous fuels reduction
AF&PA supports the budget cap exception recommended in the
President's budget that mirrors H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act. In the past 2 years, the USFS was forced to redirect over
$1 billion from non-fire programs to pay fire suppression costs. The
continued cycle of borrowing has a hugely detrimental effect on other
programs, including forest management and research, damaging the
ability to effectively implement these programs. This new approach to
funding fire suppression costs is promising and we urge the
subcommittee to include the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act this year.
Hazardous fuels reduction is essential to the Federal forest health
restoration effort and AF&PA supports maintaining this vital program at
the fiscal year 2011 level ($339 million). We also urge the
subcommittee to instruct the USFS to implement these projects in
forested stands using mechanical treatments that produce merchantable
wood fiber for utilization by local mills. Prescribed burns and debris
removal will not solve the hazardous fuel overload by themselves. The
forest products industry can and does play a key role in reducing
hazardous fuels from Federal lands as evidenced by the fact that
mechanical hazardous fuel reduction costs frequently are significantly
lower in regions with a substantial forest products industry presence.
The agency must take advantage of these synergies.
state and private forestry
AF&PA applauds the subcommittee's sustained support for USFS State
and Private Forestry programs. With ongoing droughts, invasive species
infestations, and significant forest health problems, private forest
resources remain vulnerable to damage from threats that do not respect
public/private boundary lines.
As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the Nation's wood
fiber supply, while providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat,
and supplying clean drinking water for millions of Americans. USFS
State and Private Forestry programs protect these resources from
threats beyond the capability of small landowners to combat
effectively. Therefore, we urge funding at no less than their fiscal
year 2012 enacted levels of $86 million for State Fire Assistance and
$29 million for Forest Stewardship.
international forestry
AF&PA's believes that full and effective implementation and
enforcement of the 2008 Lacey Act amendments will reduce the
destructive effects of illegal logging on tropical forests, enable
American forest product companies to compete on a level playing field,
and contribute to cutting of global greenhouse gas emissions through
reduced deforestation and sustainable forest management practices. A
2004 AF&PA report on illegal logging found that up to 10 percent of
global timber production could be of suspicious origin and that illegal
logging depresses world prices for legally harvested wood by 7 to 16
percent on average. The report also calculated that the economic cost
of global illegal logging to the U.S. industry is approximately $1
billion per year in lost exports and depressed domestic prices.
The USFS International Forestry program lends critical technical
assistance for Lacey Act implementation and to improve sustainable
forest management practices in developing countries, which helps reduce
illegal logging overseas. AF&PA believes cuts to the International
Forestry accounts could be detrimental to full Lacey Act compliance and
enforcement efforts, and advocates funding the International Forestry
program at fiscal year 2012 levels ($8 million).
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest Foundation
Investments in the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program
and the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection Program will help
family forest owners get ahead of increasing threats from invasive
pests and pathogens, wildfire, and development pressures. Complementing
these efforts, the Landscape Scale Restoration Program provides an
innovative approach to target resources for maximum impact, meaning
support for this program will ensure measurable outcomes on the ground.
It is also critical that funding for U.S. Forest Service Forest
Inventory and Analysis and overall Forest Service Research and
Development programs are improved and maintained, so these programs
continue to provide the information and technical resources for
landowners to make informed decisions about America's forests. The
American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the subcommittee to:
--Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program at the
fiscal year 12 funding level of $29 million;
--Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection (Federal
and Cooperative) at the fiscal year 12 funding level of $111
million;
--Support the President's funding request of $23.513 million for the
Landscape Scale Restoration Program;
--Support the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program at $72 million,
toward providing an updated inventory of America's forests; and
--Support the U.S. Forest Service Research and Development Program at
the fiscal year 12 funding level of $231 million.
We also ask the subcommittee to support a solution to the wildfire
funding problem. The mounting cost of wildfire suppression activities
over the past few years have far suppressed budgeted appropriations,
forcing the U.S. Forest Service to transfer hundreds of millions of
dollars from non-fire accounts to pay for suppression. This halts other
mission-critical forest health and stewardship activities from taking
place, all of which work toward preventing the future threat of
catastrophic fire.
Investments in forestry programs will help strengthen rural
communities, support rural jobs, and ensure that communities that rely
on the clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and forest products from
family-owned forests, don't face additional costs for these goods and
services.
Unfortunately, new data suggests that by 2020, more than 18 million
acres of family forests are threatened by housing development.
Furthermore, almost 14 million acres are at risk of mortality due to
insects and disease, while 29 million are at high or very high risk of
destruction from wildfire.\1\ At the same time, less than 15 percent of
family forest owners have sought professional advice for the
stewardship of their forests. Many are under the impression that
leaving their woods alone is the best option. It is therefore essential
we ensure these families have tools, technical information, and policy
support to keep their forests as forests, for current and future
generations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Family Forest Research Center, 2014 Preliminary Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit conservation
organization that works on the ground with more than 22 million family
woodland owners through a variety of programs, including the American
Tree Farm System, to protect the values and benefits of America's
family forests, with clear ecological and economic impact.
Families and individuals steward more of America's forests than the
Federal Government or corporations. Families and individuals own 35
percent of our Nation's forests.\2\ These private forests provide
myriad public benefits--clean air, clean water, recreation, renewable
resources that build our homes and communities, and good-paying rural
jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America's Forests?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forest health investments needed
The threats are daunting. Close to 500 species of tree-damaging
pests from other countries have become established in the country, and
a new one is introduced, on average, every 2 to 3 years. The USFS
Forest Health Protection (FHP) Program is a critical resource
supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate dangerous pests
and pathogens affecting trees and forests. The program provides
critical assistance to other Federal agencies, State agencies, local
agencies and private landowners.
In fiscal year 2013, the FHP Program combated pests on over 285,000
acres of Federal lands and over 444,000 acres of Cooperative lands.
Funding cuts meant 321,000 fewer acres were treated on Cooperative
lands in fiscal year 2013 than in fiscal year 2011. Any further cuts to
this program will necessitate deeper reductions in support for
communities already facing outbreaks and expose more of the Nation's
family-owned forests to the devastating and costly effects of the Asian
Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Thousand
Cankers Disease, Western Bark Beetle and other pests.
invest in a more focused, impactful forest stewardship program
Over the last few years, there have been significant cut backs in
outreach and technical assistance provided to woodland owners, as
agency budgets have shrunk, and industry has cut back or eliminated
their outreach foresters. This greatly concerns woodland owners across
the country, who rely on programs like the Forest Stewardship Program
and State forest agency service foresters. The Forest Stewardship
Program has been the backbone of the American Tree Farm System,
providing the support to woodland owners to ensure they have management
plans for certification and can subsequently access certified wood
product markets.
These cuts are also of great concern because of the growing number
of ``unengaged'' woodland owners--those 95 percent of woodland owners
who are not actively managing their land, and therefore have forests
that are more susceptible to the threats mentioned above.
To address some of this loss, AFF is currently piloting, together
with several State forest agencies, conservation groups, and industry
partners, a number of innovative landowner outreach tools, using micro-
targeting and social marketing strategies, to more efficiently and
effectively engage ``unengaged'' woodland owners. To date, we've seen a
12 percent response rate, compared with a 3-4 percent response rate
that forest agencies, extension agents, and organizations typically
see.
Tools like these, combined with a more focused Forest Stewardship
Program that concentrates on landowner outreach and assistance in
priority areas like those identified in each State's Forest Action
Plan, have significant potential to leverage the Forest Stewardship
Program further and lead to even greater impact on the ground.
support the landscape scale restoration program, targeting outcomes in
critical areas
To complement the ongoing work of the Forest Stewardship Program
and further target measurable outcomes in high-priority areas, AFF
strongly urges the subcommittee to provide support for the relatively
new Landscape Scale Restoration program.
Partners, such as the American Forest Foundation, can leverage the
work of this State and Private Forestry Program to maximize on-the-
ground impact and engage landowners in targeted forest conservation
activities. With this program, the USFS is well-positioned to address
the most pressing threats, protect the many public benefits we all
enjoy from forests, and leverage Federal efforts for meaningful,
measurable impact.
maintaining essential information for forest management of family-owned
woodlands
All of these programs must be grounded in the sound science and
sound forest information provided by the U.S. Forest Service's Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program and the Research and Development
Programs (R&D). These programs provide irreplaceable data about our
forests and give landowners the tools to know how to manage the growing
threats they face.
As our Nation's forest census, the FIA program provides critical
updates on forest health and market trends--better equipping forest
owners nationwide to mitigate the impact of impending threats and
concerns. FIA also provides a census of the trends in family forest
ownership, demographics, and trends, so we can better understand how to
work with this significant ownership group, most of whom, as mentioned
above are ``unengaged'' in active forest management.
In particular, the USFS Research and Development Program provides
the science to help manage invasive species in urban and rural forests.
AFF believes it is vitally important to conduct research aimed at
improving detection and control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer,
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, Thousand Cankers Disease,
Gold-spotted Oak Borer and other non-native forests pests and diseases.
The R&D function is not only essential for providing forest
management research, it is also on the leading edge of providing new
information about the use of wood products, which can help create new
markets for products from family-owned woodlands. This information
helps position wood in growing markets, like green building markets,
where understanding the environmental impacts of building materials is
key. We urge the subcommittee to call on R&D to invest an additional $3
million in green building research through the Forest Products
Laboratory to continue this important work.
support a solution to the wildfire funding problem
Over the last decade, wildfire expenses have significantly
increased, and the Federal wildfire budgets often are not sufficient to
cover the costs, leading the Federal agencies to transfer funds from
non-fire accounts to cover fire fighting expenses. In fiscal year 12,
the USFS transferred $440 million and in fiscal year 13 the transfer
cost was upped to $600 million. Understandably, this has caused
significant disruptions in forest programs, including programs like the
Forest Stewardship and Forest Health Protection Programs that aide
family woodland owners in their stewardship.
These disruptions clearly demonstrate the urgent need to change the
Federal suppression funding model. This pattern of funding is neither
efficient nor sustainable. The Wildfire Disaster Funding bill (S. 1875
and H.R. 3992) would provide the USFS and Department of the Interior
with a funding structure similar to that used by other agencies that
respond to natural disaster emergencies, which have budget cap
exemptions for a portion of disaster funding. This important change
would enable agencies to reinvest in core activities which have been
reduced in recent years due to a continued shift of limited resources
to fund wildfire suppression, including the very programs that would
help to decrease wildfire costs over time. We urge the subcommittee to
support the Wildfire Disaster Funding bill solution.
To conclude, AFF recognizes the subcommittee must find areas to
reduce spending. We ask the subcommittee to consider the impact these
reductions will have on the country's nearly 22 million family forest
owners and every American who benefits daily from the positive
externalities of well-managed, working forests.
I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some
insight on these programs and appreciate consideration of my testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of American Forests
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members
of the subcommittee: American Forests appreciates the opportunity to
submit public testimony regarding our fiscal year 2015 appropriation
recommendations. We understand the continuing economic realities facing
the Nation, and we thank this subcommittee for its support of key
Federal conservation programs in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2014. The return on investing in our Nation's forests is great, whether
those forests are public or private, urban or rural. The economic,
social, and environmental benefits healthy forests provide are clear
incentives for Federal investment. American Forests' funding
recommendations are generally consistent with the President's budget
requests for the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Department of Interior
(DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the
exception of programs that merit a return to the fiscal year 2012
enacted levels.
Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit
conservation organization in the country with the mission to protect
and restore forests. It has served as a catalyst for many of the most
important milestones in the conservation movement, including the
founding of the USDA Forest Service, the Conservation Corps, the
National Park System, and thousands of forest ecosystem restoration
projects and public education efforts. Since 1990, American Forests has
planted more than 46 million trees in all 50 States of U.S. and 44
countries, resulting in cleaner air and drinking water, restored
habitat for wildlife and fish, and the removal of millions of tons of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
The economic benefits of outdoor recreation and natural resource
conservation highlight the importance of American Forests' efforts. A
recently published report found that the combined value of outdoor
recreation and natural resource conservation annually generates at
least $1.7 trillion in economic activity, supports 12.8 million jobs,
and brings in $211 billion in tax revenue.\1\ As the report notes,
``this sector of the U.S. economy is larger than the U.S. auto and
pharmaceutical industries combined.'' Protecting and restoring our
forests will ensure on-going economic and environmental viability for
our communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Southwick Associates, ``The Combined Value of Outdoor
Recreation, Natural Resource Conservation, and Historical Preservation,
2013,'' April 8, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda forest service
National Forest System
Integrated Resource Restoration.--The administration's proposal for
an Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) budget consolidation
represents the USFS's approach to accelerated restoration. American
Forests believes that the administration's proposals for fiscal year
2015 will help move the agency in the right direction by encouraging
collaborative efforts with communities and partners to identify and
address priorities at a landscape or watershed scale. American Forests
supports the President's request of $820 million to aid in the
restoration of our Nation's forests.
Restoration Partnerships.--For more than two decades, American
Forests has worked with the Forest Service restoring our national
forests after a wildfire or other natural events. We have planted
millions of trees in our national forests and appreciate the working
relationship we have with USFS, which helps us provide these services.
Currently, this line item is absorbed into the IRR budget
reorganization. However, if this committee does not support that budget
consolidation, we want to emphasize the importance of these efforts.
American Forests supports the fiscal year 2015 level of $2 million in
support of partnerships that restore our National Forests.
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP).--This
program was created to promote job stability, reliable wood supply,
forest health, and reduce emergency wildfire costs and risks. In the
first 4 years of the program, projects funded through CFLRP have:
reduced hazardous fuels on 588,000 acres to protect communities,
generated 814 million board feet of timber, made nearly 2 million green
tons of biomass available for bioenergy production, and enhanced
habitat on 474 miles of streams. American Forests supports the
President's fiscal year 2015 request of $60 million; predicated on the
expansion of the program through the necessary legislative action.
Forest and Rangeland Research
The Forest and Rangeland Research appropriations provides funds to
develop and deliver knowledge and innovative technology to improve the
health and use of the Nation's forests in both public and private
lands. In the last 20 years, the number of USFS research scientists has
declined from more than 2,000 to under 500 scientists today. This
significantly reduces the Forest Service's ability to provide the
answers it needs to sustainably manage the National Forests, as well as
deliver technical assistance to private forest owners and urban forest
managers. American Forests requests the fiscal year 2012-enacted level
of $295.3 million for the entirety of Forest and Rangeland Research.
State and Private Forestry
Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF).--Urban forests make a
significant contribution to the quality of life in communities across
the country. In 2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial,
educational, and research assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly
198 million people, more than 60 percent of the U.S. population. Urban
forests are integral to any community striving to reinvest in itself,
encourage active, healthy citizens, and create a healthier and more
sustainable environment with smart green infrastructure. American
Forests requests the fiscal year 2012-enacted levels for the Urban and
Community Forestry program at $31.37 million.
Forest Health Management.--Exotic pests and invasive species are
among the greatest threats to urban and rural forests. Non-native pests
already cost city governments $2 billion each year to remove and
replace trees killed by pests. The substantial loss of trees in our
communities impacts quality of life and property values. Funding for
the Forest Health Program supports activities related to prevention,
suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and plants, as well
as conducting forest health monitoring. American Forests supports the
President's combined fiscal year 2015 request for the Forest Health
Management Program on Federal and cooperative lands at $104.57 million.
department of interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Public Domain Forest Management.--The BLM is entrusted with the
management and ecosystem health and recovery of 58 million acres of
forests and woodlands across 12 western States, including Alaska.
According to the Department of the Interior's 2012 Economic Impact
Report, timber harvested from Public Domain forests supported $659
million in economic activity, and biomass from BLM forests has become
part of the feedstock that meets various State and Federal renewable
energy portfolio standards. However, 14 million acres--or 24 percent--
of BLM forests are overstocked at increased risk of insect and disease
attacks and catastrophic wildfire. Increased funding to address these
serious risks is necessary across all land management agencies.
American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request at
$9.93 million.
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Program.--For 40 years, the Endangered Species
Act has helped prevent the extinction of our Nation's treasured
wildlife and plant species, many of which thrive in forested habitat.
While the Act has made significant strides in protecting our most
imperiled species, there are still major shortfalls. Numerous species
in need of protection, including the whitebark pine, are precluded from
the list because of the lack of adequate resources. American Forests
supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $170.51 million.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Refuge System, with 561
refuges of more than 150 million acres across the country, is vital to
protecting America's wildlife and ensuring that these habitats are a
priority. Because refuges are visited by approximately 45 million
people each year and generate more than $4.2 billion in economic output
and more than 34,000 jobs in recreation spending,\2\ investment in the
Refuge system is an investment in our communities. While it is well
documented that an annual operations and maintenance budget should
total at least $900 million,\3\ American Forests supports the
President's fiscal year 2015 request for $476.40 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department of the Interior's Economic Contributions fiscal
year 2011 report, p.21; 2006 Banking on Nature report.
\3\ ``Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges 2011: Assets for All
Americans,'' Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Park Service (NPS)
National Park System.--American Forests was instrumental nearly 100
years ago in the creation of our national parks and continues to this
day supporting the service that stewards these iconic landscapes.
However, many of these forested parks are threatened by a series of
stresses. Invasive species and uncontrolled outbreaks of pests have
left these forested treasures vulnerable. American Forests is dedicated
to aiding in the restoration of these parks, especially those in the
intermountain west affected by the mountain pine bark beetle. As such,
American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 total budget
request of $2.28 billion.
Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery.--The reestablishment of this
program, proposed to be funded through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, is essential to bring nature to urban communities. These
competitive grants focus on engaging and connecting communities,
especially young people, to their neighborhood parks through projects
that would revitalize and rehabilitate park and recreation
opportunities. As a leader in the urban forestry field, American
Forests applauds the renewed efforts of the NPS and the Department of
Interior to improve park units that will impact urban economies and the
quality of life for urban residents by creating open green space.
American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of
$25 million.
environmental protection agency
Urban and rural forests offer fiscally-sound green solutions to the
management of stormwater, water storage, groundwater recharge, and
pollutant reduction.
Green Infrastructure and Clean Water.--American Forests supports
the EPA's goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to
further sustainability goals, particularly in urban, underserved and
economically distressed communities by incorporating green
infrastructure and enhancing stormwater management. American Forests
also strongly supports efforts to expand the use of green
infrastructure to meet Clean Water Act goals, however we would like to
see the targeting of 20 percent of the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds (CWSRF) increased to include a variety of green infrastructure
projects. American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015
request of $5 million to strengthen green infrastructure activities,
and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $1.449 billion for CWSRF.
Urban Waters Federal Partnership.--This 13 interagency effort,
coordinated by the EPA, helps stimulate local economies, create jobs,
improve quality of life, and protect health by revitalizing urban
waterways, the urban forests that protect them and the communities
around them, focusing on underserved urban communities of all sizes.
American Forests supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of
$3.49 billion for supporting EPA's goal of protecting America's Waters,
where this program sits within the EPA.
legislative language request
Wildfire Suppression Funding
Funding wildfire suppression has been an ongoing struggle for the
Forest Service and the Department of Interior. As the wildfires become
more frequent and more severe, which they are projected to become, a
new solution to how the Agencies fund suppression needs to occur.
American Forests respectfully requests the subcommittee address the
wildfire suppression funding issue by including language from the
bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 3992; S. 1875) in
the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. This language provides the structure to fund a
portion of the USFS and DOI wildfire suppression costs through a budget
cap adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended. This would provide the USFS and DOI with a
funding structure similar to that used by other agencies who respond to
natural disaster emergencies.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
American Forests supports the permanent authorization of full and
dedicated funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year
limitation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF
programs protect natural resource lands, outdoor recreation
opportunities and working forests at the local, State and Federal
levels, ensuring these important lands are protected for current and
future generations. American Forests supports the fiscal year 15 budget
request which calls for permanent authorization of $900 million in
mandatory funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture beginning in 2016. During the transition to permanent
funding in 2015, the budget proposes $350 million in discretionary and
$550 million in permanent funding, shared by the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture. This includes level discretionary funding for
State Assistance grants at $48.1 million, which includes $3 million for
``Competitive Grants.''
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
Institute's (AGI) perspective on fiscal year 2015 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the
subcommittee to support and sustain the critical geoscience work of the
United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service, and
the Smithsonian Institution. Specifically, we ask support for the
President's request for $1.074 billion for USGS but we request a more
balanced distribution for these funds within USGS, $225 million for the
National Park Service's Natural Resource Stewardship and Everglades
Restoration activities, and $850 million for the Smithsonian
Institution.
The Earth provides the energy, mineral, water, and soil resources
that are essential for a thriving economy, national security, and a
healthy population and environment. We emphasize the importance of
understanding the Earth system, and particularly Earth's subsurface, in
order to sustain human health and safety, energy and water supplies,
and the quality of the environment, while reducing risks from natural
hazards. The USGS is the Nation's only natural resource science agency
that can provide the objective data, observations, analyses,
assessments, and scientific solutions to intersecting Earth-focused
issues.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of about 50 geoscientific and
professional associations that represent approximately 250,000
geologists, geophysicists, and other Earth scientists who work in
industry, academia, and government. Founded in 1948, AGI provides
information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared
interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening
geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the
vital role the geosciences play in society's use of resources,
resilience to natural hazards, and the health of the environment.
u.s. geological survey
AGI supports the President's request for $1.704 billion for USGS.
We respectfully suggest that Congress should consider a balanced
distribution of funds within USGS to allocate more resources to
geoscience functions, for which USGS has unique national expertise and
responsibilities.
Need for balanced investment.--Planet Earth strongly influences
human safety, the economy, and people's quality of life. Earthquake,
volcanic, and landslide hazards; the Earth's groundwater, mineral,
geothermal energy, and fossil fuel resource potential; and the Earth's
potential for waste disposal all relate to the subsurface. The USGS
Organic Act recognizes the importance of understanding the geological
structure of the country and unequivocally vests responsibility and
authority for this in USGS.
Table 1 highlights those Mission Areas and Accounts that are being
cut relative to the overall USGS budget, and we note that they contain
the majority of USGS's geoscience functions. We respectfully ask
Congress to recognize the importance of geoscience to the Nation's
safety, economy, defense, and quality of life, and to support USGS's
mandated role by funding balanced investment in USGS programs.
TABLE 1. USGS BUDGET REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 2015
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent Percent Percent
Fiscal change, Fiscal change, change
Mission Area or Account Fiscal year 2014 fiscal year 2015 fiscal fiscal
year 2013 enacted year 2013- request year 2014- year 2013-
2014 2015 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecosystems.............................. 149,086 152,811 2.5 162,025 6.0 8.7
Climate & Land Use...................... 133,195 131,975 -0.9 149,081 13.0 11.9
Energy, Minerals........................ 71,901 71,901 0.0 73,247 1.9 1.9
Environmental Health.................... 18,614 19,614 5.4 25,826 31.7 38.8
Natural Hazards......................... 123,536 128,486 4.0 128,339 -0.1 3.9
Water Resources......................... 197,449 207,281 5.0 210,386 1.5 6.5
Core Science Systems.................... 107,643 108,807 1.1 109,400 0.6 1.6
Science Support......................... 110,704 110,704 0.0 108,267 -2.2 -2.2
Facilities.............................. 100,040 100,421 0.4 106,697 6.3 6.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total USGS........................ 1,012,168 1,032,000 2.0 1,073,268 4.0 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGS provides impartial scientific information that underpins well-
informed decisionmaking by the Department of the Interior, all levels
of government, industry, and the public. It provides vital
infrastructure through mapping, baseline studies, monitoring, and
observations, in addition to cutting-edge research and analysis.
Balanced investment in USGS should support both long-term data
collection and project-specific research.
Mineral Resources Program.--Funding for the Mineral Resources
Program (MRP) has been cut by more than one-third in constant dollar
terms since 2003 (see figure below) and the President's request
continues this trend. AGI urges Congress to increase funding for MRP
and to allocate new money to USGS to add forecasting capabilities to
its Minerals Information functions.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minerals Information.--USGS is the sole provider of statistics and
analysis on the supply of, demand for, and global flow of about 100
minerals and mineral materials for approximately 180 countries. The
Departments of the Interior, Defense, and State, the CIA, the Federal
Reserve, as well as manufacturing companies and the financial sector
all rely on MRP for reliable, timely, accurate data to guide economic
and strategic decisionmaking. Production of critical products is at
risk because industry depends on a constant flow of raw materials, many
of which are imported and some of which may be subject to disruptions
in supply. AGI notes the lack of any capacity to forecast future trends
in minerals and mineral commodities, making the country vulnerable to
avoidable disruptions in critical material supplies. AGI urges Congress
to add new money to enable USGS to develop this strategically important
expertise.
Energy Resources Program.--AGI supports the increase in funding for
geothermal resources studies but we do not support the proposed cut of
$1.5 million to energy research and assessment activities. These cuts
are being made when the country is increasing its reliance on natural
gas and when it is ever more important to understand the nature and
distribution of our energy resources.
Hydraulic Fracturing.--AGI supports USGS efforts to better
understand the scientific aspects of hydraulic fracturing, to reduce
potential impacts, and to provide decision-support information. We
support the allocation of $8.3 million for scientific research on this
economically important technology.
Water Resources Program.--The extreme drought situation in
California, northern Texas, and surrounding areas highlights the
importance of understanding the quality and quantity of our water
resources. AGI is pleased to see increased investment in the National
Groundwater Monitoring Network, streamgages, and other elements of the
USGS Water Resources Program (WRP). We note the redistribution of funds
within WRP to focus on selected areas and projects and we urge Congress
to ensure that USGS continues to maintain and expand the nationwide,
long-term data collection and research programs that support water
planning and decisionmaking across all States.
Natural Hazards Program.--USGS is world-renowned for its
information and research on earthquakes, the natural hazard that poses
the greatest threat to life and the economy. USGS work on induced
seismicity is contributing crucial information to the decisionmaking
process about regulating hydraulic fracturing and injection wells. AGI
views the elimination of $700,000 from geodetic monitoring and active-
source seismic profiling in order to fund work on induced seismicity as
unwise. Both of these functions are important and one should not be
sacrificed to fund the other.
Hurricane Sandy, sinkhole incidents in Florida, and the recent
landslide in Washington State remind us of the tragic impacts of
natural hazards. But we can use science to guide mitigation strategies
and minimize damages. AGI supports robust funding of the Natural
Hazards Program and urges Congress to consider funding at more than the
President's request of $128.4 million.
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).--AGI is
grateful to Congress for passing the reauthorization of the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program in the 2009 public lands omnibus
(Public Law 111-11, Sec. 11001). This important 20-year-old partnership
between the USGS, State geological surveys, and universities provides
the Nation with fundamental data for addressing natural hazard
mitigation, water resource management, environmental remediation, land-
use planning, and raw material resource development. AGI thanks the
committee for its previous support for the National Cooperative
Geologic Mapping Program and supports the President's request for $24.5
million in fiscal year 2015.
Libraries and Data Preservation.--Geological and geophysical data
include rock and ice cores, fossil, oil, and rock specimens, paper
records, and computer files that are worth far more than the cost of
preserving them. The National Geological and Geophysical Data
Preservation Program (NGGDP) generates more value in terms of economic
development, environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation and
fulfilling regulatory requirements than it costs to run. Books, maps,
and specimens, many of which record observations of sites that no
longer exist, are used extensively by geologists even in this digital
age. The consolidation of USGS library space must not be at the expense
of access to information. AGI supports the President's request for $2.1
million for the NGGDP but notes with concern the reductions being
implemented to USGS libraries.
smithsonian institution
The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History plays a dual
role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing
knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections.
AGI asks the subcommittee to provide steady funding to cutting-edge
earth science research at the Smithsonian Institution. We support the
President's request of $851 million for the Smithsonian Institution in
fiscal year 2015.
national park service
National parks are very important to the geoscience community and
the public as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic
splendor of our country and offer unparalleled opportunities for
research, education, and outdoor activities. The National Park
Services' Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to
provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction
with USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that
geoscientists are becoming part of an integrated approach to science-
based resource management in parks. AGI supports the President's
request for $215 million for Natural Resource Stewardship activities
and $10 million for Everglades Restoration so the NPS can adequately
address the treasured geologic and hydrologic resources in the National
Parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, I am writing regarding funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2015. While current enacted funding is
$306 million and the administration's budget requests $900 million,
American Hiking Society believes $350 million to be an amount that is
within budgetary parameters yet can still accomplish at least some of
the basic goals of this Fund.
Among the many worthwhile projects which could be funded at this
level are ones which would impact America's National Scenic and
Historic Trails. These trails are enjoyed by Americans coast-to-coast,
providing a wonderful outdoor recreation experience to families and
individuals. Additionally, these trails are a significant economic
engine in their communities, many of which are rural in nature and rely
on visitors to these iconic outdoor adventures to sustain them.
Certainly tourism is one product that can't be outsourced and deserves
a solid investment.
Among the National Scenic and Historic Trails which stand to
benefit from funding the LWCF at the $350 million level are:
--The Appalachian Trail
--The Ice Age Trail
--The Lewis & Clark Trail
--The New England Trail
--The Pacific Crest Trail
--And others.
Providing this LWCF funding to the National Trails System is
critical to closing gaps in some of the trails and to preserving unique
natural and cultural environs in others. Thank you for allowing
American Hiking Society to provide our comments on funding the Land and
Water Conservation Fund.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Miller, Ph.D.,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
i. request summary
On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2015
appropriations recommendations for the 30 colleges funded under various
titles of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance
Act (Tribal College Act); the Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary
institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The Bureau of
Indian Education administers these programs, save for the Institute of
American Indian Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded
directly through the Department of the Interior.
In fiscal year 2015, TCUs seek $78.8 million for institutional
operations, an endowment building program, and technical assistance
under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act
of 1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, $78.1 million for titles I &
II grants (28 TCUs); $109,000 for title III (endowment grants), and
$600,000 for increasingly needed technical assistance. TCUs are founded
and chartered by our respective American Indian tribes, which hold a
special legal relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by
more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior
congressional action, and the ceding of more than one billion acres of
land to the Federal Government. Despite the trust responsibility and
treaty obligations, the TCUs' primary source of basic operating funds
has never been adequately funded. Further, our member institutions--
already operating on shoestring budgets--now are suffering the awful
impact of sequestration. Should sequestration resume in fiscal year
2016, along with across the across the board cuts that have become part
of the regular order, the tribal colleges will suffer even greater
annual reductions to this already underfunded program. Regrettably, the
more than 30-year Federal investment in this program, which has proven
to be a cost-effective, efficient, and transformative, may be lost as
some of tribal colleges could be forced to close their doors. They
simply cannot continue to operate on the austere budgets they receive.
After 34 years, our fiscal year 2015 request seeks to achieve 85
percent of the authorized funding level for institutional operating
grants, which is based on a per Indian student allocation; and to
retain $600,000 to provide critically needed ever changing technical
assistance.
AIHEC's membership also includes tribally controlled postsecondary
career and technical institutions, a portion of whose institutional
operations funding is authorized under title V of the Tribal College
Act. AIHEC requests $9,372,000 for this program. For the Institute of
American Indian Arts, AIHEC supports the President's budget request of
$11,469,000, of which $2,000,000 is to begin to forward fund the
college. Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian
Polytechnic Institute are the two Bureau of Indian Education's two
postsecondary institutions. AIHEC supports the highest possible funding
level for these valuable institutions.
Lastly, AIHEC seeks a one-time appropriation of $22 million needed
to forward fund the operations grants of the remaining TCUs that are
not so funded. Five TCUs are the ONLY schools whose operations funding
come from the Department of the Interior that are NOT forwarded funded.
All other BIE/Interior schools are forward funded and are able to plan
multi-year budgets and to start (and end) the school year with
dependable funding. Forward funding does NOT increase the Federal
budget over the long-run. It simply allows vital education programs to
receive basic operating funds before each school year begins, which is
critically important when the Federal Government is funded under
continuing resolutions.
ii. tcu shoestring budgets: ``doing so much with so little''
Tribal Colleges and Universities are an essential component of
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, 37 TCUs
operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 16 States, within whose
geographic boundaries 80 percent of all American Indian reservations
and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well over
250 federally recognized tribes, 80 percent of whom receive Federal
financial aid. In total, the TCUs annually serve about 88,000 AIs/ANs
through a wide variety of academic and community-based programs. TCUs
are public institutions accredited by independent, regional
accreditation agencies and like all U.S. institutions of higher
education must periodically undergo stringent performance reviews to
retain their accreditation status. Each TCU is committed to improving
the lives of its students through higher education and to moving
American Indians toward self-sufficiency. To do this, TCUs must fulfill
additional roles within their respective reservation communities
functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career
and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting
places, and child and elder care centers.
The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and
treaty obligations, has never fully funded the TCUs' institutional
operating budgets, authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges
and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. In fact, TCU operating funding
is far below the level received by other institutions of higher
education. The administration requests and Congress appropriates
approximately $200 million annually towards the institutional
operations of Howard University (exclusive of its medical school), the
only other Minority Serving Institution (MSI) that receives
institutional operations funding from the Federal Government. Howard
University's current Federal operating support exceeds $22,000/student,
because this is the level of need as determined by the U.S. Government.
In contrast, most TCUs receive $5,850/Indian Student (ISC) under the
Tribal College Act, only about 73 percent of the authorized level. TCUs
have proven that they need and have earned an investment equal to--at
the very least--the congressionally authorized level of $8,000/Indian
student. Please understand that we are by no means suggesting that our
sister MSI, Howard University does not need or deserve the funding it
receives, only that the TCUs also need and deserve adequate
institutional operations funding; however, TCU operating budgets remain
grossly underfunded.
TCU budgets are at a further disadvantage because the colleges
receive funding for only about 80 percent of their students. Almost
every other U.S. institution of higher education receives institutional
operations funding based on its entire student body. However, it is
important to note that although approximately 20 percent of the TCUs'
collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in the local
community, TCUs only receive Federal funding based on Indian students,
defined as a member of a federally recognized tribe or a biological
child of an enrolled tribal member. While many TCUs do seek funding
from their respective State legislatures for their non-Indian State-
residents students (sometimes referred to as ``non-beneficiary''
students) successes have been at best inconsistent. Yet, if a TCU's
non-beneficiary students attended any other public institution in the
State, the State would provide the college with ongoing funding toward
its day-to-day operations. Given their locations, often hundreds of
miles from another postsecondary institution, TCUs remain open to all
students, Indian and non-Indian, believing that education in general,
and postsecondary education in particular is the catalyst for a better
economic future for their regions.
iii. further justifications & facts
(a) TCUs provide access to valuable postsecondary education
opportunities. Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to
higher education for American Indians and others living in some of the
Nation's most rural and economically depressed areas. In fact, seven of
the Nation's 10 poorest counties are home to a TCU. The American
Community Survey/U.S. Census Bureau reported the annual per capita
income of the U.S. population as $27,100. However, the annual per
capita income of AI/ANs is reported to be $13,300, or less than half
that of the general population. TCUs offer their students a high level
of support and guidance to bolster their chances of achieving academic
success. In addition to serving their student populations, these tribal
institutions offer a variety of much needed community outreach
programs.
(b) TCUs are producing an American Indian workforce that includes
highly trained American Indian teachers, tribal government leaders,
nurses, engineers, computer programmers, and other much-needed
professionals. By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic
growth, with benefits for surrounding communities and the Nation as a
whole. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment on many
reservations, graduates of TCUs are employed in ``high demand''
occupational areas such as Head Start teachers, elementary and
secondary school teachers, agriculture and land management specialists,
and nurses/healthcare providers. Just as important, the vast majority
of tribal college graduates remains in their tribal communities,
applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most
needed.
(c) Growing number of TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
enrolled in them have dramatically increased since they were first
funded in 1981, appropriations have increased at a disproportionately
low rate. Since 1981, the number of tribal colleges has more than
quadrupled and continues to grow; the number of Indian students
enrolled has risen over 355 percent. In the past 10 years, six
additional TCUs have become accredited and eligible for funding under
title I of the Tribal College Act, and there are several more colleges
currently in the pipeline. TCUs are in many ways victims of their own
successes. The growing number of tribally chartered colleges and
universities and increasing enrollments have forced TCUs to slice an
already inadequate annual funding pie into even smaller pieces.
(d) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on a local tax
base for revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax,
high reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands,
and the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
reservation tax base. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are
home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 70 percent. By
contrast, the national unemployment rate is currently 6.7 percent.
(e) Gaming and the TCUs.--Although several of the reservations
served by TCUs do have gaming operations, these are not the mega-
casinos located in proximity to urban outlets and featured in the
broad-based media. Only a handful of TCUs receive regular income from
the chartering tribe's gaming revenue, and the amounts received can
vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos are small
businesses that use their gaming revenue to improve the local standard
of living and potentially diversify into other, more sustainable areas
of economic development. In the interim, where relevant, local TCUs
offer courses in casino management and hospitality services to formally
train tribal members to work in their local tribally run casinos.
Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but the Federal
Government has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a
justification to decrease Federal funding to other public colleges or
universities. Some have suggested that those tribes that operate the
few enormously successful and widely publicized casinos should be
financing higher education for all American Indians. And yet, no State
is expected to share its gaming revenue with a non-gaming State.
v. appropriations request for fiscal year 2015
As noted earlier, it has been over three decades since the Tribal
College Act was first funded, and the TCUs have yet to receive the
congressionally authorized per Indian student funding level. Full
funding for the TCUs' institutional operating grants ($8,000 per Indian
student) for fiscal year 2015 would require an increase of
approximately $24 million over the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level.
However, we recognize the budget constraints the Nation is currently
facing and consequently, we are not requesting that level of increase
in fiscal year 2015. Rather, our goal is to achieve 85 percent of the
authorized funding level, determined by the per Indian student
allocation. This requires a modest increase of $9 million over fiscal
year 2014. Details of the request are outlined in the Request Summary
above.
vi. conclusion
AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide
quality higher education to many thousands of American Indians and
other reservation residents who might otherwise not have access to such
opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs
has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and
economic development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral
and fiscal sense.
We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities and your serious
consideration of our fiscal year 2015 appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
the United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest
Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal
year 2015. AIBS encourages Congress to provide the USGS with $1.2
billion in fiscal year 2015, with at least $180 million for the
Ecosystems activity. We further request that Congress provide the USFS
Forest and Rangeland Research program with at least $310 million, and
EPA's Office of Research and Development with at least $597 million.
The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to
advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society.
AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
community of biologists have access to and use information that will
guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has more than 140 member organizations and is
headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
Washington, DC.
u.s. geological survey
The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
assessments that are needed by public and private sector decision-
makers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by reducing
economic losses from natural disasters, allowing more effective
management of water and natural resources, and providing essential
geospatial information that is needed for commercial activity and
natural resource management. The data collected by the USGS are not
available from other sources and our Nation cannot afford to sacrifice
this information.
The Ecosystems activity within USGS underpins the agency's other
science mission areas by providing information needed for understanding
the impacts of water use, energy exploration and production, and
natural hazards on natural systems. The USGS conducts research on and
monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that informs
management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected
species and land use. Biological science programs within the USGS
gather long-term data not available from other sources. The knowledge
generated by USGS programs is used by Federal and State natural
resource managers to maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems while
balancing the needs of public use.
Examples of successful USGS Ecosystem initiatives include:
--Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
resources and to plan fuel reduction projects.
--Identification of white-nose syndrome, a fungus that is devastating
U.S. bat populations and is jeopardizing the multi-billion
dollar pest control services provided by bats.
--Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp,
sea lamprey, Burmese pythons, and other invasive species that
cause billions of dollars in economic losses.
--Study of the impacts of solar energy and other next generation
energy sources on wildlife and endangered species.
The requested fiscal year 2015 budget would support several
important ecosystem science priorities at USGS. The budget would expand
detection and control of invasive species and improve predictive tools.
USGS would also support efforts to further the science and integration
of ecosystems services frameworks into decisionmaking and implement
efforts to assess and sustain the Nation's environmental capital.
Additionally, USGS would be able to address disconcerting declines in
native pollinators.
The request includes additional funding for research to inform
adaptive management of severe and prolonged drought. The budget would
also provide an increase for the National Streamflow Information
Program, which supports USGS' national network of streamgages.
New funding is proposed for the Cooperative Research Units to
increase undergraduate and graduate student involvement in Interior
research. Roughly 500 graduate students each year receive training at
Cooperative Research Units. Through the units, the USGS and their
partners address pressing issues facing natural resource managers at
the local, State, and Federal levels. Examples of recent research
initiatives include studying the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil
spill on wildlife and fisheries, and studying the impacts of wildfires
on forest ecology. The program is an efficient use of resources: each
Federal dollar invested in the program is leveraged more than five-
fold.
Although the proposed budget supports many USGS priorities, the
requested funding level would result in $41.3 million in cuts to
programs that support agency core missions. Indeed, the budget request
for Ecosystems is less than the agency received in fiscal year 2002 in
nominal dollars.
In summary, the USGS is uniquely positioned to provide a scientific
context for many of the Nation's biological and environmental
challenges, including water quality and use, energy independence, and
conservation of biological diversity. This array of research expertise
not only serves the core missions of the Department of the Interior,
but also contributes to management decisions made by other agencies and
private sector organizations. An investment of $1.2 billion in the USGS
and at least $180 million in the Ecosystems activity will yield
dividends.
u.s. forest service
United States Forest Service research provides scientific
information and new technologies to support sustainable management of
the Nation's forests and rangelands. These products and services
increase the basic biological and physical knowledge of the
composition, structure, and function of forest, rangeland, and aquatic
ecosystems.
The fiscal year 2015 budget request would cut funding for Forest
Service research by 6 percent--well in excess of the 2.6 percent cut
proposed for the entire agency. The Forest and Rangeland Research
division would lose 114 employees as a result.
The proposed budget cuts would impact research on wildland fires,
invasive species, wildlife and fish, and resource management. USFS'
research on wildland fire and fuels evaluates the effectiveness of
hazardous fuels treatments and helps managers as they protect life and
property and restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Other programs support
key areas of scientific research, the outcomes of which inform
sustainable management of the Nation's forests and rangelands.
We ask Congress to restore the proposed cuts and to fund the Forest
and Rangeland Research program at $310 million, the same amount as in
fiscal year 2010.
environmental protection agency
The Office of Research and Development (ORD) supports valuable
extramural and intramural research that is used to identify and
mitigate environmental problems facing our Nation. ORD research informs
decisions made by public health and safety managers, natural resource
managers, businesses, and other stakeholders concerned about air and
water pollution, human health, and land management and restoration. In
short, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and
enforcement programs are built.
Despite the important role played by ORD, its funding has declined
by 17 percent in nominal dollars since fiscal year 2004, when it peaked
at $646.5 million. ``This long-term decline has limited and will
continue to limit the research that can be conducted to support the
agency's effort to protect human health and the environment,''
according to the EPA's Science Advisory Board. ``These limitations pose
a vulnerability for EPA at a time when the agency faces significant
science questions with long-term implications for protecting the
environment and public health.''
At $537.3 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2015 falls
far short of addressing past and current shortfalls. We ask that
Congress restore funding for ORD to at least the fiscal year 2010
enacted level of $596.7 million.
The Ecosystem Services Research program within ORD is responsible
for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem services, such as
clean air and water, rich soil for crop production, pollination, and
flood control. The program has been long underfunded, according to the
EPA Science Advisory Board, with a 58 percent budget decline over the
last decade. We ask that Congress address the chronic underfunding of
the program.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program supports valuable
research on human health and the environment through competitively
awarded research grants. The program enables EPA to fill information
gaps that are not addressed by intramural EPA research programs or by
other Federal agencies.
Two valuable training opportunities for the next generation of
scientists will be eliminated as part of a proposed governmentwide
reorganization of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education programs. Funding would be zeroed out for EPA STAR graduate
fellowships and Greater Research Opportunities undergraduate
fellowships. The Science Advisory Board ``considers it a priority to
increase STAR fellowships, if possible, because support for
environmental scientists at an early stage in their careers is a cost-
effective way to advance ORD's strategic goals.'' The National Academy
of Sciences called the fellowship ``a valuable mechanism for enabling a
continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and
engineering.'' We are concerned that the elimination of these programs
will be detrimental to preparation of the next generation of
environmental scientists and engineers. We ask for the program to
remain at EPA and to be supported at an adequate funding level.
ORD's Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program supports
research that underpins safe drinking water for society. The program's
research also focuses on better understanding resiliency of watersheds
to stressors and factors that affect watershed restoration. The budget
request would allow the program to pursue research that will inform
decisions about water safety and to ensure the sustainability of our
wetlands.
In conclusion, we request that Congress restore funding for the ORD
to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. These appropriation levels would
allow ORD to address a backlog of research needs.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, I want to thank Chairman
Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and the distinguished members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding funding
for the agencies involved in white-nose syndrome research and
management, as well as for other programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
white-nose syndrome (wns)
$2.5 million (President's budget)......... U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service/Science Support
Purpose: To fund research on ways to stop the development and spread of
WNS, and the fungus that causes it, among bat populations.
$500,000.................................. U.S. Geological Survey/
Ecosystems
Purpose: To conduct research into WNS management to aid in the recovery
of affected species and reduce the spread of the WNS fungus.
$3 million................................ National Park Service/Park
Management
Purpose: To inventory and protect NPS bat and cave resources; expand
research into WNS management; monitor NPS resources for WNS; conduct
public education about WNS; and standardize WNS screening procedures
for visitors across park units.
$750,000.................................. U.S. Forest Service/Research
and Development
Purpose: To conduct research on managing WNS per the Service's WNS
science strategy.
$250,000.................................. U.S. Forest Service/Forest
Systems
Purpose: To inventory and monitor bat resources and manage WNS on
Forest Service lands.
$500,000.................................. Bureau of Land Management
Purpose: To fund field research related to WNS in bats and the
inventorying and monitoring of bat resources on Bureau-administered
lands.
Capitalizing on the investments and progress already made, the
funds we request would support Federal programs to fight WNS, a disease
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates has killed at least 5.7
million bats since its 2006 outbreak. Caused by the invasive
Pseudogymn-oascus destructans (Pd) fungus, WNS is present in 25 States
and 5 Canadian provinces, and Pd in another 3 States. The disease or
its fungus has affected 11 hibernating bat species so far, including
the endangered Indiana, gray, and Virginia big-eared bats; 25 of our
Nation's 47 bat species may ultimately be at risk. Losses are so severe
that FWS published a proposed rule to list the northern long-eared bat
as endangered throughout its range, which is most of the eastern U.S.,
and is reviewing another two species for possible listing under the
Endangered Species Act.
The loss of bats from WNS will likely have serious implications for
our economy and environment. Bats are primary predators of night-flying
insects, including agricultural pests that attack corn, soybeans,
cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests, bats save farmers an
average of $22.9 billion per year by reducing the need for pesticides
and lowering food production costs. Bats also perform ecological
services for 66 plant species that produce timber. Healthy forests need
healthy bats.
The Federal Government and its State, local, tribal, and nonprofit
partners continue to make progress in fighting WNS. Thanks to Federal
funding from previous years, these institutions are conducting research
in line with the priorities identified at the 2014 WNS symposium:
understanding the nature and dynamics of remnant bat populations in
WNS-affected areas; understanding the nature and dynamics of Pd
infectivity and virulence factors; and other questions such as
biological control for WNS. These research directions hold promise for
solutions to slow or stop the spread of the disease, and to alleviate
its impacts on affected bats. In one of the past year's notable
findings, Forest Service scientists taxonomically reclassified the WNS
fungus from Geomyces destructans to Pseudogymnoascus destructans. A
goal of the WNS community is to pinpoint the WNS fungus' harmful genes
and silence them as a means of controlling the fungus; this research
furthers that effort by shedding light on the genetic similarities and
differences between the white-nose fungus and its closest, benign fungi
relatives. Another positive development is the creation of the North
American Bat Monitoring Program, which will be pilot-tested this
summer. Until now, no coordinated or standard system for monitoring bat
populations has existed within North America. As a result, wildlife
managers and researchers have lacked accurate data on which to base
appropriate bat management actions. The program will benefit not only
the WNS fight but also other bat conservation efforts.
These developments would not have been possible without funding. We
thank Congress for recognizing the gravity of the WNS crisis and
supporting agencies' response to the disease in past years. We have
come so far in understanding WNS and determining directions for the
fight against this devastating disease. Failing to adequately fund WNS
response in fiscal year 2015 will undermine our hard-won progress,
jeopardize the application of science to management, and thwart the
impact of private funds leveraged to combat WNS. We recognize today's
difficult budget situation but urge you to provide funding at the
levels noted above.
Money spent on WNS is a wise investment. Preventing the spread of
WNS will spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of massive
bat die-offs. The experience gained will aid in responding to future
fungal outbreaks that may affect human health. Finally, fighting WNS
now will reduce future harm to the economy from insect-related losses
to agriculture and forestry and the cost of listed-species recovery. An
ounce of prevention truly is worth a pound of cure.
fish and wildlife service office of law enforcement--$66.737 million
The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a moderate
funding increase for the FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), one of
the most important lines of defense for America's wildlife. OLE is
tasked with enforcing over a dozen Federal wildlife and conservation
laws that frequently impact both domestic and global security. Year
after year, OLE protects the public against the illegal trade in
wildlife and wildlife products--which is third only to the illicit
trade in narcotics and weapons in terms of revenue generated globally--
and the U.S. remains a source of, or destination for, much of this
contraband. Even those who may not concern themselves with wildlife are
reaping benefits as OLE protects against smuggling illegal substances
and helps to thwart potentially devastating human health threats. It is
critical that OLE receive adequate funding to fulfill its mission.
Accordingly, we support FWS's proposed appropriation of $66.737
million for OLE, an increase of $1.994 million over the fiscal year
2014 enacted budget, and the addition of seven full-time employees.
This increase in funding and staff will provide for expanded forensics
capability at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory,
support the work of Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors, and enhance
the Service's ability to combat wildlife trafficking.
National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory--$1.247 million
increase + 5 FTE
The successful outcomes of enforcement cases would not be possible
without the essential work of the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory (NFWFL), used by FWS agents and inspectors to gather hard
evidence in wildlife crime cases. The lab uses state-of-the-art
science, along with years of institutional knowledge, to identify
wildlife products by species, determine the cause of death, and make
other findings critical to a successful legal case. All 50 States and
the 175 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
member countries depend on this facility to prosecute wildlife crimes.
It is heartening that $1.247 million of the proposed $1.994 million
increase to OLE's budget and 5 of the 7 additional full time employees
will be allocated to the NFWFL's work. This will aid in the advancement
of research involving genetic markers and isotope analysis, which will
ultimately improve investigators' ability to determine the geographic
origin of animals and animal parts. These funds would also serve to
develop the laboratory's Morphology Section, where these is a great
need for both hiring and training of forensics experts.
Program Activities/Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors--$247,000
increase
The Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents and Wildlife
Inspectors who enforce U.S. wildlife laws play a critical role in
protecting our Nation's wildlife. Special Agents aid in the reduction
of illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, which continues to
imperil species in the U.S. and around the world. Wildlife Inspectors
play a similarly valuable role, minimizing illegal contraband
shipments, uncovering smuggled goods and illegal trade rings at the
border, and thwarting national and global health risks associated with
importing non-native species.
In fiscal year 2013, FWS Special Agents pursued 10,422
investigations involving 180,368 wildlife shipments, including 157,065
shipments containing foreign species. Agents identified 1,824
individuals/businesses conducting illegal activities involving
migratory birds; 2,535 individuals/businesses engaged in crime
involving threatened and endangered species; and 7,521 individuals/
businesses conducting illegal activities involving foreign species.
These enforcement activities resulting in $24.6 million in fines and
penalties, 45.9 years of jail time for the perpetrators, and 452.7
years of probation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Law
Enforcement at a Glance (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same year, FWS Wildlife Inspectors processed approximately
182,000 declared shipments of wildlife products worth over $6.2
billion.\2\ This impressive record merits proper funding and staffing
adequate to fulfill OLE's mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife Trafficking--$500,000 increase + 2 FTE
FWS's Special Investigations Unit (SIU) works to address complex
wildlife trafficking cases, including cases involving critically
endangered species. Poaching is on the rise internationally, and SIU's
investigation and enforcement work is of critical importance to making
the United States a part of the solution. Both the Administration's
National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and the
President's Executive Order on combating wildlife trafficking highlight
the prevention of wildlife crime as a national priority.
Increasing its staff from 6 to 8 agents will provide SIU with the
capacity to undertake a national investigation of the trade in ivory,
including both importation and smuggling within the United States,
while continuing its national and international efforts to investigate
rhino horn trafficking. We support FWS's request for $500,000 (of the
total $1.994 million requested increase) and 2 additional full time
employee positions (of the 7 total FTE requested for law enforcement).
wild free-roaming horses and burros act
The wild horse is as much a symbol of our American heritage as the
image of Uncle Sam and baseball. Currently, America's wild horses are
subjected to gross mismanagement and mistreatment by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), which uses a significant portion of its budget to
round up and warehouse wild horses and burros without credible evidence
supporting the need for such removals as recently documented by a
National Academy of Science study. Furthermore, since 2004, wild horses
have been at risk of being sold to killer-buyers who make a profit by
sending horses to slaughter for human consumption--in fact, in recent
years, hundreds of wild horses were sold to at least one known killer-
buyer.
In 1971, Congress acted to protect these wild animals and their
natural habitat. For the last few years, this subcommittee has also
called on the BLM to find humane solutions, but they ignore options and
fail to act responsibly. It is now time for Congress to act decisively
to ensure these animals are neither sent into holding facilities nor
sentenced to slaughter. BLM's proposed budget includes a program
increase of $2.8 million for wild horse and burro management. These
funds are to be used for population control research, including ongoing
studies that ``focus on developing more effective and longer lasting
fertility control agents. . . .'' \3\ We support these efforts and
request that any increase in appropriations under the Wild Free-Roaming
Horses and Burros Act be used solely for implementation of humane, on-
the-range management methods such as immunocontraception, and not
unnecessary roundup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management,
Budget Justifications and Performance Information: fiscal year 2015
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we strongly support the continued inclusion of this ``no-
kill'' language to ensure that BLM does not kill healthy wild horses
and burros: Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be
available for the sale or destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses
and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors.
national park service lethal management of native wildlife
In recent years, the National Park Service (NPS) has significantly
expanded its lethal control of native ungulates in contravention of its
own legal mandates. During this time, the NPS has initiated lethal
control of ungulates in a number of national parks (e.g., Valley Forge,
Catoctin, Indiana Dunes, and Rock Creek) and is considering similar
efforts in other parks. In each case, the NPS has misapplied its own
statutes and policies and has failed to provide any credible site-
specific data to justify its heavy-handed strategies. Though even the
NPS concedes that ungulates are keystone herbivores, it is unwilling to
allow ungulates to naturally influence ecosystem structure and
function, as its own statutes and policies require. Therefore, we
request that the following language, which would save taxpayer dollars,
be included in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill: No funds
appropriated under this legislation shall be expended by the National
Park Service to lethally control or kill native ungulates nor shall the
National Park Service permit any entity, public or private, to kill
said ungulates.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy
Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons described below, I am
requesting a fiscal year 2015 appropriation from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the amount of $4,461,000 for the Department
of the Interior, National Park Service and $7,850,000 for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) for the
acquisition of lands and interests in lands surrounding or bordering
the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in the States of New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
ATC also requests support for the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request of $2,283,852,000 for National Park Service operations
and $10 million for the Centennial Challenge, as well as a budget
request of $183,000 for the USDA Forest Service for operational costs
associated with managing the Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
Background.--The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) is
America's premier long-distance footpath. Begun in 1922 and completed
in 1937 as a continuous footpath extending from western Maine to
northern Georgia, the trail gained Federal recognition in 1968 with the
passage of the National Trails System Act. Amendments to that act in
1978 expanded the authorization for Federal and State land acquisition
to establish a permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a
protective corridor or greenway along the trail. Since 1978, with the
strong support of the subcommittee and the Congress as a whole, the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail land acquisition program of the
National Park Service and USDA Forest Service has become one of the
most successful land conservation efforts in the Nation's history.
Additional land acquisitions will serve to protect priority landscapes
along the trail that offer recreational and ecological benefits to the
public.
Resource Characteristics.--The Appalachian Trail is a 2,185-mile
footpath extending along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian
Mountains through 14 States from Maine to Georgia. Often characterized
as a string of pearls, the trail, which is administered as a unit of
the National Park System, connects eight National Forests, six other
units of the National Park System, and approximately 60 State parks,
forests, and game management units. With an estimated 2 million
visitors per year, it ranks among the most heavily visited units of the
National Park System and also ranks among the top 10 units from the
standpoint of natural diversity, with more than 2,200 documented
occurrences of federally and State listed rare, threatened, or
endangered species at more than 500 discrete sites.
The Appalachian Trail is equally well known as a remarkable public/
private partnership. Since the initial construction of the trail in the
1920s and '30s, volunteers affiliated with the Appalachian Trail
Conservancy have constructed, reconstructed, and maintained the
footpath, as well as a system of more than 250 shelters and associated
facilities such as privies, improved campsites, bridges, signs, and
parking lots. In 2013, for example, 5,941 volunteers contributed
245,548 hours of labor along the trail.
Need for Appropriations.--As noted previously, while the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail protection program represents one of
the most successful land acquisition programs in the history of the
conservation movement in the United States, that program is not yet
complete. A number of critical parcels are now ripe for land
acquisition from willing sellers, and we are seeking fiscal year 2015
LWCF appropriations to secure those properties. A brief description of
each of those critical parcels follows.
Bald Cap Peak, New Hampshire.--ATC and The Conservation Fund
request a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $200,000 for the
National Park Service. The funds would be obligated for the National
Park Service to acquire a 300-acre tract in fee in Coos County, New
Hampshire. The tract will broaden the Appalachian Trail corridor in
these highlands, protecting the natural flora and fauna along it, as
well as the high elevation watershed found along the crest of the
mountains the trail traverses. These lands are part of the Mahoosuc
Mountain range, which is the northerly extension of the White Mountains
in northeastern New Hampshire. Acquisition of this property would
enhance protection for three major peaks in the area, including Bald
Cap Peak, Bald Cap, North Bald Cap, and the area around Mount Success.
This acquisition also will protect a key side trail that provides
access to one of the more remote sections of the trail.
Greensboro Farm, New Hampshire.--ATC and the Trust for Public Lands
request a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $2,251,000 for the
National Park Service to acquire a 173-acre tract of land owned by
Dartmouth College and located in the town of Hanover, New Hampshire.
This acquisition will protect the ANST corridor from incompatible
development and permanently protect side trails maintained by the town
of Hanover which connect to the Appalachian Trail, but which do not
have permanent protection status. Acquisition of this property, known
as Hudson Farm, will also protect wetland and riparian systems,
grassland bird habitat, rare plant sites, a significant wildlife
corridor, and forest resources. The Hudson Farm is likely to be
divested by Dartmouth College within the next 2 to 4 years, as it has
been deemed a non-strategic real estate holding.
Pomfret Pines Project, Vermont.--ATC and The Conservation Fund
request funding in fiscal year 2015 of $533,000 for the National Park
Service to acquire an easement interest in an 81-acre property, known
as the Pomfret Pines Farm, situated on a hill adjacent to and above the
Appalachian Trail in the town of Pomfret, Vermont, to conserve its
natural and scenic character. The property may be under threat of
subdivision and residential development.
Hottle-Fahey Forest, Massachusetts.--ATC requests funding in fiscal
year 2015 of $777,000 for the National Park Service to acquire a 306-
acre tract of the Hottle-Fahey Forest that lies in the foreground
viewshed of Warner Hill in Hinsdale, Massachusetts. In 2010, an
industrial wind developer proposed constructing six large wind turbines
within 500 feet of the ANST corridor at this point. This would have
seriously altered the view from Warner Hill and significantly changed
the character of this section of the trail through the small rural
village of Hinsdale. In late 2012, the developer withdrew plans to
develop the site, but the threat for industrial development and/or
timber extraction remains. The Hottle-Fahey Forest lies in the center
of the Hinsdale Flats, an area designated by the State of Massachusetts
as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), a site that
receives special recognition because of the quality, uniqueness, and
significance of its resources.
White Rocks Addition, Pennsylvania.--ATC requests a fiscal year
2015 LWCF appropriation of $500,000 for the National Park Service to
acquire a 107-acre property in the viewshed of the Appalachian Trail as
it crosses the White Rocks formation just southeast of Boiling Springs,
Pennsylvania. This tract is contiguous to a recently protected 800-acre
tract. The most pressing threat to this landscape is the potential for
additional development by the landowner.
Tennessee Mountains Trails and Waters-Rich Mountain Inholding.--ATC
requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $3,700,000, including
the Rich Mountain inholding ($700,000), for the USDA Forest Service.
This collaborative project includes funding for acquisitions associated
with trails in Tennessee, including a 100-acre privately owned
inholding situated in the northwest corner of the recently acquired
10,000-acre Rocky Fork property, a significant acquisition for the
ANST. This tract includes the highest point of land for the overall
property as well as prominent cliffs. The cliffs are only a short
distance from the ANST through a high elevation heath bald. The
property provides sweeping views of the Sampson Mountain Wilderness and
northeast Tennessee/southwest Virginia.
North Carolina Threatened Treasures--Grassy Ridge Project.--ATC
requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $1,100,000 for the
USDA Forest Service to acquire 601 acres of high elevation grassy bald
with several threatened and endangered species. This parcel is the
largest unprotected parcel in the ANST and Overmountain Victory
National Historic Trail viewshed. An additional $1,050,000 will be
contributed to the project from the North Carolina Parks and Recreation
Trust Fund and the North Carolina Clean Water Trust Fund.
Sugarloaf Mountain, Tennessee.--ATC requests a fiscal year 2015
LWCF appropriation of $330,000 for the USDA Forest Service to acquire
this 80-acre inholding within the Cherokee National Forest to protect
the viewshed of the Appalachian Trail. The tract hosts a cove hardwood
forest, a waterfall, and abundant wildflowers, offering an outstanding
recreational experience. ATC will contribute funding for the appraisal
of this important tract.
National Trails Collaborative Landscape.--ATC requests a fiscal
year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $2,720,000 for the USDA Forest Service.
This acquisition package includes several important ANST tracts,
including:
--Ripshin Wetlands.--This 403-acre property is adjacent to the
Moffett Laurel Botanical Area Rare Community and Ripshin Ridge
Rare Community. The Ripshin tract contains documented habitat
and breeding grounds for the Bog Turtle, a State threatened
species and federally listed threatened species within an
Appalachian Highlands Bog. Cliff top viewpoints offer
exceptional views of this tract for Appalachian Trail hikers.
This tract is surrounded on three sides by the Cherokee
National Forest.
--Hump Mountain, Tennessee.--The 27-acre Hump Mountain tract is a
high elevation southern Appalachian grassy bald, which is home
to a unique ecosystem including several threatened and
endangered species and species of concern. The tract is also
part of the culturally significant Roan Highlands landscape and
a national natural landmark, and it is surrounded on three
sides by the Cherokee and Pisgah National Forests.
--Shook Branch, Tennessee, Cherokee National Forest.--This 20-acre
tract provides an important linkage for the Appalachian Trail
corridor as it travels from Watauga Lake to the Pond Mountain
Wilderness. Rerouting the trail onto this tract will provide a
much safer crossing of the very busy U.S. 321, prevent
development adjacent to a USFS/Tennessee Valley Authority
recreation area, and provide an improved corridor for wildlife.
National Park Service Funding.--ATC requests a $10 million
appropriation for the Centennial Challenge and $2,283,852,000 for
National Park Service (NPS) operations. As NPS prepares for its 100th
anniversary, Congress has an achievable opportunity to begin reversing
the damaging pattern of recent cuts and long-term underfunding and
instead invest in the popular and economically important NPS, including
the ANST. The troubled budget process of recent years has allowed a
slow motion shutdown that has meant deferring significant maintenance
projects and the hiring of key park staff that provide for safe and
enjoyable visits.
USDA Forest Service, Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Operations.--ATC requests $183,000 in operational funds for the USDA
Forest Service Southern Region 8 to provide a liaison for trail
management. Operational funds also support volunteer trail maintenance
crews and visitor outreach.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your
consideration of our request.
Ron Tipton,
Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer.
______
Prepared Statement of the APS Four Corners Power Plant
April 9, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
David C. Bloomfield, P.E.,
Four Corners Site Plant Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task
Force
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee: The
ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task Force is pleased to provide
this testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for research and
development programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
introduction
ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and technical Society
with more than 130,000 members. It conducts one of the world's largest
technical publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical
conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and has
authored over 600 industrial and manufacturing standards.
background
Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest
in applying Science & Technology (S&T) to improve the environment and
human health in the U.S. Mechanical engineers increasingly collaborate
with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-effective
environmental technologies and systems.
The EPA plays an essential role in the Nation's efforts to protect
human health and safeguard the environment, and EPA's S&T research and
development (R&D) activities are instrumental in improving
environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective
manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health, the
ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology development
and implementation. Pollution reduction is needed to address the
emerging concerns of climate change, as well as homeland security and
infrastructure protection.
overview of the asme epa task force review
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for EPA is $7.9 billion, a $310
million or 3.8 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2014 enacted
amount of $8.2 billion. The EPA's Science and Technology account would
increase by 0.6 percent or $4.6 million in fiscal year 2015 to $763.7
million.
EPA has seen declining budget figures for the last four budget
cycles. The EPA Task Force feels that a higher appropriation is
warranted for the agency in fiscal year 2015. Additional R&D funds are
needed in order to enhance study responses to hydraulic fracturing and
oil shale waste issues, climate change, terrestrial carbon
sequestration and management, biofuels, and nanotechnology development.
The Task Forces comments on the fiscal year 2015 budget focus on
the R&D activities of the S&T portfolio within the EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD) and the Superfund program that support
eight strategic programmatic research areas:
The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives
between fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2015 is as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Air and Radiation......... $6.39 $6.45 $6.09
Homeland Security................ 38.88 38.36 39.44
Clean Air and Climate............ 114.9 120.4 118.5
Safe and Sustainable Water 106.2 111.0 114.1
Resources
Human Health Protection.......... 3.6 3.6 3.6
Air, Climate, and Energy Research 87.1 94.9 101.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
epa office of research and development
Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the
scientific foundation for EPA by performing research and development to
identify and solve present and future environmental issues and
providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The
ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research, to
improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate
environmental health, as well as problem-driven research designed to
provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems.
It is an invaluable national resource.
We note that the ORD workforce has declined by over 10 percent in
the past several years and is now not sufficient to permit action on
various topics of national importance. Effort should be made to ``right
size'' the ORD staff so that it can continue to support R&D on current
and future environmental problems.
We support the increases requested for the EPA's S&T directorate,
which partially reverses several years of funding decreases. An
evaluation of EPA's resources is needed to ensure that it can balance
between existing priorities and new challenges. Program specifics
issues are outlined below:
INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Air: Radon Program........ $0.56 $0.19 $0.0
Reduce Risks from Indoor Air..... 0.36 0.31 0.41
Radiation Protection............. 1.9 2.1 2.0
Radiation Preparedness Response.. 4.0 3.8 3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Task Force supports the EPA's replacement of the Radon Program
with the Federal Radon Action Plan, which will leverage industry and
nonprofit efforts to amplify existing Federal efforts to reduce radon
risk.
HOMELAND SECURITY
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Infrastructure $10.3 $10.4 $12.0
Protection......................
Preparedness, Response and 27.9 27.3 26.8
Recovery........................
Protection of EPA Personnel and 0.54 0.54 0.57
Infrastructure..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeland security activities are a significant component of the
EPA's S&T activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection
and disaster preparedness and response. The Task Force plans to review
the reduced program operation levels, particularly with respect to EPA
personnel accounts, to insure that the reductions do not delay the
completion of the program's objectives. The Task Force supports the
additional funding allocated to the Critical Infrastructure Protection
program.
CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Protection............... $13.0 $8.31 $8.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA Task Force views Climate Protection Research as a critical
issue and is troubled by the funding trajectory for this program given
funding in the previous fiscal years. We urge Congress to appropriate
additional funds for Climate Protection to exceed the fiscal year 2015
requested level.
RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&T Activities................... $87.1 $94.9 $101.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA Task Force supports the full fiscal year 2015 increased
request for Air, Climate and Energy Research, particularly the $3.79
million in additional funding for support for hydraulic fracturing
research activities within the ACE research program.
SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research $106.2 $111.0 $114.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources funding supports a variety of
activities related to the challenges facing U.S. water resources,
including drinking water and waste water from industrial activities
like hydraulic fracturing. Funding for Sustainability research is
slated for an increase of just over $3.1 million for this fiscal year.
The Task Force is pleased that funding has been increased and supports
the fiscal year 2015 request.
HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2013 2014 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drinking Water Programs.......... $3.61 $3.63 $3.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the fiscal year 2015 budget request calls for a slight
increase from the fiscal year 2014 appropriated amount. The Task Force
considers the long term development of infrastructure related to water
quality issues as a high priority of the EPA and supports this request
given the constrained budget environment.
water quality research and support grants
The EPA Task Force urges Congress to again support funding for the
Water Quality Research and Support Grant program. Last year, Congress
provided $4.23 million for this nationally competitive grant program to
fund water quality and availability research. Given the severe droughts
and water resource challenges facing many parts of the country, the
Task Force supports funding at the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level
for this grant program.
environmental education
The fiscal year 2015 EPA budget does not request any funding to
support Environmental Education, which was funded at $8.7 million in
fiscal year 2014. It is essential to encourage students to pursue
careers in environmental science and engineering. Such investments are
critical to addressing environmental concerns, bolstering our Nation's
workforce, and maintaining its competitiveness. If Congress and the
Administration proceed with the transfer of EPA environmental education
activities to the National Science Foundation (NSF), close coordination
and consultation with EPA should be conducted to ensure that the goals
of EPA's programs are continued under NSF administration.
conclusion
The administration's fiscal year 2015 request is, in part,
reflective of a difficult fiscal environment where tough choices have
to be made to support priorities within the EPA. As this Task Force has
previously stated, however, difficult budget choices should not
preclude certain priorities from receiving funding. The Task Force
requests that additional funding be allocated for the Homeland Security
programs to insure that security enhancements to our water supply are
not delayed nor disrupted. Further, the Task Force proposes the
continued funding of EPA's Water Quality Research Support Grant
program.
This statement represents the views of the EPA Task Force of the
Environmental Engineering Division (EED) of ASME's Technical
Communities and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Art Museum Directors
The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) respectfully
requests funding of no less than $155 million each for the National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH).
In addition, AAMD requests a revision of the Arts and Artifacts
Indemnity Act (Public Law 94-158) as amended (Public Law 110-161, Sec.
426) to increase the amount of indemnity that may be outstanding at any
given time and for any single exhibition. Congress last amended the Act
in 2005 and 2007, and both times it did so through the appropriations
process.
i. the arts and artifacts indemnity act
Congress and President Gerald Ford approved the Arts and Artifacts
Indemnity Act in 1975 to promote the international exchange and
exhibition of major artworks. Officially a program of the Federal
Council on the Arts and Humanities, the program is administered by the
NEA. In 2007, Congress expanded eligibility to include coverage of
works of art owned by U.S. entities while on exhibition in the United
States.
Federal indemnity only covers objects in major exhibitions. It
usually does not cover every object, as some are excluded because they
are fragile, or for other reasons. When objects are excluded, the
museum must either secure private insurance or cover them through its
own blanket policy. Having indemnity for some objects makes getting
insurance for the remainder easier and more affordable.
Absent indemnification, some exhibitions would have to be cut back
in scale, whether by traveling to fewer venues or including fewer
objects. In some cases, exhibitions would not go forward at all. For
this reason, fine arts insurers as well as museums support the
indemnity program, since they would rather insure some objects in an
exhibition than not have the exhibition presented in the first place.
The program has run smoothly and incurred minimal costs to the
Federal Government, which since 1975 has paid just two claims, totaling
$104,700. It currently saves art museums approximately $30 million
annually, while enabling major exhibitions to be presented to audiences
around the country, with all of their attendant educational and
economic benefits.
The program's cost has been so low for several reasons. First, it
imposes high deductibles: for exhibitions indemnified for over $500
million, the deductible is $500,000. Second, the program is very strict
about what it will cover, with entire classes of objects ineligible due
to fragility. Third, the program demands the highest standards in
security and environmental controls; for example, all exhibitions must
have human guards 24 hours a day, and all works must travel with
couriers.
The Act allows no more than $10 billion in indemnity for
international exhibitions to be outstanding at any one time, and no
single international exhibition may receive indemnity for more than
$1.2 billion of value. No more than $5 billion may be outstanding at
any one time for domestic exhibitions, and no single domestic
exhibition may receive indemnity for more than $750 million of value.
In 2012, museums requested indemnity for nearly $16 billion in
value for international exhibitions and over $6 billion for domestic.
Museums report that the caps are preventing indemnity from being
extended to objects that would have been covered in past years. Simply
put, there is not enough coverage to go around. As both inflation and a
rising art market take their toll, the situation is bound to worsen.
A list of recently indemnified exhibitions appears on the NEA's Web
site. While only the museum that organizes the exhibition applies for
indemnity, all museums that present or lend to the exhibition benefit
from it. For example, the Art Museum at the Rhode Island School of
Design recently shared a Manet portrait and a Renoir with audiences far
beyond Rhode Island, thanks to the indemnity program. The Joslyn Art
Museum in Omaha sent its Veronese to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts as
part of a major exhibition of Venetian painting, Titian, Tintoretto,
Veronese: Rivals in Renaissance Venice.
Nor is it only large institutions that present qualifying
exhibitions. For example, the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky
organized ``Rembrandt, Rubens, Gainsborough and the Golden Age of
Painting,'' which traveled with indemnity to the Philbrook Museum of
Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dixon Gallery and Gardens in Memphis,
Tennessee, Flint institute of Arts in Flint, Michigan; and the El Paso
Museum of Art in El Paso, Texas. In this case, indemnity coverage
permitted the Speed to control the exhibition's costs and translated
into a reduced participation fee for these moderate sized art museums.
Since 1975, Congress has raised the international caps several
times, the last being in 2005, generally anywhere from 25 percent to
100 percent. A partial legislative history is included below.
AAMD requests that Congress once again raise the international caps
and, for the first time since instituting the domestic program in 2007,
raise its caps as well. Using previous congressional actions as
precedent, we suggest that it would be reasonable to institute an
overall cap of $15 billion for international exhibitions with the limit
per exhibition rising to $1.8 billion, and an overall cap of $7.5
billion for domestic exhibitions with the limit per exhibition rising
to $1 billion.
Partial Legislative History of the Indemnity Act
1975 S. 1800.--An Act to provide indemnities for exhibitions of
artistic and humanistic endeavors, establishes aggregate cap of
$250,000,000, with $50,000,000 maximum per international exhibition.
1980 S. 1386.--Reauthorization of National Foundation on the Arts
and Humanities Act and the Museum Services Act, increases aggregate cap
to $400,000,000.
1985 S. 1264.--Arts, Humanities and Museums Amendments of 1985,
increases the aggregate of loss or damage covered at any one time by
indemnity agreements made under such Act. Increases the maximum level
of indemnification for each exhibition.
1990 H.R. 5769.--Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
increases aggregate cap and exhibition cap.
1999 H.R. 4328.--Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, amends the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to
increase certain coverage limits for loss or damage of items covered by
indemnity agreements under such Act.
2003 H.R. 13.--Museum and Library Services Act, increases aggregate
cap from $5 billion to $8 billion and exhibition cap from $500 million
to $600 million.
2005 H.R. 2361.--Department of the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, increases aggregate cap to $10
billion and exhibition cap to $1.2 billion.
2007 H.R. 2764.--Consolidated Appropriations Act, establishes
program for domestic exhibitions with aggregate cap of $5 billion and
exhibition cap of $750 million.
ii. national endowment for the arts
As stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate no less
than $155 million for the NEA. The agency continues to make modest but
important grants that leverage significant private support.
For this statement we would like to focus on the Blue Star Museums
program, which is an outstanding example of NEA leadership. In 2013, 80
percent of AAMD's membership participated in the Blue Star program,
which calls on museums to offer free admission to active-duty military
families at least from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Many museums offered
free admission year-round. We have asked our members to enroll for 2014
and are receiving an enthusiastic response.
Inspired by the Blue Star program, many AAMD members have tailored
programs to the military audience:
--The Frist Center for the Visual Arts in Nashville, Tennessee
presented ``Steve Mumford's War Journals, 2003-2013.'' Thanks
to a generous donor, the Frist also offers free membership to
military families.
--The Minneapolis Institute of Art has created a specialized tour for
veterans attending the Psychiatry Partial Hospital (PPH)
program at the Minneapolis VA. The tour, titled ``Honoring the
Warrior'' combines art history, art appreciation and art
therapy into a unique therapeutic experience where veterans can
explore their thoughts and feelings through their reactions to
particular works of art.
--The Honolulu Museum of Art is particularly proud of the Warriors'
Eyes on Art program, a partnership with Honolulu's Tripler Army
Medical Center. Servicemen and servicewomen in treatment for
P.T.S.D. visit the museum before hours to visit the galleries
and create art works of their own with professionals from the
museum and medical center.
--At the Bronx Museum of the Arts, a series of paintings, interviews
and stories ``convey the pressing need for a civilian awareness
of the realities and experiences of veterans from current and
past generations,'' according to the museum's website.
Each of these AAMD members is a Blue Star Museum.
iii. national endowment for the humanities
Finally, and as stated above, AAMD requests that Congress
appropriate no less than $155 million for the NEH.
This important agency assists art museums in presenting humanities
scholarship to the general public. It also has historically played an
invaluable role in assisting with the preservation and conservation of
important collections. This is exactly the type of unglamorous work for
which it is chronically difficult to raise private funding, making
Federal support all the more valuable.
Both the NEA and NEH rely on the participation of non-governmental
peer reviewers in making funding decisions, ensuring that political
interference is non-existent. This system is the envy of many nations,
and we strongly encourage Congress to maintain its vitality though
continued and increased funding.
We would be happy to answer any questions or provide more
information as needed.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
Who We Are: I am John Calkins, president of the Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). ASDWA represents the State
drinking water programs in the 50 States, territories, District of
Columbia, and the Navajo Nation in their efforts to provide safe
drinking water to more than 275 million consumers nationwide.
summary of request
ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2015, the
subcommittee appropriate funding for three programs at levels
commensurate with Federal expectations for performance; that ensure
appropriate public health protection; and that will result in enhancing
economic stability and prosperity in American cities and towns. ASDWA
requests $200 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program; $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(DWSRF) program; and $10 million for State drinking water program
security initiatives. A more complete explanation of the needs
represented by these requested amounts and their justification follows.
how states use federal funds
Public Health Protection.--States need increased Federal support to
maintain overall public health protection and to support the needs of
the water systems they oversee. State drinking water programs strive to
meet public health protection goals through two principal funding
programs: the Public Water System Supervision Program (PWSS) and the
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program. These two
programs, with their attendant State match requirements, provide the
means for States to work with drinking water utilities to ensure that
American citizens can turn on their taps with confidence that the water
is both safe to drink and the supply is adequate. In recent years,
State drinking water programs have accepted additional responsibilities
in the area of water system security that include working with all
public water systems to ensure that critical drinking water
infrastructure is protected; that plans are in place to respond to both
natural and manmade disasters; and that communities are better
positioned to support both physical and economic resilience in times of
crisis.
Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
businesses all depend on a safe, reliable, and adequate supply of
drinking water. Economies only grow and sustain themselves when they
have reliable water supplies. Over 90 percent of the population
receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from a public
water system--overseen by State drinking water program personnel.
Firefighting also relies on water from public water systems to ensure
public safety. Even people who have their own private wells will visit
other homes, businesses, and institutions served by a public water
system. As important as public water systems are to the quality of
water we drink and our health, the majority of water produced by public
water systems is used by businesses for a variety of purposes,
including processing, cooling, and product manufacturing. The
availability of adequate supplies of water is often a critical factor
in attracting new industries to communities. Public water systems--and
the cities, villages, schools, and businesses they support--rely on
State drinking water programs to ensure they are in compliance with all
applicable Federal requirements and the water is safe to drink. Several
incidents in the U.S. over the past several years that have led to
illnesses or deaths from unsafe drinking water serve as stark reminders
of the critical nature of the work that State drinking water programs
do--every day--and the dangers of inadequately funded programs,
The PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), States have accepted primary enforcement
responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance and technical
assistance efforts for over 155,000 public water systems to ensure
potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a
timely manner. Over 90 contaminants are regulated in Federal drinking
water regulations and the pace of regulatory activity has accelerated
in recent years. Beyond the contaminants covered by Federal drinking
water regulations, States are also implementing an array of proactive
initiatives to protect public health from ``the source to the tap.''
These include source water assessments and protections for communities
and watersheds; technical assistance with water treatment and
distribution for challenged utilities; and enhancement of overall water
system performance capabilities. In recent years, States have also
taken on an increasingly prominent role in working with Federal and
local partners to help ensure sufficient water quantity. In short,
State activities go well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap--
and, they perform all of these tasks more efficiently and cheaply than
would be the case if the program were federally implemented. In short,
well supported State programs are a ``good deal'' for America.
The DWSRF Program.--Drinking water in the U.S. is among the safest
and most reliable in the world, but it is threatened by aging
infrastructure. Through loans provided by the DWSRF, States help water
utilities overcome this threat. The historical payback to the DWSRF on
this investment has been exceptional. In the core DWSRF program, $15.7
billion in cumulative Federal capitalization grants since 1997 have
been leveraged by States into over $25.8 billion in infrastructure
loans to small and large communities across the country (through the
end of 2013). Such investments pay tremendous dividends--both in
supporting our economy and in protecting our citizens' health. Many
State drinking water programs have also used ``set-asides'' from the
DWSRF to support the technical assistance and training needs of
numerous small drinking water systems and to help these water systems
obtain the technical, managerial, and financial proficiency needed to
meet SDWA requirements.
State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--State drinking
water programs are critical partners in emergency planning, response,
and resiliency at all levels of government. In fact, States are
typically the critical nexus between Federal and local levels officials
in emergency situations. State primacy agencies provide key resources
and critical support--regardless of whether the emergency is rooted in
terrorism, natural disasters, or cyber intrusions. States continually
work toward integrating security considerations throughout all aspects
of their drinking water programs.
why increased funding is urgently needed
State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed and the Funding Gap
Continues to Grow.--States must accomplish all of the above-described
activities--and take on new responsibilities--in the context of a
challenging economic climate. This has meant operating with less State-
provided financial support--which has historically compensated for
inadequate Federal funding. State drinking water programs have often
been expected to do more with less and States have always responded
with commitment and integrity. However, State drinking water programs
are stretched to the breaking point. Insufficient Federal support for
this critical program increases the likelihood of a contamination event
that puts the public's health at risk. Although the 1996 SDWA
Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100 million per year,
appropriated amounts have only recently reached that authorized level--
a level that now, more than 17 years from the date of those amendments,
falls far short of the amount needed. $101.9 million was appropriated
for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2014 and the administration
requested only $109 million in fiscal year 2015. These amounts are
woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by State
drinking water programs. We believe, based on our assessments of every
State's need (in a report we released in January 2014), that at least
twice that amount is needed. Inadequate Federal funding for State
drinking water programs has a number of negative consequences. Many
States are simply unable to implement major provisions of the newer
regulations, leaving the work undone or ceding the responsibility back
to EPA, which is also challenged by the Agency's own resource
constraints and lack of ``on the ground'' expertise. This situation has
created a significant implementation crisis in several regions of the
country and is ultimately delaying implementation of critically needed
public health protections.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well Below Documented
Need.--In 2013, the Association of Civil Engineers gave the Nation's
water infrastructure a D+ grade and EPA's most recent National Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey (2011) indicated that drinking water
system infrastructure needs total $384 billion over the next 20 years.
The American Water Works Association recently estimated that 20 year
need at $1 trillion. Investment is needed for aging treatment plants,
storage tanks, pumps, and distribution lines that carry water to our
Nation's homes, businesses and schools. States are also providing, in
many cases, State funding to augment Federal assistance, as the total
loan figures noted above demonstrate. The DWSRF must continue to be a
key part of the solution to the Nation's infrastructure crisis.
Further, as mentioned earlier, States can ``set-aside'' funds from the
DWSRF (up to 31 percent of the grant) for a variety of critical tasks,
such as shoring up the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of
public water systems. Set-asides are thus an essential source of
funding for States' public health protection programs and these efforts
work in tandem with infrastructure loans.
State Drinking Water Security Funds Are Urgently Needed.--After 7
years of congressional support for State security programs through a
small grant of approximately $5 million in EPA's appropriations (from
fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2008), no funds have been provided
for this purpose since fiscal year 2009 and none are requested by the
administration for fiscal year 2015. It is very difficult to understand
why this small, but essential grant to States has been zeroed out of
EPA's proposed budget and why Congress has not supported State drinking
water security programs. State drinking water programs urgently need
funds to continue to maintain and expand their security activities,
particularly in partnership with small and medium public water systems.
detailed justification for fiscal year 2015 request levels
For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully
requests $200 million.--The number of regulations requiring State
implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support
necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations has been
essentially ``flat-lined.'' Inflation has further eroded these
inadequate funding levels. States want to offer the flexibilities
allowed under existing rules/requirements to local water systems;
however, fewer State resources mean less opportunity to work one-on-one
with water systems to meet their individual needs. The figure
recommended below is based on ASDWA's January 2014 resource needs
report and begins to fill the above-described resource gap. These funds
are urgently needed for implementing new drinking water rules, taking
on a number of other new initiatives, and accounting for the eroding
effects of inflation. We further recommend that Congress not allow any
Federal funds already appropriated to State drinking water programs to
be rescinded.
For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully
requests $1.3 billion.--States were very encouraged by the $1.387
billion appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 but are
disappointed at the subsequent downward trend--$963 million in fiscal
year 2011, $919 million in fiscal year 2012, $854 million for fiscal
year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), and, a somewhat better $907
million in fiscal year 2014. Of particular concern to the drinking
water community is the administration's request of $757 million for
fiscal year 2015; a figure we consider to be unacceptably low. The
primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by
facilitating water system compliance with national primary drinking
water regulations through the provision of loans to improve drinking
water infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health
protection as well as a sustainable economy, as explained above. States
have very effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with
State contributions to provide assistance to more than 10,000 projects,
improving health protection for millions of Americans. The U.S.
Conference of Mayors reports that each public dollar invested in water
infrastructure increases private long-term Gross Domestic Product
output by $6.35. In light of these indicators of success and documented
needs, we believe funding at the $1.3 billion level (commensurate with
the fiscal year 2010 appropriation) will better enable the DWSRF to
meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection goals for which
it was designed.
For State Drinking Water Security Programs in fiscal year 2015,
ASDWA respectfully requests $10 million.--Given the realities and the
lessons learned from recent catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy
in New York and New Jersey; tornados in central Oklahoma; wildfires and
floods in Colorado; and continuing drought in Texas--to name but a
few--State drinking water programs are working more closely than ever
with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking
water systems' preparedness, response, and resiliency capabilities.
States continue to expand their efforts to reflect a resilient, ``all
hazards'' approach to water security and to assist public water systems
of all sizes--with a particular focus on smaller water systems that
most need help.
conclusion
ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal year 2015
budget needs for States' role in the provision of safe drinking water
be adequately funded by Congress. A strong State drinking water program
supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure that the quality
of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, in fact,
will continue to improve--so that the public can be assured that a
glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live.
States are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal
financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and ever growing
regulatory, infrastructure, and security needs. In 1996, Congress
provided the authority to ensure that the burden would not go
unsupported. For fiscal year 2015, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
support be realized.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
Thank you Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski for allowing
me to submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation's 213 U.S.
accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
support for the inclusion of $10,000,000 for the Multinational Species
Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and $9.7 million for National Environmental Education Act
programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal
year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations
bill.
Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a
nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and
aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and
recreation. Accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than 182
million visitors, collectively generate more than $21 billion in annual
economic activity, and support more than 204,000 jobs across the
country. Annually, AZA-accredited institutions spend $160,000,000 on
more than 2,650 field conservation projects in 130 countries.
MSCF programs support public-private partnerships that conserve
wild tigers, elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles in their
native habitats. Through the MSCF programs, the United States
supplements the efforts of developing countries that are struggling to
balance the needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. MSCF
programs help to sustain wildlife populations, address threats such as
illegal poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential
habitat. By working with local communities, they also improve people's
livelihoods, contribute to local and regional stability, and support
U.S. security interests in impoverished regions. This Federal program
benefits AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums in their field conservation
efforts and partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I also encourage you to continue to support the valuable
environmental education initiatives at the EPA. Education programs at
AZA-accredited institutions provide essential learning opportunities,
particularly about science, for schoolchildren in formal and informal
settings. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are lagging
behind their international peers in certain subjects including science
and math. In the last 10 years, accredited zoos and aquariums formally
trained more than 400,000 teachers, supporting science curricula with
effective teaching materials and hands-on opportunities. School field
trips annually connect more than 12,000,000 students with the natural
world. Increasing access to formal and informal science education
opportunities has never been more important.
Finally, much of the important conservation work at accredited zoos
and aquariums depends on a robust and fully staffed U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. While I am aware of the budget challenges facing
Congress and the agencies, I encourage you to ensure that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has sufficient resources to employ qualified
professionals, particularly for the programs handling permits, which
support the science-based conservation breeding and wildlife education
programs that require animals to be moved in an efficient, timely
manner: International Affairs (Management Authority), Endangered
Species, Law Enforcement, and Migratory Birds.
AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential conservation and
education partners at the Federal, State, and local levels domestically
as well as internationally. To ensure that accredited zoos and
aquariums can continue to serve in these important roles, I urge you to
include $10,000,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds
operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $9.7 million for
National Environmental Education Act programs at the Environmental
Protection Agency in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
The requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) for
the fiscal year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
--Allocate at least an additional $8.5 million to the IHS to fully
fund Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases, and direct the IHS to
use its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to fully fund the VBC
leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
--Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by
moving the program to mandatory entitlement spending.
--Support reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians
at $200 million annually.
--Allocate $50 million to the IHS from the Prevention and Public
Health Fund for tribal behavioral health grants.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
--Improve the safety of Alaska Native communities by affirming tribal
jurisdiction.
The BBAHC was created in 1973 to provide healthcare services to
Alaska Natives of Southwest Alaska. BBAHC began operating and managing
the Kanakanak Hospital and the Bristol Bay Service Unit for the IHS in
1980 and was the first tribal organization to do so under the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a
co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact with the IHS under the
ISDEAA and is now responsible for providing and promoting healthcare to
the people of 34 Alaska Native villages.
Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.--For the last several
years, BBAHC has submitted testimony to this subcommittee on the need
to address chronic underfunding of VBCs in Alaska. VBCs are clinic
facilities leased by the IHS from other entities and are a vital
component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural
Alaska. VBCs serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide
Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).
The CHAP, which IHS is directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a
network of community health aides and practitioners to provide primary
healthcare services in rural and isolated areas where access to those
services might not otherwise exist.
In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding for the
program for that year. Since then, Congress has not provided amounts
specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had
discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. But even
though the 1989 appropriation was not a cap restricting IHS allocation
of funds in later years, IHS has treated it as such and has refused to
increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace
with inflation or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated
areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in
deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening
the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural
Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly
maintained VBC space.
According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska
Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million
is needed to fully fund the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate
is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need.
BBAHC therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional
$8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use
its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases in accordance
with section 804 of the IHCIA.
This subcommittee should also be aware that, having attempted
without success for many years to convince IHS to accept its
responsibilities for the VBCs as part of the mandated CHAP program,
some tribal organizations in Alaska are taking a new approach. The
Maniilaq Association recently requested that the IHS enter into a
mandatory lease under 105(l) of the ISDEAA for one of the VBCs that
Maniilaq owns. Implementing regulations require payment under the lease
to fully compensate for the costs of adequately operating and
maintaining the facilities. However, the IHS refused to enter into the
lease, and the matter is now being litigated. If Maniilaq prevails, the
case could establish legal precedent that will allow tribal contractors
in Alaska to negotiate for full funding for VBCs as part of their
funding agreements under the IHS's ISDEAA leasing authority. Though
funding should be provided in full through the VBC program directly,
the option to enter into a Sec. 105(l) lease must also be preserved as
an alternative funding mechanism.
Ensure Contract Support Costs Remain Fully Funded via Mandatory
Spending.--We are pleased that the administration is following the
subcommittee's lead, and seeks to fully fund contract support costs
(CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to
continue supporting that goal. Contract support costs fund vital
administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that provide
critical services to our members--such as dental care, urgent care in
village clinics, wide ranging community health services, and 24-hour
medical care in Kanakanak Hospital. If CSC are not fully funded,
however, our programs and services are directly impacted as we are
forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead
expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal
year 2014 and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and
beyond.
However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
remains subject to agency discretion from year to year, even though
tribes are legally entitled to full payment under the ISDEAA. Noting
these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to
consult with tribes on a permanent solution.
In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
entitlement. Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not
discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court. Yet the budget authority for CSC is currently provided and
controlled through appropriation acts--as if it were a discretionary
program. Congress recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
basis.
Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program.--While the entitlement
funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) is not part
of the IHS appropriations process, those funds are administered through
the IHS. With the recent enactment into law of a 1-year extension of
the SDPI as part of the Medicare ``doc fix'' bill (Public Law 113-93),
it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2
percent reduction ($3 million) due to the sequestration of non-exempt
mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240). This funding level has not
increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven highly effective in Indian
country, and has produced excellent results. For example, in the 4
years preceding the last report on the SDPI in 2011, the average blood
sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point overall, corresponding to
a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye, kidney, and nerve
complications due to diabetes. We ask that you support ongoing efforts
to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period at an annual funding
level of $200 million.
Increase Funding for Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention, and
Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment.--Alaska faces particular
hardships in providing for our communities' behavioral and mental
health. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for suicide
intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention,
particularly for our youth. These efforts go hand in hand, as the
problems often overlap. Alaska has twice the national rate of suicide,
and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring
hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly
six times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among all
Alaskans increased by 33 percent between 2005-2008--a period when the
national rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide
epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse, or a mental health disorder.
The overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide suffer from
diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance abuse problems.
However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 months, and
due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people,
particularly young people.
Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as
well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect.
Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the
State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of
guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly,
because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more
successful than those that don't. Included in the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion over 10 years) for a
Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress may
allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the
administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new
tribal behavioral health grant program; unfortunately Congress did not
provide that allocation. We urge that Congress allocate $50 million to
the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that it be recurring.
IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.--We support legislation
that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The
goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and
thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-
term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations
for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is
for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich.
Support Tribal Jurisdiction To Protect Alaska Communities.--We
support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe Families
and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska tribes'
jurisdiction to protect their communities by dealing locally with
domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. At the
same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in S.
1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women Act
Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal
jurisdiction over domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes
will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding
law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our
congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial
importance to Alaska Native communities.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We will be glad
to provide any additional information the subcommittee may request.
______
Prepared Statement of Jay Bushnell
April 4, 2014.
To: Hon. Jack Reed, Chair of Senate Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies
From: Dr. Jay Bushnell, immediate past president and advocacy chair,
Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges
Re: Support the 2015 $476 million proposed budget for the National
Wildlife Refuge System
I would encourage your subcommittee to develop a plan to eventually
fully fund the refuge system. The proposed budget of $476 million is a
small step in that direction. This does not represent a major increase
in funding from what has been budgeted since 2007. Yet over the last 7
years the refuge system has increased from some 500 to over 561
refuges. It has become increasing difficult, if not impossible, to
fulfill the refuge mission as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 with continued budget constraints. The
predicted cut in positions continues to plague the refuge system and
specifically hampers the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Key National Wildlife
Refuges (NWRs).
While the primary mission of the refuge system is focused on
wildlife conservation, it is also important to recognize that the
system is an economic engine. The report Banking on Nature points out
that in 2011 for every dollar invested there was a return of $4.87 to
the local communities. Over 70 percent of the revenue contributed came
from non-local visitors who were attracted to non-consumptive
activities like wildlife viewing, photography and hiking in the
refuges. The fact that the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys
NWR are having 3,000-4,000 folks visiting our Web page each month
verifies the fact that we are reaching a large non-local crowd (please
check us out at friendsofrefuges.org). Funding of the refuge system
should be considered an investment with a great rate of return.
The Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWRs have four positions that
have not been refilled, including a designated biologist we have been
without since 2006 when I first started volunteering, and now a full
time law enforcement officer. We also face the possibility of not
acquiring a critical piece of land that has been on the approved U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) acquisition list. Some 2,000 acres that
are a part of what is referred to Caber property are now on the market.
This has been considered a vital acquisition for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund portion of the proposed budget.
The Lower Suwannee NWR comprises over 52,000 acres that are split
by the historic Suwannee River for the last 20-25 miles where the river
empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Cedar Keys NWR is composed of some
727 acres on 13 islands in the Gulf of Mexico. Because of their non-
contiguous nature, both refuges face challenging management issues.
The Lower Suwannee NWR is special and unique in the following ways:
--The pristine natural condition of the refuge helps protect the
environmental health of the Suwannee River and the surrounding
area.
--The Suwannee River is home to a wide variety of plant and animal
life. The river is the most important spawning ground for the
protected gulf sturgeon. The river is also an important habitat
for the endangered manatee.
--The refuge contains a unique combination of upland hardwood,
wetland/swamp, and saltwater marsh habitats. Uniquely, one can
find both temperate and tropical types of vegetation in the
refuge.
--The refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds including
15 endangered or threatened species like the bald eagle. The
refuge is an important nesting site for the short-tailed hawks
of which there are only an estimated 200 mating pairs in the
wild. The swallowtail kite, once widespread, now is restricted
to just the southeastern portion of the United States with the
refuge being a very important nesting site.
--Combined with surrounding State parks, the refuge will become an
even more important conservation area as Florida's population
increases.
--With constructed bat houses, the refuge has successfully
established a viable bat population that serves as a model for
future bat projects.
--Many important cultural heritage sites are also to be found in the
refuge.
The Cedar Keys NWR is special and unique in the following ways:
--The 727-acre refuge composed of 13 islands is a major rookery for
pelicans and a wide variety of shore birds.
--As studied by the University of Florida's Florida Marine Center, of
particular interest is the symbiotic relationship of
cottonmouth moccasins and nesting birds on Seahorse Key. The
moccasins provide protection from predators like raccoons and
rats for the nesting birds. In return, the birds provide a
steady diet of fish for the moccasins. This is the only place
on earth that such a relationship between snakes and birds
exists.
--The Lower Suwannee Archaeological Survey of the University of
Florida has uncovered prehistorical sites dating back over
4,000 years.
--Historically, the refuge contains important historical structures
including the Seahorse Key Lighthouse designed in the 1850s by
Lieutenant George Meade, later to become General Meade of
Gettysburg fame. It is also of interest that the lighthouse
sits on a natural dune that is some 50+ feet above sea level.
This makes it one of the highest points in the Big Bend area of
Florida.
--This refuge also provides a vital barrier island system.
Presently, the most critical problem we face involves staffing.
With adequate staffing, along with operational funding, the refuge
staff, with the help of the Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar
Keys NWR, would be able to:
--Provide better monitoring of the health of the refuges' habitat;
--Consistently police the proper utilization of the resources of the
refuges and to protect the habitat and its wildlife;
--Conduct more programs for school children to learn about
conservation;
--Expand the conservation efforts across other public agencies as
well as private stakeholders to deal with common problems like
invasive species eradication and the protection of endangered
species;
--Upgrade and maintain public facilities like roads, docks,
boardwalks, observation stations and signage;
--Expand public access and use of the refuges; and
--Monitor, manage, and protect the flora and fauna in the refuges.
Thank you for considering these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Biological Diversity
Chairman Reed, Senator Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. I am Brett
Hartl, endangered species policy director at the Center for Biological
Diversity. The Center is a non-profit environmental organization
focused on the protection of native species and their habitats through
science, policy and environmental law. The Center has more than 775,000
members and online activists dedicated to the protection and
restoration of imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water
quality.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is America's strongest
environmental law. It has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the
1,500 domestic species it protects. Were it not for the Act, scientists
estimate that 227 of these plants and animals would have disappeared by
2006, and even more by 2012. The Act also has had considerable success
moving species towards recovery. A 2011 study by the Center identified
110 listed species that have seen substantial recovery with Endangered
Species Act protection, with over 90 percent of these species
recovering at the rate projected in their recovery plan.
However, not all species have approved recovery plans yet, and some
species with recovery plans continue to decline. The Service's 2010
report to Congress indicated that approximately 339 threatened and
endangered species are still declining towards extinction. As the
extinction crisis worsens due to threats including climate change, many
other once-common species, such as monarch butterflies and greater
sage-grouse, have experienced major population declines and may need to
be listed in the future.
Simply put, Federal funding has not kept up with the biological
needs of listed species in the United States. The Fish and Wildlife
Service received $170.5 million for endangered species in fiscal year
2014 to conserve approximately 1,500 protected species. By comparison,
the National Marine Fisheries Service received $176 million to conserve
approximately 180 species protected by the ESA and Marine Mammal
Protection Act. And the U.S. Agency for International Development
received $184 million for biodiversity conservation internationally.
The Center has identified three areas where funding beyond what is
proposed for the Fish and Wildlife Service in the President's 2015
budget proposal is required to address the continuing extinction crisis
in the United States: (1) listing of endangered species; (2) species
recovery funding; and (3) land acquisition for endangered species.
additional funding for listing under section 4 of the esa
Protecting a species as threatened or endangered is the keystone of
the ESA because it is only after a species is listed that it receives
meaningful protections under the Act. In fact, the length of time a
species has been protected and has had designated critical habitat
significantly increase the likelihood a species will improve. Species
designated as ``candidates'' for protection due to lack of funding, are
far more likely to become extinct. Most recently, the Tacoma pocket
gopher (Thomomys mazama tacomensis) was declared extinct in 2014. The
species was first identified as declining in 1985 and declared a
candidate for ESA protection in 2001. But its last populations winked
out while waiting for ESA protections.
Although the Service has long-struggled to list species according
to the deadlines established by the ESA, the backlog of candidate
species that warrant protection under the Act greatly increased
following the moratorium imposed on listing in 1995. Since then,
Congress has imposed a funding cap on the amount of money the Service
can spend in a year on listing. Currently, using the best-available
science, the Service has identified 146 candidate species that warrant
protection under the ESA, but for which funding is insufficient to
complete the listing process. Some of these species, such as the band-
rumped storm-petrel and Great Basin Columbia spotted frog, have awaited
protections since 1989. Many more have waited for ESA protections since
the early 1990s.
Funding for listing peaked in fiscal year 2010 at $22.1 million and
has since fallen by 10 percent. Hamstringing the Service budget does
not further the recovery of any of these candidate species. Instead,
delaying listing invariably leads to greater population declines,
making recovery harder, longer, and more costly to achieve. The facts
have demonstrated that for nearly all endangered species, the only path
to recovery has been through protection under the ESA. The more quickly
species are listed, the more quickly recovery planning and recovery
work can begin, and the faster species can be delisted as recovered.
The current average cost of completing the listing process for a
candidate species under the ESA is approximately $650,000. Raising the
budget subcap from the fiscal year 2014 level of $20 million to $30
million a year would allow the Service to completely address the
listing backlog and address all candidate species in the next 3 years.
Eliminating the backlog would not only provide an immediate
conservation benefit to these species, but would also potentially allow
the Service to more efficiently list species moving forward. Because
funding has historically been insufficient to complete the listing
process, the Service must add an additional step in the listing process
and publish a separate 12-month finding that the species is
``warranted-but-precluded''--and each of these 12-month findings costs
$100,000. Eliminating the backlog would save the Service $100,000/
species and would allow the Service to use the more-streamlined process
already employed by the Service when it delists recovered species.
funding for recovery
The purpose of the ESA is not only to save species from extinction
but also to recover them to the point that the protections provided by
the Act are no longer necessary. Recovering species under the ESA
requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to address and alleviate the
threats that caused a species to decline in the first instance,
including controlling invasive species, restoring degraded habitat,
reducing illegal poaching, reintroducing new populations, and other
forms of intensive management. All recovery actions are costly,
especially with new and growing threats such as climate change. As
shown in Figure 1, funding for recovery in inflation-adjusted dollars
has remained flat to declining.
Figure 1.--Recovery Funding Fiscal Year 1989 to Fiscal Year 2014
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
As the extinction crisis continues and more species need protection
under the ESA, the average amount of money available per species
continues to decline. In real dollars, the average amount in inflation-
adjusted dollars spent per species on recovery peaked in 1999 at
$40,915 per species and has since dropped to $30,090/species. Nearly
150 listed species receive less than $1,000 per year, or three dollars
per day, to address their recovery and almost 100 species are getting
no money at all. Many of the species that the Service has identified as
declining are those that receive little to zero funding per year.
If Congress wants to see more species recovered more quickly, then
it should restore all of the cuts to ESA recovery funding that have
occurred in the past 5 years and provide additional funding to the
Service moving forward. First, Congress should restore full funding to
the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF). In 2001,
Congress allocated $104.7 million to the CESCF and has since reduced
funding to this program by 47 percent to a level of only $50.1 million.
This program provides valuable conservation tools and funding to
States, territories and private landowners to participate in a wide
array of conservation projects for candidate and listed. Cutting this
program dis-empowers States and makes it harder for them to
meaningfully participate in the conservation and recovery of endangered
species.
Figure 2.--Average Recovery Funding/Species Fiscal Year 1989 to Fiscal
Year 2014 Species
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Second, Congress should significantly increase the amount of
funding for recovery by ensuring that each listed species receives at
least $7,500 each year in direct recovery funding. Doing so would
require Congress to provide at minimum, an additional $26 million per
year in recovery funding. This would better ensure that endangered
species that are continuing to decline receive some attention each year
from conservation professionals.
The longer a species is in crisis, the more expensive it becomes
for that species to fully recover. Failing to ensure that each species
receives a nominal amount of money for recovery makes recovery of
declining species much less likely. Increasing the overall funding for
recovery will prevent species from declining to the point where listing
is necessary and will reduce the amount of recovery work that Fish and
Wildlife will have to do down the road.
land acquisition
For listed species with finalized recovery plans, approximately 450
plans have identified land acquisitions (either through outright
purchase or the securing of easements) as priority actions that would
improve the conservation status of those listed species. For example,
the El Segundo blue butterfly population size has increased by 22,312
percent since it was protected by the ESA in 1984. However, the
butterfly's recovery plan states that until four parcels of expensive,
coastal land near the Los Angeles International Airport can be secured
through purchase or acquisition, this species probably cannot be either
downlisted to threatened or considered recovered. Simply put, land
conservation could significantly improve the recovery rate of listed
species.
Funding available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) to secure habitat for endangered species has simply not kept up
with the biological need. The Center recommends that Congress amend the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to (1) make all money that is
authorized for land acquisition each year immediately available in full
without further appropriation, and (2) that the conservation fund cap
be indexed to the amount of royalties and revenues received from oil
and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
In 1968, Congress first made revenues from OCS development part of
the conservation fund and set the annual authorization level at $200
million. At that time, OCS revenues were approximately $500 million per
year.\1\ In other words, the conservation fund was authorized to use
around 40 percent of the annual revenue stream from the OCS. In 1977,
after OCS revenues increased to $4 billion/year,\2\ Congress increased
the authorized level of the fund to $900 million. This authorization
represented approximately 22.5 percent of total OCS annual revenues.
Since 1977, the conservation fund authorization amount has remained at
$900 million while the total revenues from the OCS have continued to
rise and are now reaching levels of up to $9 billion/year. The
percentage of OCS revenues potentially going into the conservation fund
has dropped from 40 percent of annual OCS receipts in 1968, to only 6
percent in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ S. Rep. No. 90-1071, at 2618 (1968), reprinted in 1968
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2613, 2618.
\2\ S. Rep. No. 95-162, at 8 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N.
322, 328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing the conservation fund to 22.5 percent of current OCS
revenues would mean that approximately $2.025 billion would be
available each year for land acquisition. Providing this full amount
for land acquisition would allow the entire Department of Interior to
address its priority land acquisitions. While this increase is
substantial, it is important to remember that the purchasing power of
the conservation fund has diminished because the average cost of land
acquisition has risen nearly ten-fold from an average of $162 per acre
in the 1960s to $1,515 per acre in the 2000s. At current funding
levels, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that it would take 44
to 75 years to acquire the land that has already been identified as
priority acquisitions by the Service. Thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Project
On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District
(CAWCD), I encourage you to include $5.2 million for general water
quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River Basin and an
additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in the Bureau of
Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program in fiscal year
2015. This funding will help protect the water quality of the Colorado
River that is used by approximately 40 million people for municipal and
industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 4 million acres
in the United States.
CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project, a multi-purpose water
resource development and management project that delivers Colorado
River water into central and southern Arizona. The largest supplier of
renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over 1.6 million
acre-foot of Arizona's 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado River entitlement
each year to municipal and industrial users, agricultural irrigation
districts, and Indian communities.
Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and
sustainable supply of Colorado River water to a service area that
includes more than 80 percent of Arizona's population.
These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona's economy
and to the economies of Native American communities throughout the
State. Nearly 90 percent of economic activity in the State of Arizona
occurs within CAP's service area. CAP also helps the State of Arizona
meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing
groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a
supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and
maintaining these water management objectives is critical to the long-
term sustainability of a State as arid as Arizona.
negative impacts of concentrated salts
Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates
environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than
60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural
sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River Basin is
federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. Human activity,
principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado River.
Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts
in the River.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the
current quantifiable damages at about $295 million per year to U.S.
users with projections that damages would increase to more than $500
million by 2030 if the program were not to continue. These damages
include:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector; and
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water
quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid
significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and
irrigation users.
history of the blm colorado river basin salinity control program
In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of
1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River
originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control
Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of waters being
delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the
quality of the water delivered to users in the United States. This
testimony deals specific with title II efforts. In 1984, Congress
amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the
Interior develop a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM.
In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and
requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program (Public Law
106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM
efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity control
studies and to implement specific salinity control practices. With a
significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from
BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is
essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control
efforts will result in significant additional economic damages to water
users downstream.
The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United
States and Mexico. On November 20, 2012, a 5-year agreement, known as
Minute 319, was signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future
management of the Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in
Minute 319 included an agreement to maintain current salinity
management and existing salinity standards. The CAWCD and other key
water providers are committed to meeting these goals.
conclusion
Implementation of salinity control practices through BLM Program
has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling the
salinity of the Colorado River. In fact, the salt load of the Colorado
River has now been reduced by roughly 1.2 million tons annually,
reducing salinity in the Lower Basin by more than 100 ppm. However,
shortfalls in funding levels have led to inefficiencies in the
implementation of the overall Program. Therefore, additional funding is
required in 2015 to meet this goal and prevent further degradation of
the quality of the Colorado River with a commensurate increase in
downstream economic damages.
CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $5.2 million for general
water quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River Basin and
an additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in the Bureau
of Land Management's (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program. If adequate
funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salt
concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
States and Mexico.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
April 3, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Gene Shawcroft, P.E.,
Deputy General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network
The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN or the Network)
is pleased to have this opportunity to submit testimony on fiscal year
2015 appropriations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). We
seek funding levels of $9 billion for EPA and $76.2 million for ATSDR.
CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the
requested levels for the following EPA activities:
--Office of Children's Health Protection
--Children's Environmental Health & Disease Prevention Research
Centers
--Office of Research & Development
--School and Child Care Environmental Health
--The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units
CEHN also urges the restoration of the State Indoor Radon Grants
and full funding of all activities that advance healthy school and
childcare environments for all children, including those supported by
ATSDR.
The Network's mission is to protect the developing child from
environmental hazards and promote a healthier environment. The
Network's Board and committee members include internationally-respected
experts in children's environmental health science and policy. We
recognize that children, in our society, have unique moral standing.
Today's children are facing the distressing possibility that they
may be the first generation to see a shorter life expectancy than their
parents due to poor health. Key contributors to this trend are the
modern pediatric epidemics of obesity, asthma, learning disabilities,
and autism. For all of these conditions, the child's environment plays
a role in causing, contributing to or mitigating these chronic
conditions. The estimated costs of environmental disease in children
(such as lead poisoning, childhood cancer, and asthma) were $76.6
billion in 2008.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trasande, Liu Y. ``Reducing The Staggering Costs Of
Environmental Disease In Children, Estimated At $76.6 Billion In 2008,
Health Affairs. No. (2011): doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investments in programs that protect and promote children's health
will be repaid by healthier children with brighter futures. Thus it is
vital that the Federal programs and activities that protect children
from environmental hazards receive adequate resources.
As epidemiologists see increasing rates of asthma, learning
disabilities, and childhood cancers; as parents seek the causes of
birth defects; as researchers understand more and more about the fetal
origins of disease, policy makers must do a much better job of
understanding and acting on the connections between children's health
and the environments in which they spend their time.
These environments include, but go beyond, home, school, and
childcare settings. A growing number of studies are finding unexpected
impacts of prenatal environmental exposures on health in later years.
For example, prenatal exposures to either a common air pollutant or a
common pesticide have each been linked to lower IQs and poorer working
memory at age 7.
Thus, all agencies should assure that their children's programs
build on and respond to the growing evidence of the importance of
prenatal and early life exposures to a child's health and future.
environmental protection agency
A variety of factors, such as children's developing systems, their
unique behaviors, and differing exposures, mean that children can be
more susceptible than adults to harm from toxic chemicals. Standards
and guidelines that are based on adults cannot be assumed to be
protective of children. The EPA programs of highest importance in the
protection of children are described below.
EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP).--OCHP has been
leading EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental hazards
since 1997. Despite an effective track record, funding for OCHP has
been level, at approximately $6 million, since its creation. OCHP
focuses on interagency work that promotes healthy housing and healthy
children. These areas show that environmental interventions result in
great cost savings, not to mention the health problems averted, such as
asthma episodes and lead poisoning cases. There is great interest but
few resources for these approaches. We urge increased funding for this
vital office.
Children's Environmental Health & Disease Prevention Research
Centers.--These Centers, jointly funded by EPA and NIEHS, play a key
role in providing the scientific basis for protecting children from
environmental hazards. With their modest budgets, which have been
unchanged for more than 10 years, these centers generate valuable
research. It was these centers, for example, that generated the
findings mentioned earlier about connections between prenatal exposures
and lower IQ at age 7.
Several Centers have established longitudinal cohorts, which in
some cases are more than 10 years old. The ability to look for linkages
between exposures and health outcomes in infants, toddlers, and, now,
adolescents, is vital. If these cohorts are disbanded due to funding
cuts, at best it will take years and untold resources before it is
possible to replicate them. Few if any longitudinal cohort studies on
adolescents, puberty and environmental exposures exist. The Network is
concerned that inadequate funding may result in the loss of these
valuable cohorts. We urge the subcommittee to support these centers at
$33 million in fiscal year 2015.
Office of Research & Development (ORD).--This office is critical in
efforts to understand environmental impacts on children's health. EPA
has pledged to increase its efforts to provide a safe and healthy
environment for children by ensuring that all EPA regulations,
standards, policies, and risk assessments take into account childhood
vulnerabilities to environmental chemicals. We encourage additional
funds for research on children's issues in fiscal year 2015. We ask
that your subcommittee direct the office to improve transparency by
tracking and reporting on the funding and research across the office
dedicated to children's environmental health.
Children's environmental health is an issue that cuts across all of
ORD's programs. For example, EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory scientists are protecting children's health
through the development of cost-effective methods to test and rank
chemicals for their potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity. To
date, only a small number of the thousands of chemicals currently in
commerce have been assessed for their potential toxicity and for their
effects on the child's developing nervous system. These new testing
methods can screen in hours to days instead of months to years and will
provide faster, less expensive ways of assessing potential toxicity.
These new testing methods, however, do not replace the need for
continued research in childhood exposures and health effects. Much of
the research in this field cannot be conducted in a short timeframe and
requires sustained funding if scientists are to conduct research and
measure effectiveness.
State Radon Grants.--Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in
non-smokers, and the EPA reports that it is one of the most serious
public health problems in the United States, responsible for up to
21,000 lung cancer deaths annually. While we applaud the Agency's
continued work on indoor air quality, asthma, and its plans to
``continue to lead on radon activities,'' we are not convinced that the
way to do so is to eliminate the State Indoor Radon Grants. We urge you
to restore this program.
School and Child Care Environmental Health.--In America today,
millions of children, often as young as 6 weeks, spend 40-50 hours a
week in childcare. Yet, little is known about the environmental health
status of the Nation's childcare centers or how to assure that these
facilities are protecting this highly vulnerable group of children.
Environmental health is rarely if ever considered in licensing
regulations or in training childcare professionals. Similarly, about 54
million children and nearly 7 million adults --20 percent of the total
U.S. population--spend up to 40 hours per week inside school facilities
every week. Unfortunately, many of these facilities contain unsafe
environmental conditions that harm children's health and undermine
attendance, achievement, and productivity. Thus, it is vital that EPA
maintain and expand its activities for healthy school and child care
settings, such as the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools program.
Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.--Pediatric
Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs) form a valuable resource
network for parents and clinicians around the Nation. They are funded
jointly by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
and the EPA with a very modest budget. PEHSU professionals provide
medical consultation to healthcare professionals from individual cases
of exposure to advice regarding large-scale community issues. PEHSUs
also provide information and resources to school, child care, health
and medical, and community groups and help inform policymakers by
providing data and background on local or regional environmental health
issues and implications for specific populations or areas. We urge the
subcommittee to provide adequate funding for both EPA's and ATSDR's
portions of this program.
atsdr
CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the
requested levels for ATSDR activities. ATSDR uses the best science in
taking public health actions, such as site assessments and
toxicological profiles, to prevent harmful exposures and diseases of
communities and individuals related to toxic substances.
ATSDR understands that in communities faced with contamination of
their water, soil, air, or food, infants and children can be more
sensitive to environmental exposure than adults and that assessment,
prevention, and efforts to find remedies for exposures must focus on
children because of their vulnerability and importance to the Nation's
future. We support the full funding of ATSDR and the continuation of
their varied responsibilities.
children's health and healthy children must be on-going priorities for
this and every administration
We have seen much progress in recognizing the impact of
environmental toxicants on children's health. Much more remains to be
done, however. The Network urges the subcommittee to direct both
agencies to assure that all of their activities and programs--including
regulations, guidelines, assessments and research--specifically
consider children.
EPA and ATSDR must always assure that children and other vulnerable
subpopulations are protected, especially poor children, minority
children, farmworker children, and others at risk.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on these critical
issues, and thank you for your concern about the environmental health
of children.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2015
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations for the
Indian Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). On
behalf of Chief Gary Batton, I submit this testimony which identifies
the funding priorities and budget issues important to the citizens of
Choctaw. We request that the subcommittee work with tribes and not
allow tribal programs in the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian
Affairs, as well as throughout the entire Federal Government, to incur
further sequestration budget decreases and across the board rescissions
that are not imposed on other beneficiaries of the Federal budget.
We recommend the following:
Indian Health Service
1. Joint Venture Program--Increase President's Request to $170
million.
2. Special Diabetes Program for Indians--Reauthorize for 5 years
at $200 million/year.
3. Restore Funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance--$6
million.
Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs
1. Contract Support Costs--Full Funding with an Annual Special
Appropriation.
2. Restore Sequestered Funds and Exempt Tribes from Future
Sequestration.
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American
tribal government in the United States, with over 208,000 members. The
Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in
southeast Oklahoma, and we are proudly one of the State's largest
employers. The nation operates numerous programs and services under
Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not
limited to: a sophisticated health system serving over 33,000 patients
with a hospital in Talihina, Oklahoma, eight outpatient clinics,
referred specialty care and sanitation facilities construction; higher
education; Johnson O'Malley program; housing improvement; child welfare
and social services; law enforcement; and many others.
joint venture program--increase president's request to $170 million
The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) allows IHS to enter
into agreements with tribes that construct their own health facilities.
The funding for the construction of the health facility comes from the
tribe using their resources, financing or other funding sources with
the exception of the IHS healthcare facility construction
appropriations. Tribes apply for the JVCP during a competitive process
and projects that are approved enter into agreements with IHS. Upon
projected completion of construction by the respective tribe, the IHS
agrees to request congressional appropriations for additional staffing
and operations based on the tribes' projected dates of completion,
fully executed beneficial occupancy and opening.
The President's proposed level of $85 million will not support the
intent of the JVCP and should be increased to $170 million at a
minimum. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2012, 17 joint
venture project agreements signed by IHS and tribes were initiated and
9 have been completed. The interest of tribes to assume the cost and
build or repair the facilities represents the viability of the JVCP and
the future of healthcare access and delivery of services in American
Indian and Alaska Native rural and remote communities.
Another key element to a successful JVCP partnership is full
payment of contract support costs. Without reimbursement of contract
support cost, offsetting program reductions must be made and services
are reduced. Upon entering an agreement the IHS should include staffing
and contract support costs in the IHS annual appropriations requests to
ensure that the facility can open and begin operations as planned.
special diabetes program for indians--support 5 year reauthorization at
$200 million/year
The Choctaw Nation would like to thank the U.S. House of
Representatives for passing H.R. 4302, Protecting Access to Medicare
Act, which includes the extension of the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians (SDPI) through 2015 at the current level of $150 million.
Although we requested that Congress reauthorize the program for 5 years
and increase the funding to $200 million a year, we are grateful that
you sustained the program which allows us an opportunity to continue
our advocacy for an extended reauthorization period.
Since the program was initially authorized in 1997 there has been
tremendous improvement in the status of diabetes, as well as building a
desperately needed infrastructure for diabetes throughout American
Indian and Alaska Native communities. SDPI funding is not part of the
IHS appropriations process, but the funds are administered through IHS.
The success can be attributed to nearly 400 Indian Health Service,
Tribal and Urban (I/T/U) Indian health programs who have assisted in
developing innovative and culturally appropriate strategies, vital
resources and tools to prevent and treat diabetes.
Congressional funding remains the critical factor in the battle
against diabetes and we request that you urge your colleagues to extend
the reauthorization to 5 years and increase funding to $200 million for
the SDPI program.
restore funding to the office of tribal self-governance (otsg)--$6
million
In 2003 Congress reduced funding for OTSG by $4.5 million in
addition to congressional rescissions in 2005 and 2006 to total more
than a 50 percent cut. In the recent Murray/Ryan spending plan OTSG was
cut another $1 million. Self-Governance was permanently authorized in
the IHS under Public Law 106-260; Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of
2000 which increased the responsibilities of the OTSG, yet with the
reduction in funding it is not able to fulfill the legal requirements
under the law. In addition, there are now 341 tribes and 84 compacts
and 109 funding agreements in Self-Governance and OTSG distributes
approximately $980 million to Self-Governance tribes. We request that
you restore the $6 million cut to OTSG to fulfill legal requirements
under title V of Public Law 106-260.
contract support costs--full funding with an annual special
appropriation
Full funding of contract support cost in the fiscal year 2014 and
fiscal year 2015 budgets is timely and appreciated. However, funding
for tribal programs is seriously impacted. Although our requests to
honor the contracts and the compacts and pay full contract support
costs have been fulfilled, it has come at a price that is
insurmountable and detrimental to past, present and future tribal
program funding. And, even though CSC claims are paid from the Judgment
Fund, the day-to-day cost of tribes doing business with the Federal
Government has forever compromised how tribal governments operate and
provide essential services to our citizens.
The Choctaw Nation is requesting that contract support costs be an
annual special appropriation that is not tied to the ``Operations of
Indian Programs'' account or the Indian Health Service funding. While
it is true that contract support costs is based on the programs,
services, functions and activities tribes include in the contracts or
compacts with the agencies, most of these funding agreements are multi-
year and the levels can be computed beforehand for inclusion in an
appropriations measure separate from the larger appropriations bill.
This will allow the agencies to more accurately capture the contract
support costs and provide Congress with approximate amount for a
special appropriation. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this in
further detail with members of this subcommittee.
restore sequestered funds and exempt tribal funding from future
sequestration
Tribes have borne an unfair share of the budget deficit. The
Choctaw Nation request that tribal programs be exempt from future
sequestration considering that we have already contributed to the
deficit at a rate that is not commensurate with other stakeholders. The
percentage of the entire United States' budget that is going to Indian
Country is only 0.07 percent. That is a third less than what the
percentage was in 1995. Yet we incurred a cut of $220 million in the
Indian Health Service and $119 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Operations of Indian Programs Account--both under the 2013
sequestration. It is not realistic to expect tribes to continue to
absorb the debt of this Nation and ignore the Trust obligation and
Trust relationship between our governments. We are in fiscally tough
times and our requests, as well as your responses, are tough choices
and decisions that we will all have to live with.
In 2013, the Choctaw Nation testified and shared our concern about
the impending sequestration. When Congress approved legislation for the
budget cuts, they specifically exempted many programs that benefit low-
income Americans, including Medicaid, tax credits for working families
and food stamps. However, basically none of the tribal programs funding
in the Departments of Interior, Education, Health and Human Services or
Agriculture were exempt.
This issue was further exacerbated when the agencies consulted with
the tribes on the fiscal year 2014 Spending Plans as a means of
``damage control'' and to soften the impact of the sequestration. It
was our understanding that the Murray/Ryan budget deal was an attempt
to lessen the blow of the sequestration cuts but such is not the case.
Our requests to assist in the development of the Spending Plans, or at
a minimum to review them prior to submission, was not an option and we
were once again left outside of the process, the decisionmaking and
impacted by the outcome.
In general, all tribal programs, not just the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Services (IHS) budgets should be exempt
from any budget recessions and discretionary funding budget reductions.
We remain extremely concerned about the consequences of sequestration
and strongly urge Congress to fully restore sequestration cuts from
fiscal year 2013. This action threatens the trust responsibility and
reduces portions of the budget that are not major contributors to the
deficit.
Thank you for considering the requests of the Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choose Clean Water Coalition
March 28, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: As members of the
Choose Clean Water Coalition, we are requesting continued support for
programs that are essential to maintaining and restoring clean water to
the rivers and streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region, and to the
Bay itself. At least 11 million people in this region get their
drinking water directly from the rivers and streams that flow through
the cities, towns and farms throughout our region. The quality of this
water is critical to both human health and to the regional economy.
The efforts to clean the Chesapeake began under President Reagan in
1983. In his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said,
``Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative
challenge, it's common sense.''
To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and
restore Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we
request funding for the following programs in fiscal year 2015:
u.s. environmental protection agency
Chesapeake Bay Program--$73.1 million
We support the President's 2015 budget request of $73.1 million for
the base budget of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which coordinates
Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration and protection efforts. The
majority of the program's funds are passed through to the States and
local communities for on-the-ground restoration work through programs
such as the Small Watershed Grants, Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
Reduction Grants, State Implementation Grants, and the Chesapeake Bay
Regulatory and Accountability Program grants. Last year $29.5 million
of this went exclusively to the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and
the District of Columbia to achieve water quality restoration goals.
In particular, we urge you to increase funding for both the
Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants (SWG) Program and the Innovative
Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants to $6 million each--a modest
increase over fiscal year 2014. These are two well-run, competitive
grants programs that have contributed significantly to water quality
improvements throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are the Bay
Program's only grants that go to restoration efforts by local
governments and communities, not just the States. In the fiscal year
2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress directed EPA to increase
funding for the SWG, which goes specifically to local communities for
restoration work.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)--$1.44887 billion
This program is critical to the 1,779 local governments throughout
the Chesapeake region. The funding level has eroded over the years as
the clean water needs of local communities have increased dramatically,
but Congress has stabilized this important program for the past 3 years
and we urge you to do so again in fiscal year 2015. These low interest
loans are critical for clean water and for ratepayers in the Chesapeake
region and nationwide. We urge you to support the same funding level as
fiscal year 2014 that provided $327 million in low interest loans to
local governments in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. This SRF
allocates money to the States based on a set formula, which is then
used for low interest loans to local governments for critical capital
construction improvement projects to reduce nutrient and sediment
pollution from wastewater treatment and stormwater facilities; nonpoint
sources of pollution, such as farms and development; and other sources.
The SRF enables local governments in the Chesapeake watershed to take
actions to protect their local waters to meet Clean Water Act
requirements. As the list of clean water infrastructure needs in the
Chesapeake region continues to expand we request that the Clean Water
SRF not be cut in 2015.
department of the interior
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Chesapeake Bay Studies--$9.557 million
We support the President's 2015 budget request of $9.557 million
for the U.S. Geological Survey for the science that undergirds the
restoration and protection efforts in the Chesapeake Bay region. This
funding supports restoration of fish and wildlife and their habitats;
and to assess and explain water-quality changes. There are four key
focus areas for the USGS Chesapeake work in 2015: (1) restoring brook
trout and their habitats in headwater areas of the Chesapeake
watershed; (2) identifying the endocrine-disrupting compounds and other
contaminants that threaten fisheries and wildlife in the Chesapeake
watershed; (3) furthering understanding of the effects of development
and sea-level rise on coastal wetlands important for waterfowl; and (4)
monitoring and explaining changes to water quality. The efforts of USGS
are critical to preserving and restoring healthy fish and wildlife
resources to the Chesapeake region.
National Park Service--Chesapeake Regional Programs--$2.991 million
The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of
small, but very important programs that focus on increasing public
access and the use of ecological, cultural and historic resources of
the Chesapeake region. Expanding access and public awareness fosters
stewardship and protection efforts.
The key programs in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request
that we support are: Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($1,999,000);
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($368,000); Star
Spangled Banner National Historic Trail ($148,000); and, support for
coordinating these programs through the National Park Service
Chesapeake Bay Office ($476,000).
National Park Service--Land Protection in Maryland, Pennsylvania &
Virginia through the Land and Water Conservation Fund--$9.832
million
We support the President's 2015 budget that calls for the strategic
use of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect and
preserve key assets in the National Park System at Gettysburg National
Military Park ($376,000) and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail
($500,000) in Pennsylvania; Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County
Battlefields National Military Park ($1.519 million) and the Captain
John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($6.0 million) in
Virginia; and Piscataway Park ($1.437 million) in Maryland. In addition
to enhancing public access and education and preserving key historic
and heritage sites, these acquisitions, including the battlefield and
military parks and the national scenic trail, will protect key
freshwater and tidal habitat areas critical to an array of fish and
wildlife species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Land Protection in Virginia through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund--$5.56 million
The President's 2015 budget calls for two targeted additions to the
Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. We support the
expansion of the Refuge for both public access and wildlife habitat
protection.
Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests
to maintain funding for these programs which are critical to clean
water throughout the mid-Atlantic region.
Sincerely,
1000 Friends of Maryland; American Rivers;
Anacostia Watershed Society; Audubon
Naturalist Society; Blue Water Baltimore;
Chapman Forest Foundation; Citizens for
Pennsylvania's Future; Clean Water Action;
Conservation Pennsylvania; Delaware Nature
Society; Elk Creeks Watershed Association;
Friends of Dyke Marsh; Friends of Frederick
County; Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek;
Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah
River; Friends of the Rappahannock; Friends
of the Rivers of Virginia; Interfaith
Partners for the Chesapeake; James River
Association; Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy;
Maryland Academy of Sciences at the
Maryland Science Center; Maryland
Conservation Council; Maryland League of
Conservation Voters; Mattawoman Watershed
Society; and
National Parks Conservation Association; National
Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources
Defense Council; Nature Abounds; New York
State Council Trout Unlimited; Pennsylvania
Council of Churches; Pennsylvania Council
of Trout Unlimited; Piedmont Environmental
Council; Potomac Conservancy; Rivanna
Conservation Society; Rock Creek
Conservancy; Sassafras River Association;
Savage River Watershed Association;
Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Shenandoah Valley
Network; Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna;
St. Mary's River Watershed Association;
Trout Unlimited; Trout Unlimited Mid-
Atlantic Council Upper Susquehanna
Coalition; Virginia Conservation Network;
Virginia League of Conservation Voters;
Waterkeepers Chesapeake; West Virginia
Rivers Coalition.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Aurora
April 5, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Marshall P. Brown,
Director, Aurora Water.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Farmington
April 7, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Robert Campbell,
Assistant City Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War Trust
May 21, 2014.
To the Chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Civil War Trust. I
write today to respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fund the
Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized amount of
$10 million.
The Civil War Trust is a national nonprofit organization dedicated
to preserving America's remaining Civil War battlefields. Thanks to the
generosity of our 200,000 members and supporters, the Civil War Trust
has protected more than 38,500 acres of hallowed ground in 20 States.
The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program is an authorized
competitive matching grants program that requires a 1 to 1 Federal/non-
Federal match, although on most occasions the Federal dollars are
leveraged much more than 1 to 1. The program promotes cooperative
partnerships between State and local governments and the private sector
to protect high priority Civil War battlegrounds outside National Park
Service boundaries.
battlefield lands are our shared american heritage
Civil War battlefield lands are an irreplaceable part of our shared
national heritage. When preserved, battlefields serve as outdoor
classrooms to educate current and future generations about this
defining moment in America's history. They are living monuments, not
just to the men in blue and gray who fought there, but to all who have
proudly worn our Nation's uniform. Preserved battlefields are also
economic drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are
extremely important to State and local economies. When these hallowed
grounds are lost, they are lost forever.
This hearing is especially timely because of the ongoing
sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, in which millions are
learning about our Nation's unique history by visiting Civil War
battlefields and historic sites throughout the country.
origins of the program
In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
(CWSAC), a blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians and
preservationists, to examine the status of America's Civil War
battlefields. Three years later, the Commission released a report
identifying the most important Civil War battlegrounds, prioritizing
them according to preservation status and historic significance. In
addition, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish a
Federal matching grantd program to encourage the private sector to
invest in battlefield preservation. The Commission's proposal for a
Federal matching grants program was the genesis of the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program.
Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, the grants
have been used to protect 22,000 acres of hallowed ground in 16 States.
Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this program are:
Antietam, Maryland; Bentonville, North Carolina; Champion Hill,
Mississippi; Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Mill Springs,
Kentucky; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; and Wilson's Creek, Missouri. It is
important to note that grants are awarded for acquisition of lands from
willing sellers only; there is--and never has been--any eminent domain
authority.
urgent need for funding
The Civil War Trust wishes to thank the subcommittee for its
previous support for this valuable program. We recognize that these are
difficult economic times and appreciate the constraints on this
subcommittee.
We also want to emphasize that the clock is ticking on the
remaining battlefields of the Civil War. The Civil War Trust estimates
that, in the next decade, most unprotect battlefield land will be
either developed or preserved. Full funding for the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized level of $10 million
a year will enable nonprofit groups like the Trust to protect as many
key battlefield lands as possible in the limited time remaining. The
ongoing 150th anniversary commemoration of the Civil War is the most
opportune time to provide robust funding for the Civil War Battlefield
Preservation Program.
conclusion
The Civil War was a defining moment in our country's history. For 4
long years, North and South clashed in hundreds of battles that
reunited our Nation and sounded the death knell for slavery. More than
625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians perished as a result of the war.
Preserved battlefields help insure that the sacrifices of that
turbulent period of our Nation's history are never forgotten.
I sincerely hope the subcommittee will consider our request to
provide funding for the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at
its authorized level of $10 million. We look forward to working closely
with you as we continue our important work to preserve our sacred Civil
War battlefields. Thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony to the subcommittee.
O. James Lighthizer,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition Against Forest Pests
The Coalition Against Forest Pests is asking the Subcommittee on
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies to appropriate a total of
$111 million for the Forest Health Management programs (combining the
Federal and cooperative lands programs); and $303 million for Forest
and Rangeland Research programs.
Our Coalition of non-profit organizations, for-profit corporations,
landowners, State agencies and academic scholars seeks to improve our
Nation's efforts to address the critical threat posed to our forests by
non-native and native pests.
Our Nation's forests and trees provide numerous benefits in both
rural and urban areas. They sustain the health of our environment and
our economy by providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat,
enhanced property values, renewable energy sources, and carbon
sequestration. Healthy forests support numerous jobs; for example, the
U.S. forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 people in all 50
States. Visitors to National Forest System lands generate more than $13
billion of recreation and other related economic activity. One million
tourists view fall foliage displays, generating $1 billion in revenue
in New England annually.
Forests' ability to continue providing these benefits is threatened
by damaging invasive species that are arriving and spreading at an
increasing rate. At least 28 new tree-killing pests have been detected
over the last decade. Some cause enormous damage. For instance,
thousand cankers disease threatens black walnut trees; walnut growing
stock is valued at $539 billion.
Already, municipal governments across the country are spending more
than $2 billion each year to remove trees on city property killed by
non-native pests. Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion to
remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an
additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values.
The Forest Health Management programs (FHM) manage forest health
through direct action on the National forests and through assistance to
other Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies and private
landowners. The total allocated by FHM to non-native forest pests has
fallen 15 percent since fiscal year 2011, with concomitant cuts for
management of several pests: 90 percent for emerald ash borer; 46
percent each for Asian longhorned beetle and hemlock woolly adelgid. We
appreciate the near doubling of the account addressing three pests:
goldspotted oak borer, thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt.
Still, the additional funds fall short of the level appropriate given
the economic and ecological importance of the walnut, oak, and redbay
trees at risk and the expectation that laurel wilt will nearly
eradicate redbay just 25 years after the disease's discovery.
In fiscal year 2013, the FHM Program combated pests on over 285,000
acres of Federal lands and over 444,000 acres of Cooperative lands.
Funding cuts meant 321,000 fewer acres were treated on Cooperative
lands in fiscal year 2013 than in fiscal year 2011. The President's
budget projects an increase in acres treated in fiscal year 2015,
although it is unclear how this will be accomplished.
Our awareness of the need to restore these programs and address
additional pests such as western bark beetles, southern pine beetle,
gypsy moth, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-cedar root disease,
oak wilt, and polyphagous shot hole borer underlies our request for an
appropriation of $111 million--the fiscal year 2012 level.
The USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the
scientific foundation for developing effective tools to detect and
manage forest pests and the pathways by which they are introduced and
spread. Due to budget cuts in earlier years, this program has lost 71
percent of entomologists and pathologists on staff in 1985. These
scientists' expertise is needed now more than ever due to the ever-
growing number of non-native pests. Since 1985, more than 40 new forest
pests have been detected in the U.S., including the Asian longhorned
beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, thousand
cankers disease, goldspotted oak borer, and polyphagous shot hole
borer. New pathways of introduction and spread have required analysis,
e.g., wood packaging and firewood. Yet, the President's budget request
for these programs would make a further cut of 6 percent, thereby
jeopardizing vitally important research on these pests and pathways as
well as hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, and newly
detected invaders. Already, recent cuts have forced significant
reductions in several programs:
--The Asian longhorned beetle kills many hardwood trees, especially
the maples and birches making up much of the forest reaching
from Maine to Minnesota and urban trees worth an estimated $600
billion. Due to the difficulty in detecting this beetle, large
but previously unsuspected outbreaks have been detected in
2008, 2010, and 2013. Yet funding for research on this species
has been cut by 66 percent since fiscal year 2011.
--The emerald ash borer occupies more than 171,000 square miles in 22
States. More than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States
and additional trees in the South might be protected if better
detection and control methods were available. Despite the
desperate need for better tools, including breeding of trees
resistant to the beetle, funding for research on this species
has been cut by 9 percent since fiscal year 2011.
--Sudden oak death affects 143 different plant species and continues
to spread in 15 California counties as well as Curry County,
Oregon. In 2012 and 2013, sudden oak death killed nearly
700,000 trees in California. Many types of trees and shrubs in
the East are vulnerable to the pathogen. Yet funding for
research on this species has been cut by 87 percent since
fiscal year 2011.
We applaud the significant increase in funding for research on the
goldspotted oak borer and thousand cankers disease. The goldspotted oak
borer has killed up to 80,000 California live oak and black oak trees
in San Diego and Riverside Counties in less than 15 years and threatens
oaks throughout California.
In a time when America's forests and trees face significant threats
regarding their present and long-term health, USFS must be provided
with adequate funds to support these key programs.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important
request.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Community Trees (ACTrees); American
Forest Foundation; American Forests;
California Forest Pest Council; Davey Tree
Expert Company; National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture; National
Association of State Foresters; National
Wild Turkey Federation; National Woodland
Owners Association; Society of American
Florists; Society of American Foresters;
The Nature Conservancy; and Vermont
Woodlands Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
May 6, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies
Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate
approximately 4 million acres in the United States. Natural and man-
induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and
economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has
estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $376 million per
year. Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by
continued development and use of the waters of the Colorado River.
Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
rise to approximately $577 million by the year 2030 without
continuation of the Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the
Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its
Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM's efforts are an essential part of the
overall effort. A funding level of $5.2 million for general water
quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River Basin and an
additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2015 is
requested to prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado
River and increased downstream economic damages.
EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of
the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land
within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is
administered by BLM. In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the
Colorado River originate from federally owned lands. Title I of the
Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of
waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with
improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United
States. This testimony deals specifically with title II efforts. In
1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and directed that the
Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for
minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands
administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the
Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's program
(Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to
increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin and to pursue salinity
control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices.
With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River
coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall
program is essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM
salinity control efforts will result in significant additional economic
damages to water users downstream.
Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately
$376 million in quantified damages and significantly more in
unquantified damages in the United States and results in poor water
quality for United States users. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
sector;
--increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine
disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector;
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector; and
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In
so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these
standards. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in
keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate funds are
not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salinity
concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United
States and Mexico.
In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
BLM has proven to be a cost effective method of controlling the
salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential component to the
overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of
adequate funding levels for salinity control within the Soil, Water and
Air Program will assist in preventing the water quality of the Colorado
River from further degradation and significant increases in economic
damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users. A modest
investment in source control pays huge dividends in improved drinking
water quality to nearly 40 million Americans.
Don A. Barnett,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River District--Colorado River Water
Conservation District
April 2, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Eric Kuhn,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado Springs Utilities
April 14, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Brett W. Gracely.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year
2015 budget. We have specifically identified the following funding
needs and one request for review:
--$7.7 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under Rights
Protection Implementation, ($3.1 million above the request), to
meet the base program funding needs of the Commission and the
fisheries programs of our member tribes;
--$4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, ($500k above
the request), to implement obligations under the recent
agreements adopted by the U.S. and Canada;
--$500 thousand for Youth Program Initiatives (supports the request);
--$352.5 million for Public Safety and Justice, of which $716,00
supports enforcement of Federal laws at In-Lieu and Treaty
Fishing Access Sites on the Columbia River;
--$3.1 million in Rights Protection Implementation and $10 million
for Cooperative Landscape Conservation to assist tribes in
climate change adaptation and planning; and
--$1.25 million to the Office of the Secretary of Interior's
Leadership and Administration Activity for Federal/Tribal
collaborative analytical work and consultations during domestic
reconsideration of the Columbia River Treaty.
history and background
CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River Treaty
tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce
Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these
tribes in regional, national and international efforts to protect and
restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it
depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-third of
the entire Columbia River Basin in the United States, an area the size
of the State of Georgia.
In 1855, the U.S. entered into treaties with the four tribes \1\
whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the United
States. In return, the United States pledged to honor our ancestral
rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a perilous history
brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction with 12 salmon
and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CRITFC tribes are leaders in fisheries restoration and
management working in collaboration with State, Federal and private
entities. We are principals in the region's efforts to halt the decline
of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild them to levels
that support ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. To
achieve these objectives, our actions emphasize ``gravel-to-gravel''
management including supplementation of natural stocks, healthy
watersheds and collaborative efforts.
The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. Our programs are
integrated as much as possible with State and Federal salmon management
and restoration efforts.
columbia river fisheries management within rights protection
implementation
We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell
us so. But along with success, management issues increase the
complexity, requiring greater data collection and more enforcement
burden. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement of tribal self-
determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery effort,
protecting non-listed species, conservation enforcement and treaty
fishing access site maintenance. We request an increase of $3.1million
over fiscal year 2014 for a new program base of $7.7 million for
Columbia River Fisheries Management.
The BIA's Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base
funding that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the
four member tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do
not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux
funding. The increase will be directed to support the core functions of
the fisheries management programs of the Commission's member tribes,
namely enforcement and harvest monitoring.
In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes struck three landmark
agreements: (1) the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action
agencies overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin,\2\
(2) a 10-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal and State
parties under U.S. v. Oregon, and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the
Pacific Salmon Treaty.\3\ These agreements establish regional and
international commitments on harvest and fish production efforts,
commitments to critical investments in habitat restoration, and
resolving contentious issues by seeking balance of the many demands
within the Columbia River basin. While through these agreements the
tribes have committed to substantial on-the-ground projects with some
additional resources from the Bonneville Power Administration, the
overall management responsibilities of the tribal programs have grown
exponentially without commensurate increases in BIA base funding
capacity. For example, the tribes' leadership in addressing Pacific
Lamprey declines is this species' best hope for survival and recovery.
The tribes' are also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as
fish losses associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
signatory.
\3\ See ``Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
text/wana_109.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
programs is crucial to the tribes' and CRITFC's ability to successfully
carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by
providing sound technical, scientific and policy products to diverse
legal, public and private forums.
u.s./canada pacific salmon treaty under rights protection
implementation
The U.S. and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985
to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum production,
and control salmon interceptions. The treaty established the Pacific
Salmon Commission (PSC) as a forum to collaborate on intermingled
salmon stocks. The U.S. Section of the PSC annually develops a
coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs to ensure
cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in 2000 in
order to implement the 1999 Agreement, but funding has significantly
eroded since then. In 2008, the U.S. and Canada adopted a new long term
treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of negotiations. Both parties
agreed to significant new management research and monitoring activities
to ensure the conservation and rebuilding of the shared salmon
resource.
For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S.
Section has identified a program need of $4,800,000 for participating
tribes. These funds provide for direct tribal participation with the
Commission, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the
tribes to assist in treaty implementation and facilitates management
protecting trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource
assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required treaty
implementation activities. The fiscal year 2015 recommended level for
this program is an increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2014
enacted level. Our request correlates to the U.S. Section's
recommendation.
youth program initiatives
The Columbia River Treaty tribes place an emphasis on preparing our
youth for careers in Natural Resources Management. However, our tribes,
like tribes nationwide, struggle to overcome barriers to Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics achievement, high drop-out
rates, and low percentages of students pursuing natural resources
majors. Our Place-Based Workforce Development Initiative seeks to
address these barriers through a blend of technical assistance, inter
and externship opportunities and a summer Salmon Camp.
public safety and justice, criminal investigations and police services
Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and our
tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the
cornerstone of public safety in the popular and heavily used Columbia
Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its
shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we are the primary
provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed
pursuant to Public Law 87-14 and Public Law 100-581 for use by treaty
fishers. CRITFC's officers have obtained BIA Special Law Enforcement
Commissions to aid our efforts protecting and serving tribal members
and Federal trust properties along the Columbia River. We are also very
pleased that the BIA has created Office of Justice Services (OJS)
District 8 and housed it in Portland. CRITFC entered into a Public Law
93-638 contract with BIA in February 2011 for enforcement services
along the Columbia River. That contract currently provides funding for
two enforcement positions.
It's important that CRITFC build its enforcement capacity above the
level of the two officers currently funded by the BIA Office of Justice
Services. Our immediate priority is to add two officers. Funding for
two additional officers would cost $313,560 plus indirect. Full funding
for this project would be a total budget of $716,053 plus indirect
which would support four officers, a sergeant and a dispatcher.
cooperative landscape conservation
The Treaty Right is feeling the effects of Climate Change. Shifts
are occurring in salmon run timing, and berry and root ripening cycles.
We support the President's request of $10 million to implement the
Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Change Policy for Indian
Tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Specifically, these funds
support the BIA Tribal Climate Change Program which will integrate
climate change adaptation strategies into its policies and planning for
support for the tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The BIA
needs these resources to support active engagement of tribes, Alaska
Natives and Native Hawaiians in the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
and the Climate Science Centers and to ensure adequate Government-to-
Government consultation on all issues with climate effects.
columbia river treaty modernization
The Columbia Basin tribes are a coalition of 15 tribes whose
rights, as well as management authorities and responsibilities, are
substantially affected by the implementation of the Columbia River
Treaty. In order for treaty modernization to succeed, the Columbia
Basin tribes need to continue to coordinate internally and with other
regional and national entities, as well as continue their analytical
evaluation of the treaty including the impacts of climate change, while
the State Department evaluates the Regional Recommendation and
completes their national interests review.
a request for review of salmon mass-marking programs
CRITFC endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among
tribal, Federal and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build
hatchery programs using the best available science and supported by
adequate, efficient budgets. A congressional requirement, delivered
through prior appropriations language, to visibly mark all salmon
produced in federally funded hatcheries should be reconsidered. We have
requested that Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated
funding, be reviewed for compatibility with our overall objective of
ESA delisting and with prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. v. Oregon,
Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.\4\ Salmon
managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-case decisions
whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate percentages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission to U.S. House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf,
Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported
by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our
activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S.
obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
require on the Department of Interior's BIA budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the National Volunteer
Fire Council
Hon. Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Shelby, Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Reed and
Ranking Member Murkowski: Our organizations request that you include a
minimum of $16 million in funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance
(VFA) grant program in fiscal year 2015 appropriations. VFA provides
matching funds to volunteer fire departments protecting communities
with 10,000 or fewer residents to purchase equipment and training for
wildland fire suppression.
According to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget justification
for the U.S. Forest Service, volunteer fire departments provide nearly
80 percent of initial attack on wildland fires in the United States.
Unfortunately, these departments frequently lack the financial
resources to adequately equip and train their firefighters to engage in
wildland fire suppression. For example, the Third Needs Assessment of
the U.S. Fire Service report published in 2011 by the National Fire
Protection Association found that 68 percent of all fire departments
that are responsible for wildland firefighting have not formally
trained all their personnel to the recommended national standard.
When local fire departments are unable to suppress wildland fires
during the initial phase, the fires spread and State and Federal
firefighters are deployed. This is an extremely expensive process that
can cost the Federal Government anywhere from hundreds of millions of
dollars to more than $1 billion in fire suppression costs alone in a
single year depending on the severity of the fire season.
The costs of wildland fire suppression have been increasing
steadily as commercial and residential development pushes further into
the wildland/urban interface (WUI). The National Interagency Fire
Center reports that in 2012, increased building in the WUI led to an
above average number of structures burning in wildland fires.
Throughout the year, a total of 4,244 structures were lost--2,200 of
which were residential structures. With suppression costs rising, all
stakeholders must increase efforts to prevent wildland fires, respond
to wildland fires quickly before they become uncontrollable, and
educate communities in the wildland/urban interface so that they can
take precautions to minimize losses due to wildland fire.
In recent years, Federal funding for volunteer fire departments to
prepare for wildland fire suppression has been dwindling. VFA has seen
funding reduced from $16 million in fiscal year 2010 to $15.662 million
in fiscal year 2011 and approximately $13 million in fiscal year 2012,
fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014. Additionally, the Rural Fire
Assistance (RFA) program, which had historically been funded at $7
million to $10 million per year and provided matching grants to fire
departments that agreed to assist in responding to wildland fires on
Federal lands, hasn't been funded since fiscal year 2010.
Federal support is critical to ensure volunteer fire departments
are able to safely and effectively respond to wildland fires. Our
organizations recognize the challenges that Congress faces in trying to
adequately fund a range of important programs in today's difficult
budget environment. At the same time, we believe that reducing the
funding for programs like RFA and VFA from a combined $23 million in
fiscal year 2010 to $13.025 million in fiscal year 2014 leaves
volunteer fire departments with fewer resources to prepare to respond
to wildland fires and will lead to higher Federal spending on fire
suppression in the long run. We urge you to provide a minimum of $16
million for VFA in fiscal year 2015.
______
Prepared Statement of The Conservation Fund
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to submit outside witness
testimony on behalf of The Conservation Fund (TCF). The Conservation
Fund supports full funding of the President's budget request of $900
million in fiscal year 2015 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) discretionary and mandatory proposals, which includes the
Federal land acquisition programs of the Bureau of Land Management
($89.397 million), National Park Service ($171.041 million), U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service ($168.772 million), U.S. Forest Service ($127.673
million), as well as three State grant programs: the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
($100 million); National Park Service's State Conservation Grants ($100
million); and the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program ($100
million). TCF also supports full funding of the President's request for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-North American Wetlands Conservation
Fund ($34.145 million); the U.S. Forest Service--Community Forest and
Open Space Conservation Program ($1.683 million); the Department of
Interior--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
($7.676 million); and the Bureau of Indian Affairs--Operations of
Indian Programs: Trust--Real Estate Services ($127.002 million).
Additionally, TCF supports the proposals for the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization, the National Park Service
Centennial Initiative, and the U.S. Forest Service Wildland Disaster
Fund Act.
The Conservation Fund (TCF) is a national, non-profit conservation
organization dedicated to conserving America's land and water legacy
for future generations. Established in 1985, TCF works with landowners;
Federal, State and local agencies; and other partners to conserve our
Nation's important lands for people, wildlife and communities. To date,
TCF has helped our partners to conserve over 7.4 million acres. These
accomplishments are due, in large measure, to the leadership of this
subcommittee over many years to appropriate funds to acquire lands for
future generations, working forests, recreational opportunities,
wildlife habitat, and many other benefits.
Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land
acquisition programs. While these projects show the tremendous
diversity of benefits of land acquisition for the public, they have one
thing in common--each of these projects is driven by landowners. Many
farmers, ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial
equity in their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation
easement or fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds
to stay in business, reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial
goals.
As the subcommittee crafts its Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill, there are several key points we
respectfully request you to consider, listed below. Each of the funding
amounts below reflects the fiscal year 2015 President's budget request.
1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million.--
Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical for the Nation's
premier conservation program, a bipartisan agreement from almost 50
years ago. As the lists of ready LWCF projects below show, there are
many opportunities that will be lost without this funding. LWCF
represents a promise to the Nation that proceeds from offshore oil and
gas development will help protect the public trust and these projects
will fulfill that mission.
The LWCF budget includes Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP)
areas that we ask you to support: National Trails System, Florida-
Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative, South Carolina Longleaf Pine, High
Divide, Greater Yellowstone, Grasslands/Prairie Potholes, California
Southwest Desert, and Upper Rio Grande. In each CLP, several Federal
land agencies are partnering with States, local groups, non-profits and
private interests to support conservation and make a lasting impact.
2. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $89.397
million.--The BLM and its National Conservation Lands provide some of
our Nation's best recreation and historic areas. From fishing at the
North Platte River in Wyoming to exploring Pueblo ruins at Canyons of
the Ancients in Colorado, we request funding for the following
projects:
--Upper Snake South Fork, Idaho: $1 million (#2); and $1.9 million
(#14)
--North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA),
Wyoming: $1.2 million (#5)
--Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: $1.2 million
(#6)
--CLP National Trails-Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (NHT),
Montana: $1.032 mil. (#7); and $1.148 mil. (#17)
--McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), Colorado: $210,000
(#8), and $1.625 million (#18)
--Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon: $906,000 (#12); and $5
million (#21)
--Upper Missouri River National Wild and Scenic River, Montana:
$3.408 million (#23)
--Aqua Fria National Monument, Arizona: $3.3 million (#24)
--Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), Colorado:
$2 million (#27)
--CLP High Divide--Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT), Idaho:
$440,000 (#28)
--CLP High Divide--Upper Madison, Montana: $868,000 (#28)
3. National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $171.041
million.--Hosting more than 275 million visitors every year, the over
400 National Park units provide an economic boost to their local
communities and those employed directly and indirectly. Funding for NPS
LWCF will help protect key access points for recreation, historic
areas, trails and more, including along the Captain John Smith National
Historic Trail and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. We
respectfully request funding for the following projects:
--CLP National Trails--Captain John Smith National Historic Trail
(NHT), Virginia: $4 million (#4), and $2 million, (#13)
--CLP National Trails--Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST), New
Hampshire, $200,000 (#13)
--Olympic National Park, Washington: $5.22 million (#14)
--CLP High Divide--Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana: $150,000
(#21)
4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at
$168.772 million.--National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are our Nation's
protectors of clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife and world-class
recreation. Funding for fiscal year 2015 FWS LWCF will help preserve
grizzly bear territory of the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana and
protect key longleaf pine at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in
Georgia. We respectfully request funding for the following projects:
--Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (WMA), North
Dakota/South Dakota: $3.887 million (#2), and $3.887 million
(#11)
--Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, North Dakota/South Dakota: $7
million (#3) and $7 million (#12)
--Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana: $2 million (#5)
--Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and
Conservation Area, Florida: $3 million (#6) and $5 million
(#14)
--CLP Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine--Okefenokee National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR), Georgia: $4 million (#9)
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area, Kansas: $1 million (#22)
--Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Texas: $2
million (#23)
--CLP Grasslands/Prairie Potholes--Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife
Management Area (WMA): $3 million (#27)
--CLP Grasslands/Prairie Potholes--Dakota Grasslands Conservation
Area: $7.5 million (#27)
5. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Land Acquisition at $127.673
million.--USFS LWCF funds help with forest management by protecting key
inholdings and reducing fire threats. From the longleaf pine in the
southeast to the North Carolina Threatened Treasures to the Missouri
Ozarks, we are working with willing landowners at the following project
areas and respectfully request funding:
--CLP National Trails--Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST),
Tennessee: $330,000 (#4); and $2.72 million (#32)
--North Carolina Threatened Treasures, North Carolina: $2.1 million
(#5), and $3.5 million (#30)
--CLP Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative--Osceola, Florida: $5
million (#7); and $3.677 million (#34)
--Missouri Ozarks Current River, Mark Twain National Forest,
Missouri: $1 million (#16)
--Tennessee Mountains Trails and Waters, Tennessee: $3.7 million
(#21)
--Greater Yellowstone Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming:
$3 million (#25)
--Georgia-Disappearing Wildlands of Georgia Mountains and Rivers,
Georgia: $2.7 million (#27)
--Great Lakes Northwoods, Superior National Forest, Minnesota: $3
million (#33)
--Cube Cove, Tongass National Forest, Alaska: $3 million (#38)
6. LWCF State Grant Programs: FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered
Species Fund, NPS-State Conservation Grants, and USFS-Forest Legacy.--
We encourage the subcommittee to fully fund fiscal year 2015
President's Budget request for:
--FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund:
$100 million
--NPS-State Conservation Grants: $100 million
--USFS-Forest Legacy Program: $100 million. Project highlights
include:
--Bobcat Ridge, Texas, $2.37 million (#3 ranking)
--East Fork of the French Broad Headwater II, North Carolina, $3.5
million (#9)
--Liberty Hill, South Carolina, $2 million (#21)
--Sherwood Forest, Tennessee, $3 million (#24)
--Windham Region Working Forest, Vermont, $1.5 million (#34)
7. Priority Land Acquisition Programs.--TCF encourages the
Committee to fund:
--FWS-North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: $34.145 million
--USFS-Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: $1.683
million
8. Department of Interior--Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration Program at $7.676 million.--The Restoration Program leads
the national response for recovery of natural resources that have been
injured or destroyed as a result of oil spills or releases of other
hazardous substances. Recoveries from responsible parties can only be
spent to implement restoration plans developed by the Trustee Council
for each incident. These funds are 100 percent private and represent
the amount needed to restore environmental resources or compensate for
lost public use since the damage in question. The fiscal year 2015
funds would allow the Program to add carefully targeted staff allocated
to Interior bureaus and offices through its Restoration Support Unit in
order to accelerate restoration activities.
9. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)--Operations of Indian Programs:
Trust-Real Estate Services at $127.002 million.--We support the BIA
Trust-Real Estate Services program, including funding to support the
Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement.
10. Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
Act (H.R. 2068) (S. 368).--We support the fiscal year 2015 President's
budget request to reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
Act (FLTFA) an important program that provides conservation funding for
the West, at no cost to the taxpayer. Through FLTFA's ``land for land''
program, BLM sells land identified for disposal to ranchers, farmers,
businesses and others to consolidate land ownership, create jobs,
support economic development and increase revenues to counties by
putting land on the tax rolls. These sales generate funding for BLM,
USFS, NPS and USFWS to acquire critical inholdings from willing sellers
in certain designated areas, which often complements LWCF, North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and other public and private
funding. The sales provide revenue for Federal agencies to acquire
high-priority lands with important recreational access for hunting,
fishing, hiking, boating, other activities, as well as properties with
historic, scenic and cultural resources. Over 150 groups are working
together to support Congress' efforts to reauthorize FLTFA.
11. Wildlife Disaster Funding Act (H.R. 3992)(S. 1875) and Avoiding
Transfers to Wildland Fire Suppression.--We support the proposal in the
President's budget that would avoid transferring funds Congress
appropriates to other priority programs to fund wildland fire
suppression. We support language mirroring the bipartisan Wildfire
Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875 & H.R. 3992). This important change to
fire funding at the Federal level is needed to prevent future transfers
and ensure that the USFS and Department of the Interior can achieve
their land management objectives by implementing activities needed to
address the growing buildup of hazardous fuels on Federal lands.
The Conservation Fund stands ready to work with you to secure full
and consistent funding for the LWCF, Forest Legacy, and the other
critically important programs that help protect the environment,
economies, forests, and community values across our Nation. Thank you
for the opportunity to provide this testimony and your consideration of
our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the
fiscal year 2015 (fiscal year 2015) Interior Appropriations bill. We
sincerely thank you for the desperately needed funding increase for
fiscal year 2014 and respectfully request a funding level of $476.4
million for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National
Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal year 2015. The National Wildlife
Refuge System stands alone as the only land and water conservation
system with a mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat
conservation alongside human, wildlife-dependent recreation. Since
1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has worked
to showcase the value of the Refuge System and to secure a strong
congressional commitment for conserving these special landscapes. Found
in every U.S. State and territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a
diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and economically vital
ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra,
prairie, and forests.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 23 member
organizations, which represent over 16 million American hunters,
anglers, bird and wildlife watchers, scientists and concerned citizens
passionate about wildlife conservation and related recreational
opportunities.
American Birding Association
American Fisheries Society
American Sportfishing Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Izaak Walton League of America
Marine Conservation Institute
National Audubon Society
National Rifle Association
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
Safari Club International
The Corps Network
The Nature Conservancy
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Management Institute
The National Wildlife Refuge System, established by President
Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, protects approximately 150 million acres on
562 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts
across the U.S. From the Virgin Islands to Guam and the Pacific marine
national monuments, the Refuge System spans 12 time zones and protects
America's natural heritage in habitats ranging from arctic tundra to
arid desert, boreal forest to sagebrush grassland, and prairie wetlands
to coral reefs. With a refuge within an hour's drive from most
metropolitan areas, the Refuge System attracts a growing number of
visitors each year (46.5 million in fiscal year 2013) with
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography,
kayaking, and outdoor education. In fact, from 2006-2011, during our
Nation's greatest economic recession since the Great Depression,
visitation to our national wildlife refuges increased by 30 percent.
According to a report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in late 2013, ``Banking On Nature'', these visitors generated $2.4
billion annually to local and regional economies--on average returning
$4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated--and support
35,000 U.S. jobs. In addition, refuges provide major environmental and
health benefits, such as filtering storm water before it is carried
downstream and fills municipal aquifers; reducing flooding by capturing
excess rainwater; and minimizing the damage to coastal communities from
storm surges. According to a 2011 report by Southwick Associates,
refuges generate more than $32.3 billion in these ecosystem services
each year, a return of over $65 for every $1 appropriated by Congress.
At minimum, CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least
$900 million in annual operations and maintenance funding to meet
conservation targets, including wildlife management and habitat
restoration and opportunities for the public to recreate.
Unfortunately, inadequate funding threatens the System's ability to
carry out its mission, mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013,
Refuge System funding was reduced by $50 million--a 10 percent cut. As
a result, System performance levels dropped substantially.
The fiscal year 2013 Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) reports
revealed falling performance rates in several important System
categories, including habitat condition, habitat restoration,
recreation opportunities, volunteerism, and scientific research. The
following data shows the systemic impact of budget cuts from fiscal
year 2010-fiscal year 2013.
Measures for which performance declined more than 50 percent from
fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013
--Acres of forest/shrubland improvement (-51 percent)
--Wetland acres restored (-77 percent)
--Open water acres restored (84 percent)
--Acres of non-native, invasive plants controlled (-60 percent)
Measures for which performance declined 25-50 percent from fiscal year
2010 to fiscal year 2013
--Number of invasive animal populations controlled during the year
(-46 percent)
--Acres treated for non-native, invasive plants (-37 percent)
Measures for which performance declined 15-25 percent from fiscal year
2010 to fiscal year 2013
--Acres of moist soil managed (-21 percent)
--Number of population management actions (-23 percent)
--Acres of mowed/hayed grasslands (-20 percent)
--Acres managed by ``other'' techniques (-15 percent)
--Riparian miles restored (-19 percent)
--Number of research studies (-15.5 percent)
--Number of surface water acres impaired according to State 303d
listings
Measures for which performance declined 3-15 percent from fiscal year
2010 to fiscal year 2013
--Uplands receiving needed management (-9 percent)
--Number of Inventory & Monitoring Surveys accomplished (-14 percent)
--Open water receiving needed management (-5 percent)
--Total refuge acres receiving needed management (-6 percent)
--Restoration deferred on upland acres (-4.5 percent)
--Restoration deferred on wetland acres (-12.5 percent)
--Acres of water-level manipulation (-8 percent)
--Upland game hunt visits (-6 percent)
--Big game hunt visits (down 3.1 percent from fiscal year 2011 to
fiscal year 2013)
--Total hunt visits (down 3 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2013)
--Fishing visits (-3 percent)
--Number of volunteers (-8.7 percent)
--Volunteer hours (down 3 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal
year 2013)
--Total ``other'' recreational participants (-7 percent)
As habitat management declines, the System's fragile ecosystems are
subject to opportunistic invasive species. And the foothold they gain
in refuge lands can quickly transfer to adjacent private and State
lands; an issue of great concern in places like southeastern Idaho
where the CARE group visited in 2012. Between fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2013, the System treated 37 percent less acreage for
invasive plants and, sadly, saw a 60 percent drop in acreage where
invasive plants were successfully controlled. One step forward and
several steps back is an inefficient way to manage the Refuge System
and threatens years of cooperative efforts with partners and
landowners.
Of particular concern to CARE is the drop in hunting, fishing and
other recreational visits, which include bird and wildlife watching,
photography, hiking and kayaking. Due to staffing cuts, refuges are
unable to sustain visitor hours and public use programs. This in turn
leads to fewer visitors and could have serious impacts on the economic
return these refuges have in local communities. Further, investments
made at the urging of CARE regarding the System's Inventory and
Monitoring program are threatened. The System must have current,
accurate data to make informed management decisions, yet the System had
a 15.5 percent decline in research studies, and a 14 percent decline in
essential Inventory and Monitoring Surveys conducted.
CARE thanks the subcommittee and Congress for the much needed, 4
percent increase ($18.5 m) in funding for fiscal year 2014. It was
hoped that the budget increase could reverse the systemic declines in
performance but because the System needs at least $15 million annually
to maintain management capabilities, there is in reality, only $3.5
million was left to address these declines. And unfortunately,
emergencies nationwide such as natural disasters and looming endangered
species listing could force the System to deal with these crises
instead, further exacerbating the issues. Because of the constraints of
the budget agreement reached in December 2013, CARE is supporting the
President's request of $476.4 million for fiscal year 2015, although it
is substantially less than what the System needs. Albeit roughly half
the optimal funding amount, $476.4 million may steady falling, System
performance levels. If the requested funding level is satisfied, the
Refuge System can better address the following tasks:
--Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy
habitats that attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors and
increase economic return to communities;
--Keep refuges open and staffed so that quality recreational
opportunities continue to be offered to the public;
--Maintain facilities and equipment used to serve the public and
manage habitat;
--Provide law enforcement officers needed to keep refuge resources
and the people who come to appreciate them safe.
Refuge visitation is growing and is expected to continue. In fact,
from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the Refuge System welcomed
6.7 percent more visitors. Wildlife observation visits, too, increased
by 12 percent, and photography visits increased by 33 percent. However,
refuges are losing valuable staff committed to visitors and volunteers.
The number of volunteers dropped by 8.6 percent, particularly troubling
considering this work force is a 20 percent boost to existing Refuge
System staff. Refuges rely on volunteers for welcoming and greeting
visitors, staffing refuge nature stores, maintenance, interpretation,
and much more. Volunteer service, however, is only possible if the
System is reasonably staffed and thus able to extend requisite
volunteer training and oversight. Arguably, the System's mission cannot
be fully achieved without refuge volunteers and Friends groups.
If the Refuge System is forced to sustain further reductions,
future RAPP reports will likely show continued decline in the System's
conservation work and public use opportunities. Funding cuts are
already impacting America's refuges. If annual operations and
maintenance funding does not rise, CARE anticipates further impacts
both within and outside of refuge boundaries, including:
--A reduction in the treatment of invasive plants, reducing habitat
quality needed to support wildlife (both game and non-game) and
put private lands at higher risk of infestations;
--A decrease in the use of prescribed fire, which is used on refuges
both to improve habitat for wildlife and to reduce hazardous
fuels that pose a wildfire risk to nearby communities;
--A decline in the number and quality of visitor programs, with
visitor centers operating at reduced hours, and plans to add or
expand hunting programs at refuges being postponed;
--Lost revenue for local communities as visitor numbers drop;
according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fiscal
year 2013 budget justification, ``Each 1 percent increase or
decrease in visitation impacts $16.9 million in total economic
activity, 268 jobs, $5.4 million in job-related income, and
$608,000 in tax revenue.''
--Elimination of ancillary functions like FWS's operation of
Henderson Field at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which
serves as a critical emergency landing site for trans-pacific
flights, as well as the public's main window to the vast marine
national monuments.
We urge Congress to fund the Refuge System at $476.4 m in fiscal
year 2015--to bridge the growing gap between what the System needs and
what it receives, enabling refuges to continue moving America forward.
On behalf of our more than 16 million members and supporters, CARE
thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill, and we look forward to
meeting with you to discuss our request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Corps Network
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Chocran, and members of the
subcommittee: My name is Mary Ellen Sprenkel and I am the president and
CEO of The Corps Network. The Corps Network is the national association
of service and conservation corps with over 100 member organizations
operating in all 50 States, and enrolling nearly 26,000 young people
between the ages of 16 and 25 each year. It is The Corps Network's
mission to provide critical leadership to the Corps movement and to our
Nation's Service and Conservation Corps as they harness the power of
youth and young adults to tackle some of America's greatest challenges
and transform their own lives.
The Corps Network requests the subcommittee's support for fiscal
year 2015 programs that will allow public land and water management
agencies to engage young adults and veterans to meet our Nation's
backlogged maintenance needs, address record youth unemployment, and
prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural
resource employees and stewards.
Corps are comprehensive youth development programs that provide
their participants with job training, academic programming, leadership
skills, and additional support through a strategy of service that
improves communities and the environment. They are a direct descendant
of the Depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps, which mobilized
about three million young men who dramatically improved the Nation's
public lands while receiving food, shelter, education, and a precious
$30-a-month stipend.
the impact in numbers
In 2013 alone, the 100-plus members of The Corps Network
collectively:
--Restored and improved 240,000 acres of ecological habitat;
--Maintained and improved 2,900 parks, gardens, and urban
greenspaces;
--Built and maintained 8,000 miles of trails; and
--Removed over 300,000 acres of invasive and exotic plant species.
corps enroll participants reflective of america's diversity
At present, our member Corps enroll nearly 26,000 Corpsmembers a
year, the majority of whom come from diverse and disadvantaged
backgrounds, and are looking for a second chance to succeed in life.
Many Corpsmembers are ``opportunity youth,'' meaning that they have
either dropped out of school or are unemployed at the time that they
enter a Corps program.
In addition to the normal work week, Corpsmembers receive a wide
range of personal and professional development opportunities and
services including, but not limited to: guidance from adult leaders who
serve as mentors and role models, academic programming designed to lead
to a high school diploma or GED, opportunities to pursue certificates
and credentials with demonstrated value, and a modest stipend--all to
prepare them for postsecondary education and labor market success.
In 2012, 65 percent of all Corpsmembers were unemployed at the time
of entry, 31 percent were not in school and did not have a GED, 61
percent came from families below the poverty line, and 20 percent were
formerly incarcerated or court-involved. After completing their
programs, 54 percent of alumni said that they were employed or enrolled
in further service. Sixty-eight percent reported that they were in
college or a high school diploma/GED program.
quality work
Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often
technical projects on public lands and waters. Project sponsors
consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of
work and productivity of the Corps. Virtually all Federal project
partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again.
Types of work include, but are not limited to:
--Protecting wildlife and improving access to public land and waters;
--Preparing communities for disasters and responding when needed;
--Enhancing recreation on public lands;
--Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating
effects of wildfire;
--Preserving historic structures; and
--Enhancing neighborhoods and community public spaces.
cost savings
By partnering with Conservation Corps, Federal land and water
management agencies achieve more with their operating budgets. Research
conducted by the National Park Service's Park Facility Management
Division indicates that hiring Conservation Corps to complete
maintenance and trail projects resulted in significant savings.
The analysis considered 15 diverse trail and maintenance projects
throughout the country in places including Mesa Verde National Park,
Glacier National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, and Voyageurs
National Park. The research found that using Conservation Corps to
complete maintenance and trail projects provided a cost savings of over
50 percent.
fiscal year 2015 request
The Corps Network requests the subcommittee's support for fiscal
year 2015 programs that will allow public land and water management
agencies to engage young adults and veterans to meet our Nation's
backlogged maintenance needs, address record youth unemployment, and
prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural
resource employees.
We respectfully request that in fiscal year 2015 the subcommittee
fund the following accounts:
--$2,283,852,000 for ``Operation of the National Parks.''
--$10,000,000 for the ``Centennial Challenge'' for the National Park
Service.
--$50,600,000 for Department of Interior Youth Programs.
--Increased funding for operational accounts of the Department of the
Interior (DOI) Bureaus and United States Forest Service (USFS).
The first two accounts fall under National Park Service and the
third is under the Department of Interior. National Park ``Operations''
is a preexisting account governing operation of our national parks and
the ``Centennial Challenge'' is a new program and was also proposed
under the most recent Bush administration. These funds will allow
thousands of veterans, youth, and others to work upgrading the National
Park System for its 100th anniversary in 2016. The Department's Youth
Program funding would also provide work and training opportunities for
young people and veterans during 2014 and 2015. A key component of the
Department's efforts will be partnering with youth organizations
through the 21st Century Conservation Corps. We also support increased
funding for all operational accounts at the other Bureaus (Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS)) and at the U.S. Forest Service that could fund
partnerships with Conservation Corps.
As the National Park Service prepares for its 100th Anniversary,
Congress has an opportunity to invest in the popular and economically
important National Park Service. An investment this year will help
parks recover from years of underfunding and restore parks for the
Centennial. Every dollar invested in the National Park Service
generates $10 in economic activity. The operations investment would
provide for park rangers to maintain facilities and provide services to
park visitors. The Centennial Challenge investment would allow for the
park service to leverage private matching funds through a 1:1 match for
specific projects.
Beginning with the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps
during the Great Depression, and continuing to the recent launch of the
21st Century Conservation Service Corps Initiative, organizations like
Vermont Youth Conservation Corps, Southeast Youth Corps, and California
Conservation Corps have helped millions of young Americans gain job
training, further their education, and contribute to America's
communities through service and the conservation of national and State
parks, forests, and other treasured places.
The future of our Nation's public lands depend upon the next
generation becoming active resource stewards. I hope that you will
provide the funding to put thousands of youth and returning veterans to
work restoring some of America's greatest historical, cultural, and
natural treasures. With the approaching National Park Service
centennial, billions in backlogged maintenance across all of the land
management agencies, record youth unemployment, and the cost savings
nature of public private partnerships, this funding is an absolute win-
win for our country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments
I am pleased to submit this testimony to the subcommittee on behalf
of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG). We are a
consortium of 10 tribal governments located along the Yukon River and
its tributaries in northeastern Alaska. We provide a variety of
services to our tribal members, including full healthcare services at
the Yukon Flats Health Center and village-based clinics in four of our
villages. We request that you implement the following measures in the
fiscal year 2015 appropriations cycle:
--Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending.
--Increase funding for Village Built Clinics at least $8.5 million.
--Fund the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget with advanced
appropriations.
--Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
--Allocate $50 million to the IHS from the Prevention and Public
Health Fund for tribal behavioral health grants.
--Support Tribal jurisdiction to protect Alaska communities.
mandatory funding for contract support costs
We are pleased that the Administration has sought to fully fund
contract support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge
Congress to support that goal. We also acknowledge that the
administration's request is a direct response to Congress' actions with
regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical
caps on CSC funding and rejected the administration's proposal--put
forward without consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to
individually cap contract support cost recovery at the contractor
level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that
allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our
members. If contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our
programs and services are directly impacted because we are forced to
divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses
instead. We therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014
and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
remains subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though
tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
with tribes on a permanent solution.
In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
entitlement. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a
legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget
authority for CSC is currently provided and controlled through
appropriation acts--as if it were a discretionary program. The fiscal
year 2014 Joint Explanatory Statement recognized that the current
fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and the
current appropriation approach leaves both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in the ``untenable position of
appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally
obligated contract support costs.'' As the Joint Explanatory Statement
also noted, ``Typically obligations of this nature are addressed
through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution then is to bring the
appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to
recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a
discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move
to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis.
funding for village built clinics in alaska
For the last several years, Alaska organizations have submitted
testimony to this subcommittee on the need to address chronic
underfunding of Village Built Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs, which are
clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other entities, are a vital
component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural
Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide
Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA).
The CHAP, which IHS is directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a
network of community health aides and practitioners to provide primary
healthcare services in rural and isolated areas where access to those
services might not otherwise exist.
In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs
in Alaska and provided approximately $3 million in funding for the
program for that year. Since then, Congress has not provided amounts
specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had
discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. But even
though the 1989 appropriation was not a cap restricting IHS allocation
of funds in later years, IHS has treated it as such and has refused to
increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace
with inflation or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated
areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in
deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening
the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural
Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly
maintained VBC space.
According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska
Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million
is needed to fully fund the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate
is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need.
CATG therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional
$8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use
its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases.
This subcommittee should also be aware that, having attempted
without success for many years to convince IHS to accept its
responsibilities for the VBCs as part of the mandated CHAP program,
some tribal organizations in Alaska are taking a new approach. The
Maniilaq Association recently requested that the IHS enter into a
mandatory lease under Sec. 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act for one of the VBCs that Maniilaq owns.
Implementing regulations require payment under the lease to fully
compensate for the costs of adequately operating and maintaining the
facilities. However, the IHS refused to enter into the lease, and the
matter is now being litigated. If Maniilaq prevails, the case could
establish legal precedent that will allow tribal contractors in Alaska
to negotiate for full funding for VBCs as part of their funding
agreements under the IHS's ISDEAA leasing authority. Though funding
should be provided in full through the VBC program directly, the option
to enter into a Sec. 105(l) lease must also be preserved as an
alternative funding mechanism.
fund the ihs through advanced appropriations
An important goal for CATG--and for all of Indian Country--is the
reliable, advance appropriation of the IHS budget 1 year in advance.
The goal is for IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and thus not
be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-term
Continuing Resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations for
the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for
parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We
request that you support such efforts to authorize and then appropriate
the funds for IHS advance appropriations.
reauthorize the special diabetes program
While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
funds are administered through the IHS. With the very recent passage by
the House and Senate of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
$150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
at increased funding levels.
increase funding for behavioral health, suicide prevention, and alcohol
& substance abuse treatment
Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
behavioral and mental health services. There is a dire need for more
prevention funding for suicide intervention as well as alcohol and
substance abuse prevention, particularly for our youth. These efforts
go hand in hand, as the problems often overlap. Alaska has twice the
national rate of suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide
attempts requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide
at a rate nearly six times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide
rate among all Alaskans increased by 33 percent between 2005-2008--a
period when the national rate remained steady. Compounding and
complicating the suicide epidemic is alcohol and substance abuse or a
mental health disorder. The overwhelming majority of the people we lose
to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or
substance abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment
averages nearly 9 months, and due to lack of funding there is often no
place to refer people, particularly young people.
Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as
well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect.
Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the
State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of
guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly,
because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more
successful than those that don't. Included in the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion over 10 years) for a
Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress may
allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the
administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new
tribal behavioral health grant program; unfortunately Congress did not
provide that allocation. We urge that Congress allocate $50 million
from the PPH to the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that
it be recurring.
support tribal jurisdiction to protect alaska communities
We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe
Families and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska
tribes' jurisdiction to protect their communities by dealing locally
with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. At
the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in
S. 1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women
Act Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal
jurisdiction over domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes
will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding
law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our
congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial
importance to Alaska Native communities.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We
are happy to respond to questions or provide any additional information
you may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, distinguished members of
the subcommittee; I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in
support of funding for certain programs for American Indians and Alaska
Natives. They include programs under the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Indian Health Service, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Secretary of Interior's Office, and the National Park
Service.
background
Since the Cowlitz Indian Tribe was restored to Federal recognition
in 2002, we have strived to develop services to protect and promote the
well-being of our people. We have approximately 3,800 tribal members
with the majority residing within or close to our traditional homelands
in southwestern Washington State. Although we still have no
reservation, our leadership continues to move forward the vision to
provide for our people. We have established several Departments and
Programs since 2002. The work of this subcommittee is critical in our
ability to continue our obligation to serve our people.
Federal grant programs are particularly critical to our well-being
because without a reservation, we have no trust land on which to
conduct economic development to fund governmental services. Making our
situation even more difficult, we are ineligible for the wide variety
of Federal grant programs that are tied to reservation lands. As a
result, the Federal grant programs discussed in this testimony are of
even more critical importance to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe.
Despite the fact that we are landless, we do what we can to provide
essential services to our people, and in so doing we believe we also
directly and indirectly benefit surrounding communities. We also
participate extensively at the local, State, and Federal level through
established and emerging partnerships across a broad range of programs
and initiatives. We believe that it is important to not only provide
for our memberships' well-being, but work to be a positive and
contributing influence with our neighbors. Planning, supporting, and
implementing activities that restore and protect our economies, natural
surroundings, and future stability is important to us. The Cowlitz
Tribal leadership is very much appreciative and dependent on the
programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. It would be impossible
for us to be a contributing partner without your support.
the cowlitz tribe's seven priorities
The Cowlitz Indian Tribe respectfully requests that the
subcommittee:
1. Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA) ``Aid to Tribal Government''
Program.--Increase program funding from the $24.614 million proposed in
the President's fiscal year 2015 budget to $30 million.
2. Indian Health Service (IHS) fiscal year 2015 Appropriations
Report Congress.--Ensure IHS makes revisions to the Health Facilities
Construction Priority System as directed in the fiscal year 2000
Interior Appropriations Bill.
3. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ``Indian General
Assistance Program'' (GAP).--Support the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request of $96.4 million.
4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency's (USFWS) ``Tribal Wildlife Grant
Program''.--Increase proposed fiscal year 2015 budget from $4 million
to $10 million.
5. Support $1.25 million to be directed to the Office of the
Secretary of Interior's Leadership and Administration Activity for
fiscal year 2015 for Federal/Tribal collaborative analytical work and
consultations during domestic reconsideration of the Columbia River
Treaty.
6. BIA administered tribal transportation programs.--Support the
Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus's (TTUC) proposed increase for
fiscal year 2015.
7. National Park Service (NPS) proposed fiscal year 2015 for
``National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Grants''.--Increase funding from the President's $1.657 million request
to $2 million.
1. BIA ``Aid to Tribal Government'' Funding Increase.--The primary
backbone of support for our tribe's general operations is funded
through BIA's Aid to Tribal Government program. It is an essential
source of funds that supports the general operations of our
administration, Natural & Cultural Resources Department, and provides
many other services critical to our people and governance. With this
core funding, we have been able to provide essential government
services, employment opportunity, regional partnerships, grant
programs, and to provide increased security for our tribe and
employees. For a tribe that continues to struggle in obtaining our own
economic base, this funding source remains critical to keep
governmental operations functioning. Funding under this program does
not meet all the needs of our tribe, but as we try and obtain our own
economic base, it improves our tribe's ability to oversee program
implementation and allows us to deliver essential services to our
members. In sum, funding for tribal administration of programs is a key
element towards our ability to support tribal self-governance.
2. IHS Facilities Construction Priority System.--The IHS system is
significantly underfunded and an imbalance of resources has developed
within the system. An example of this is the frozen facilities
construction list. We respectfully request the subcommittee to address
this underfunding and also the delivery system imbalance and require
the IHS to report to Congress its revisions to the Health Facilities
Construction Priority System as directed in the fiscal year 2000
Interior Appropriations Bill. The current system was developed over 23
years ago and prioritizes construction projects on antiquated data in a
completely changed healthcare delivery environment. Most projects would
not score high enough to be funded today relative to the needs of other
tribes nationally. The system is broken and unfairly prohibits tribes
from accessing important facilities construction funding on an equal
basis as the tribes on the current priority list. The subcommittee
should direct IHS to develop a facility construction priority system to
address the unmet facility construction needs of all tribes and not
just those on the current priority list. A new priority system should
also incorporate the staffing needs for those tribes that have built
their own health facilities without IHS resources. The Cowlitz Tribe
received its appropriation for funding its Health Systems in 2000. In
November 2002 we received funding for Contract Health Services only and
no funding for direct services.
3. EPA Indian General Assistance Program (GAP).--GAP has been a
vital program for our tribe since Federal acknowledgement. It has
allowed for our ability to build capacity for the many natural resource
programs and tends to the needs of our memberships health and well-
being. It gave us the ability to deal with very important resources
issues of the tribe such as representation on key resource management
concerns in the region. It has allowed our ability (and maintain) to
forge positive relationships and work with local communities to protect
and restore resources. EPA heard from the tribes in past years that
funding under this program was well short to meet the needs to build
capacity for addressing environmental issues within their homelands. We
believe that this is a key program that needs to be maintained
adequately well into the future in order to protect and restore the
quality of life and culture for Indian Country.
4. USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grant Program Increase.--Our tribe has
been fortunate to receive two Tribal Wildlife Grants (TWG) administered
by USFWS. With these grants we continue to contribute toward positive
partnerships with State and Federal managers over recovery efforts of
endangered Columbian White-tailed deer (CWTD) of the Lower Columbia
River region. This species was one of the first to be listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 1970s. Since we received our TWG,
our involvement has heightened awareness to the issue of recovery of
this long-standing recovery concern. We brought fresh new skills and
thoughtfulness as to what was needed to create a path to recovery and
eventual de-listing under ESA. We are proud to be one of the primary
participants that are leading CWTD towards recovery and eventual de-
listing. We believe it is important that collaborative partnerships
with Tribal, Federal, and State resource managers are the key to
achieve success towards species recovery efforts. The TWG program
provides tribes capacity and opportunity to contribute to efforts that
is deeply tied to traditional and cultural life-ways. We request that
funding be restored to this program so other tribes can experience the
great work that can be accomplished under this program.
5. Columbia River Treaty Coordination and Technical Capacity
Funding.--There are 15 Columbia Basin tribes, supported by three tribal
organizations of the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Upper
Columbia United Tribes, and the Upper Snake River Tribes, who have
participated in the development of a regional consensus based
recommendation on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty
between the U.S. and Canada. The Columbia Basin tribes have been key
participants in the development and adoption of the U.S. Entity's
regional recommendation (coordinated by the Bonneville Power
Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). The Cowlitz Tribe
along with other tribes participated extensively in this effort and
continues to be committed towards future improvements on how the
Columbia Basin water resources are managed. The recommendation is
currently being considered by the U.S. Department of State to determine
next steps in working with Canada to modernize the treaty. During this
time there is a need for on-going evaluation and coordination by the
Columbia Basin tribes. The tribes have very limited availability of
time and funds to conduct this vital work. The Columbia Basin tribes
need approximately $1.25 million to continue to collaborate on
necessary technical evaluations and assessments, as well as to consult
with the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Entity, other sovereigns,
and stakeholders for fiscal year 2015.
6. BIA Administered Tribal Transportation Programs.--Transportation
infrastructure serving tribal communities is the most unsafe,
rudimentary and under-maintained transportation network in the Country.
Approximately 1,069 of 4,400 Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program
bridges are currently rated as deficient. Cost of rehabilitating or
replacing the 1,069 IRR bridges is likely to exceed $595 million.
Consistent with TTUC recommendations, we support and request for an
increase in funding levels for fiscal year 2015 to $1,050,000,000 for
Federal Lands Highway (FLH) Program: (A) Indian Reservation Roads under
section 204 of title 23; increase funding levels for fiscal year 2015
to $100 million for FLH program: (XX) Indian Reservation Road Bridge
Program under Section 202(d)(4); and increase Highway Trust Fund
funding for Tribal High Priority Projects Program for fiscal year 2015
with $35 million including $5 million annual increases until fiscal
year 2020.
7. National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Grants.--The Cowlitz Tribe has in the past received a NAGPRA grant
which helped fund a successful multi-tribe consortium to allow the re-
interment of multiple ancestors at Fort Vancouver, Washington. The
success of this project has created great opportunity for future multi-
tribal projects to deal with long-standing concerns about repatriation
issues. We would like to see continued funding of such projects,
because there are still Native people and materials needing to be
returned to their rightful places, as well as other projects the
Cowlitz Tribe would like to undertake so we can continue to address
these or similar situations as they arise.
conclusion
The Cowlitz Tribe would like to re-iterate our thanks and
appreciation for the opportunity to testify on the development of
appropriations under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. We look forward
to working with members of Congress to continue to build upon our
successes and address future needs. We urge Congress to uphold its
solemn promises to tribes, even as policymakers seek to reduce the
deficit through spending reductions and revenue generation. The Federal
Government's obligations to Indian tribes reflect the Federal
Government's general trust responsibility for tribes and are based on
numerous long-standing agreements made between tribes and the United
States.
The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is happy to answer any questions Congress
may have about the testimony we have provided here or about the
programs we implement. Thank you again for your time to consider our
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Dance/USA
the importance of funding for the national endowment for the arts (nea)
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/
USA is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
Dance/USA, its board of directors and its 500 members. We strongly urge
the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2015. This
testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to
highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical
to sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the country.
The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from
the performing arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the
arts were limited mostly to a few big cities. The NEA has helped to
strengthen regional dance, opera, theater and other artistic
disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to
the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic
or geographic limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one
should be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The
Arts Endowment has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans,
which in turn has increased public participation in the arts.
the nea is a great investment in the economic growth of every community
Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased
by over $20 million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants
in 2013, totaling more than $112 million in appropriated funds, and
reaching more than 38 million people who attended live arts events
through NEA-supported programs. These grants help nurture the growth
and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists
in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance
our Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in
the Nation's cultural life results in both new and classic works of
art, reaching the residents of all 50 States and in every congressional
district.
The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
is striking. In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the
Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA
developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
domestic product (GDP) at 3.2 percent (or $504 billion) of current-
dollar GDP in 2011. Additionally, the nonprofit arts industry generates
$135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supporting 4.13 million
full-time equivalent jobs in the arts and related industries.
On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
local, and private sources, generating roughly $600 million in matching
support. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits,
not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make
possible. Even in the face of cutbacks in the recent years, the NEA
continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country.
The return on investments is not only found in dollar matches. The
average city and county reports that nonprofit arts and culture
organizations had 5,215 volunteers who donated 201,719 hours. These
volunteer hours have a value of approximately $4.5 million--a
demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
nea grants at work
Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
socioeconomic lines.
NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core
programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2013, the NEA awarded 164 grants to
the dance field through Art Works, totaling $3,972,000.
axis dance company--$20,000; oakland, california
To support Dance Access and Dance Access/Kids! educational and
outreach programs in the Bay Area and on a national tour. These
activities will offer a variety of events for youth and adults with and
without disabilities who are based locally and nationally.
diavolo dance theatre--$20,000; los angeles, california
To support educational and outreach programs during the company's
national tour. The project will include a Young People's Concert,
community workshops, master classes, and residencies. The Young
People's Concert is an interactive student matinee show that includes
choreography excerpts, discussion of teamwork, interactive exercises
about movement and fitness, and active audience participation. Diavolo
will work with presenters to tailor an educational and outreach program
for each community on its tour.
eugene ballet--$30,000; eugene, oregon
To support regional dance touring and outreach activities. The
company will present a repertory program featuring Artistic Director
Toni Pimble's ``Silk and Steel,'' ``Concerto Gross,'' a full-length
``Cinderella,'' and Gerald Arpino's ``Light Rain.'' The repertory
program will also include school presentations of ``Pulcinella,'' with
accompanying study guides for students.
kansas city ballet--$20,000; kansas city, missouri
To support New Moves, a showcase for new dance works by emerging
local and national choreographers. The program will afford Kansas City
Ballet members the opportunity to create, produce, and perform works
while learning from nationally recognized choreographers. Performances
will take place at the Michael and Ginger Frost Studio and Theater at
Kansas City Ballet's Todd Bolender Center for Dance Creativity.
nashville ballet--$20,000; nashville, tennessee
To support the staging and presentation of choreographer Jiri
Kylian's ``Petite Mort'' with live accompaniment by The Nashville
Symphony. The work will be presented on the same bill as George
Balanchine's ``Serenade,'' along with a new dance production by
Artistic Director Paul Vasterling, choreographed to an original
composition by Ben Folds.
the non-profit professional dance community
America's dance companies perform a wide range of styles and
genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical
and contemporary modern, as well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary
fusions and traditional to modern work rooted in other cultures. Over
two-thirds of America's professional dance companies are less than 45
years old; as an established art form with national identity and
presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living
memory. And yet, America can boast some of the greatest dance companies
of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous dance
styles--tap and modern dance.
One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a
national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the
Arts instituted its Dance Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance
became accessible to every community in America. What used to be a
handful of professional companies and a scattering of ``regional''
dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through
communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from
almost 300 nonprofit dance companies from across the United States,
Dance/USA estimates that dance companies:
--Employed over 14,800 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
positions;
--Paid approximately $345.7 million, or 53 percent of expenses, in
wages and benefits;
--Earned $200 million, or 29 percent of their income, from
performances;
--Received $326.6 million, or 48 percent of their income in
contributions (including public support, corporate
contributions, foundation support, and individual donations);
--Generated more than $661.5 million in economic activity across the
United States.
Dance/USA, the national service organization for the professional
dance field, believes that dance is essential to a healthy society,
demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and
potential, and facilitating communication within and across cultures.
Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the
needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and
organizations. Dance/USA's membership currently consists of nearly 500
aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, jazz, and tap companies,
dance service and presenting organizations, individuals, and related
organizations. Dance/USA's member companies range in size from
operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million.
conclusion
Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
further decreased by $22 million since 2010, leaving its programs
seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and
increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year
2015.
On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
Mister Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
Founded in 1947, Defenders has more than one million members and
supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and
plants in their natural communities.
North America is fortunate to have some of the most abundant and
diverse wildlife on Earth, more than 200,000 known species in the U.S.
alone. This unique and irreplaceable heritage is treasured by all
Americans both for its aesthetic value as well as for the very tangible
benefits it brings as a resource. For example, a third of our food is
pollinated by birds, bats, and insects; wildlife associated recreation
generated $145 billion in economic benefits in 2011; \1\ bats provide
at least $3.7 billion to the agricultural industry in pest control
services each year; \2\ and the value of ecosystem services from
habitat in the contiguous 48 States is estimated at $1.6 trillion
annually.\3\ Cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs that
conserve wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound
management. Funding decreases in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered
Species program delayed the recovery of endangered Florida manatees by
preventing crucial habitat restoration work. Continued cuts will likely
lead to irreversible harm to vulnerable species and habitat. Our
Nation's wildlife is a treasure and well worth the investment to
properly care for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife
Associated Recreation, USFWS, 12/12.
\2\ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/
41.summary?sid=853248fd-6760-4341-93d0-2aeeab9ea450.
\3\ The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural
Resources Conservation and Historic Preservation in the United States,
Southwick Associates, 9/29/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fish and wildlife service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
wildlife conservation agency. We were deeply disappointed that the
agency received a 27 percent cut in the fiscal year 2014 House
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. FWS
needs robust funding, not cuts, if it is to recover threatened and
endangered species and protect migratory birds and fish, species of
global conservation concern and other trust species, and stop or
prevent wildlife crimes.
Cooperative Recovery.--Defenders supports the President's requested
increases of $1.5 million in Conservation and Restoration under
Ecological Services and $300,000 under Migratory Bird Management. This
initiative is supporting more efficient and strategic efforts across
landscapes to recover threatened and endangered species on National
Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands.
Renewable Energy.--Defenders supports the President's requested
increases of $1.1 million in Planning and Consultation under Ecological
Services to support approvals of renewable energy projects while
ensuring they do not significantly harm wildlife, and $1.4 million
under Service Science to assess potential impacts of energy
transmission corridors on sensitive lands and wildlife in the West and
to identify mitigation strategies.
Endangered Species.--The President's request proposes a major
restructuring of the Ecological Services Activity which includes the
Endangered Species program. Defenders is concerned about whether the
new structure will allow for adequate transparency and accountability,
particularly in the large ``General Program Activities'' program
elements. Before any such restructuring is permitted, the agency must
show that it has adequate controls in place to ensure the strategic use
of this funding and a transparent process for developing priorities and
reporting how funds are allocated. Absent this information, Defenders
supports maintaining the current budget structure and requests
increases for the endangered species portion of Ecological Services,
$21.7 million, which includes:
--A $4 million increase to support the unprecedented effort to
conserve the greater sage-grouse and its sagebrush habitat.
--A $2.3 million increase for listing species. This funding will
support progress in listing approximately 145 candidate
species, many of which have awaited Endangered Species Act
(ESA) protection for years.
--An $11.1 million increase to support the recovery of the more than
1,500 listed U.S. species so that ESA protection is no longer
necessary.
--Defenders opposes a $1 million reduction for the Wolf Livestock
Loss Demonstration Program that assists livestock owners co-
existing with wolves, and we urge its restoration.
National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).--Our National Wildlife
Refuge System is the largest land and water system in the world
dedicated to wildlife conservation. Refuges provide enormous benefits
to the American people, generating $2.4 billion each year for local
economies. A September 2013 memorandum from the System's Chief detailed
significant damage from budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 with
conservation effectiveness in numerous areas declining dangerously. The
request includes a $4.2 million increase which includes funding for
Challenge Cost share projects with partners and volunteer groups and
for law enforcement but it is not sufficient. Instead, Defenders
supports an $8 million increase over fiscal year 2014 which is the
minimal amount needed each year to keep up with operating costs such as
fuel, utilities and rent. We also support legislative language proposed
by the administration that would provide authority to recover
compensation from responsible parties who injure or destroy Refuge
System or Hatchery System resources similar to that of the National
Park Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and allows compensation to be applied directly to repair the injury
without further appropriation by Congress.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--Defenders supports the
President's requested increase of $3.3 million that will support the
continued development and work of the Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives that are working to solve complex problems across large
landscapes.
Science Support.--The requested $14.4 million increase will help to
answer pressing questions about climate adaptation and other landscape
level ecological changes as well as about energy development, White-
Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat populations, and other agency
management challenges.
Migratory Bird Management.--U.S. bird populations have experienced
precipitous declines in recent years. Full funding of the program's
$46.922 million request will support the program's work to survey and
monitor, reduce hazards, manage permits, and restore habitat for
migratory birds.
Environmental Contaminants.--Under Ecological Services, a $1.2
million increase in Planning and Consultation will help to support the
process for national consultations related to pesticide registrations
and a $2 million increase in Conservation and Restoration will help
increase capacity to respond to impacts of contaminant releases.
Office of Law Enforcement.--A $2.5 million increase requested by
the President will support wildlife science forensics and efforts to
combat an unprecedented level of illegal trade in wildlife.
International Affairs.--A $1.1 million increase in the request will
support local communities in reducing poaching of flagship species such
as tigers, rhinoceros, and elephants.
Other key grant programs.--Defenders supports the requested funding
amounts for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, and the Cooperative Endangered Species
Fund (CESF). We are opposed to the $8.695 million cut for State and
Tribal Wildlife grants and urge that the program be funded at no less
than the fiscal year 2014 level. In addition, we are opposed to the
request to fund non-land acquisition planning and conservation grants
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund under the CESF.
forest service and bureau of land management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service
(FS) are essential to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the
United States, yet their resources are not adequate to meet significant
challenges. A top priority for Defenders is ensuring that renewable
energy development on these lands proceeds in a balanced way that
maintains the ecological integrity of our public lands and waters,
conserves wildlife habitat and populations, and contributes to agency
efforts to successfully recover our most imperiled wildlife. We urge
strong oversight to ensure that any energy development is done in an
environmentally sensitive fashion. Given their large land ownerships it
is imperative that both participate fully in landscape level
conservation and management efforts.
FS Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)/Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management.--The administration has again proposed merging a
number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat
Management, into an integrated budget. Instead, Defenders supports
maintaining funding for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management at no
less than the fiscal year 2014 level and continuing IRR as a pilot so
that the agency can demonstrate its ability to adequately protect
habitat for fish and wildlife under the consolidated program.
``Evaluating the Integrated Resource Restoration Line Item: Results
from Phase 1,'' a recent independent study of the pilot program through
the University of Oregon and Colorado State University, indicated that
a combination of hard targets, including hard timber targets, coupled
with declining budgets, may reduce investment in wildlife conservation.
FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.--The request
again proposes merging these two programs into a single line item. As
with IRR, we are concerned about such a consolidation unless the agency
can demonstrate its ability to carry out its responsibilities under
these two programs and urge continued discrete funding for each at no
less than the fiscal year 2014 level.
FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.--We support
the requested increase of $20 million for this proven cost-effective
program established specifically to create job stability, achieve
reliable wood supply, restore forest and watershed health, improve
wildlife habitat, and reduce both the costs of fire suppression in
overgrown forests and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires.
FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).--We are opposed to the
$17.490 million cut in the request for FS R&D and we urge funding at no
less than the fiscal year 2014 level. Adequate funding for this program
is crucial in providing relevant tools and information to support
sustainable management of National Forest System lands as well as non-
Federal forest lands. Generally, we are concerned that the Forest
Service may lack adequate applied scientific capacity to implement
critical planning and management actions, including the 2012 planning
rule.
BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.--Defenders
supports continued full funding of the $65.2 million request for the
Wildlife and Fisheries Management program, a $347,000 increase, which
includes support for the greater sage-grouse planning initiative, on-
the-ground habitat restoration, and monitoring. We recently released an
analysis of all draft plans developed under the Planning Strategy, ``In
the Red: How Proposed Conservation Plans Fail to Protect Greater Sage-
Grouse,'' which found that the plans in their current form recommend
inconsistent and inadequate conservation measures. We urge the
subcommittee to work with the agency to ensure that the plans are
improved so that the final plans will be adequate to conserve and
restore this iconic bird.
BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.--According to
agency reports, the BLM has funding to implement only about 10 percent
of the work it is required to do in recovery plans for ESA listed
species on BLM lands, but the request includes just a $178,000
increase. Instead, Defenders supports an increase of $1 million over
the request which simply restores the budget to the fiscal year 2010
level and will better help move listed species to recovery.
BLM Renewable Energy.--Full funding of the $29.2 million request, a
$171,000 increase, will help BLM to move forward with renewable energy
development on public lands while avoiding areas with natural resource
conflicts, including conflicts with sensitive wildlife species.
BLM Resource Management Planning.--The $5.2 million increase in the
President's request is crucial to support priority planning efforts for
vast areas of BLM lands, including maintaining the currency of resource
management plans.
u.s. geological survey
The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science necessary for
conservation of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge support for the
following increases:
National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/Climate Science
Centers.--An $11.6 million increase in the request will support
scientific needs in planning for climate change adaptation and building
resiliency of ecosystems.
Ecosystems.--A $9.2 million increase in the request will help to
support development of crucial scientific information for sound
management of our Nation's biological resources including research into
declines of native pollinators and measures needed to avoid harming
sensitive wildlife, especially bats and birds, from renewable energy
development.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Defenders supports the proposal in the request for full and
permanent funding of LWCF that will help to save some of the 6,000
acres of open space, including wildlife habitat, that are lost each day
in the United States.\4\ Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/coop_across_boudaries.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Denver Water
April 7, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of Denver
Water, I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations
to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program consistent with the President's recommended
budget. I request that the subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
James S. Lochhead,
CEO/Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Edison Electric Institute
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this
written testimony for the record to the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. We
appreciate this opportunity to share our views on some of the fiscal
year 2015 programs for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The U.S. electric generation fleet is facing numerous challenges.
Among these are EPA regulations, including pending rulemakings on Clean
Water Act section 316(b) cooling water intake structures, coal ash
disposal, ``waters of the U.S.,'' steam-electric effluent limitation
guidelines, and greenhouse gas new source performance standards, as
well as other significant pending Clean Air Act regulations. These
requirements will dramatically affect individual utility decisions
regarding construction of new generation and the retrofitting and
retirement of existing plants. Therefore, I am sharing with you our
views on a number of these proposals that could significantly impact
the ability of electric utilities to ensure an adequate, reliable and
affordable supply of electricity for consumers.
waters of the united states
On March 25, 2014, EPA released a draft proposed rule to revise the
regulatory definition of ``waters of the United States'' (WOTUS) for
purposes of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The draft would have the effect
of expanding the scope of Federal CWA jurisdiction at the expense of
State jurisdiction to virtually all waters and every program under the
CWA.
The draft rule, if implemented, would vastly expand the triggering
of CWA regulatory and permitting requirements for electric utility
land-use activities, including generation construction and operations,
as well as transmission construction and maintenance. Decommissioning
operations would also be negatively impacted.
EPA asserts it is not changing the existing exemption from WOTUS
for waste treatment systems; however, that is not clear from the
proposed rule text. Modifying the current exclusion by regulatory fiat
could require electric facilities to comply with CWA limitations prior
to discharge into impoundments. Often, this is not even technically or
economically feasible.
Under EPA's proposal, the energy industry would face significant
challenges in its effort to expand and upgrade infrastructure,
primarily in the form of major project permitting delays, costly
resource outlays for new permit applications, and an unprecedented
level of regulatory uncertainty and inconsistency in the administration
of CWA permitting programs. Such an outcome disregards the
administration's commitment to streamline permitting timelines and
promote early Federal, State and local coordination for Federal
permitting processes applicable to domestic energy infrastructure
programs.
In light of the significant and numerous legal, economic and
scientific deficiencies with this proposal, EEI respectfully urges the
subcommittee to adopt a legislative amendment to its fiscal year 2015
legislation that would bar EPA from implementing a final rule. In the
alternative, we request that the subcommittee require the agency to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study to establish
a scientific basis for defining a ``significant nexus'' to guide
development of a more scientifically grounded regulatory standard.
clean waters act section 316(b) cooling water intake structures rule
In 2011, EPA issued a proposed rule under Section 316(b) of the
Clean Water Act. The proposal, which is now expected to be finalized by
April 17, 2014, will require changes in ``cooling waters intake
structures,'' physical constructions through which water is withdrawn
for cooling purposes, for the vast majority of America's existing
steam-electric generating plants and a wide range of manufacturing and
industrial facilities. The proposed rule focuses on reducing fish and
shellfish mortality attributed to ``impingement'' on intake structure
screens and ``entrainment'' into cooling water systems.
The proposed 316(b) rule would apply to facilities whose
construction began before January 18, 2002, and where the total design
intake flow of the cooling water intake structure(s) is greater than 2
million gallons of water per day. It would apply to all existing steam-
electric facilities, including ones that have closed-cycle cooling and
those that have once-through cooling. Importantly, the rule does not
distinguish between nuclear, coal and gas units.
EEI continues to believe that a science-based rule, one that is
fair and flexible, should include reasonable compliance requirements
and deadlines. In order to protect the environment and avoid
unnecessary burdens on electricity consumers, such a rule should only
impose technically justifiable mandates when costs--commensurate with
benefits--are part of the appropriate course of action. We remain
concerned that an overly prescriptive, rigid rule would encourage
unnecessary retrofits and result in significant negative environmental,
energy, cost, and local reliability impacts on hundreds of electric
generation facilities across the country.
With several unresolved implementation issues undergoing final
interagency review, EEI urges the subcommittee to ensure that a final
316(b) rule addresses electric system reliability and encourages the
use of flexible compliance mechanisms in a cost-effective manner.
coal combustion product regulation
EPA's Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule is currently in proposed
form. The proposal offers two options--regulating coal ash as either
hazardous waste or as non-hazardous waste. EEI continues to advocate
for the non-hazardous regulatory framework that provides a workable
timeline for implementation and protects safety, human health and the
environment.
In addition, we continue to advocate for legislation that would
establish a Federal non-hazardous, State-implemented waste regulatory
program for coal ash disposal. In July 2013, the House of
Representatives passed such legislation, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals
Reuse and Management Act. Later this year the Senate is expected to
introduce a companion bill.
EEI urges subcommittee support for a non-hazardous regulatory
program for CCRs similar to the provisions outlined in H.R. 2218. Such
an approach would build on existing State regulatory programs and
ensure proper disposal of CCRs in a manner that is cost-effective and
without unintended consequences. This approach enjoys bipartisan
support in Congress and has been endorsed by the States, ash recyclers
and our industry.
effluent limitation guidelines rulemaking
In June 2013, EPA proposed the first significant revision of the
Clean Water Act steam effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) in more
than 30 years. The proposal sets strict technology-based effluent
limitations that will force technological and operational changes at
existing coal-based facilities, many gas-based combined-cycle
facilities, and some nuclear generation facilities. The impact to
industry on the effluent guidelines rule could be in the hundreds of
billions of dollars.
In September 2013, EEI filed extensive agency comments, noting that
most of the proposed compliance options would impose substantial costs
on the electric generation fleet without providing corresponding
benefits. We have requested the agency to provide adequate time for
utilities to implement any new requirements in the final ELG rule, as
well as coordinate compliance with other rulemakings that affect the
power industry. EPA must also revise its technical approaches with more
current and reliable data.
We look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure EPA
fully considers the economic challenges and obligations of the power
sector as a whole, and that criteria for the final rule is based on
credible and sound data to achieve maximum, cost-effective reductions.
greenhouse gas new source performance standards (nsps) for new and
existing sources
The electric power sector has made impressive reductions in its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including a 15 percent reduction from
2005 levels as of 2012. Nevertheless, major steps in the development of
GHG emissions regulations will occur this year as EPA moves forward
with Clean Air Act performance standards for both new and existing
sources.
New Sources
In September 2013, EPA issued re-proposed New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for new units. These re-proposed standards, which
replaced a proposal in April 2012, were published in the Federal
Register on January 8, 2014.
EEI is developing industry comments that will largely track those
filed on the original 2012 proposal. We remain concerned about the
ability of natural gas units to comply with the standards under normal
operating conditions, especially as more variable renewable resources
are deployed, causing natural gas units to cycle more to support the
integration of such resources into the grid.
We also are concerned about the lack of an explicit exemption for
simple-cycle combustion turbines, and continue to object to EPA's
determination that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a commercially
demonstrated technology for coal-based electric generating units at
this time. While EPA has proposed a separate standard for coal, it has
not created a workable pathway for coal going forward given the costs
and other regulatory barriers to CCS.
EPA is not compelled to finalize the new source standards by any
particular date. At this time, the agency is not expected to finalize
these standards until mid-2015, when existing source guidelines are
expected to be promulgated.
Existing Sources
EPA has begun its initial, pre-proposal efforts to develop State
guidelines for existing plants under CAA section 111(d). EPA,
separately, will be addressing modified and reconstructed plants. The
timeline includes proposing State emissions guidelines for existing
sources by June 2014 and the finalization of guidelines by June 2015.
Theoretically, States would have 1 year to develop and submit to EPA a
plan to implement the guidelines, though expectations are that this
process will take longer.
We believe EPA should provide States with maximum flexibility when
creating compliance plans and should give credit for a wide range of
actions taken to date that have resulted in GHG emission reductions. It
is also important that any rulemaking minimize the impact on existing
electric generating units that are already making significant
investments to comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATs) rule.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, EEI truly values the partnership that
we share with your subcommittee, and we look forward to continuing our
dialogue with you throughout the year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
this statement for the official record in support of funding for
entomology-related activities at the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ESA
requests a robust fiscal year 2015 appropriation for the Forest Service
and requests that the Forest and Rangeland Research budget is
maintained at a level at least equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted
amount of $292.8 million to preserve valuable invasive species research
and development. The Society also supports continued investment in
Forest Health Management programs across the Forest Service in fiscal
year 2015. In addition, ESA recommends strong funding for EPA,
including Pesticides Licensing Program Area activities within its
Science & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, as
well as continued support for State & Tribal Assistance Grants for
Pesticide Program Implementation. Finally, ESA supports a proposal in
the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request to establish a $45
million multi-agency initiative addressing pollinator health, including
involvement by EPA to examine the potential impact of pesticides and
ensure that pesticides represent acceptable risks to pollinator health.
Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the
field of entomology, help to protect our ecosystems and communities
from threats impacting our Nation's economy, public health, and
agricultural productivity and safety. Through improved understanding of
invasive insect pests and the development of biological approaches to
pest management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and
preventing the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national
forests and grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the
development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use
science-based, environmentally friendly, comprehensive methods to take
preventative action against pests, often resulting in lower costs and a
more targeted use of pesticides. In addition, entomology improves our
knowledge of pollinator biology and the factors affecting pollinator
health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop
production that meets the needs of a growing world population.
The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and
productivity of 193 million acres of public lands in national forests
and grasslands across 44 States and territories. Serving as the largest
supporter of forestry research in the world, the agency employs
approximately 35,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In
addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service
provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and
private forestry agency partners.
The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports
the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative
technological tools to improve the health, use, and management of the
Nation's forests and rangelands. Within Forest and Rangeland Research,
the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically
based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, and
impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects,
plants, and diseases that can have serious economic and environmental
consequences for our Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are
working to prevent the devastation of ash trees across North America by
the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that was accidentally
introduced from Asia. Emerald ash borer was first detected in 2002 and,
since then, has killed countless millions of ash trees. This biological
invasion threatens to eliminate all ash trees from North America, and
is the most costly invasion from a forest insect to date. To attempt to
address the problem, researchers have developed a multi-tiered program
that includes removal of infested trees, new insecticides, and
introduction of several species of parasitic wasps into ash borer-
infested U.S. forests. The scientists found that the wasps, known to
parasitize and kill emerald ash borer eggs and larvae, have helped to
slow the spread of the ash borer invasion in recent years.\1\ Emerald
ash borer is just one of the exponentially growing list of invasive
insects and diseases that cause harm to our Nation's forests and to our
Nation's economy. Forest health is also affected by invasive weeds, and
those weeds are often best controlled by beneficial insects used as
biological control agents, resulting in permanent and often spectacular
control. ESA strongly opposes the proposed cuts to Forest and Rangeland
Research included in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request,
especially the 8.0 percent reduction directed at invasive species
research and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Forest Service fiscal year 2015 Budget Justification: http://
www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health
Management program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and
private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful
insects, diseases, and invasive plants. The program also provides
assistance to State and local partners to help prevent and control
outbreaks that endanger forest health. According to a 2011 study,
invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over
$2 billion per year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss,
tree removal, and treatment exceed an additional $2.5 billion per
year.\2\ The program's ``Slow the Spread'' activities, for example,
have led to a 60 percent reduction in the rate of the spread of an
invasive species known as gypsy moth, resulting in an estimated
benefit-to-cost ratio of 3:1. Without the program, it is estimated that
50 million additional acres would have been infested by the moth.\3\ To
support these important functions, ESA requests that the subcommittee
maintain strong funding for the Forest Health Management Program in
fiscal year 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic
impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587.
\3\ Forest Service fiscal year 2015 Budget Overview: http://
www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the
environment by developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants
for research and other projects, conducting studies on environmental
issues, facilitating partnerships, and providing information through
public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives to ensure that our
Nation enjoys clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and
communities free from pollution and harmful chemicals.
EPA's Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA's Science
& Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to
evaluate and regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by
consumers. Through the mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA utilizes scientific expertise and
data, including knowledge gained from entomological sciences, to set
maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products as
effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of
diseases of humans and domesticated animals, and invasive insect
species that endanger our environment, pesticides registered by EPA
help protect public health and the Nation's food supply. EPA's
activities in this area also include the development of educational
information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and other reduced-
risk methods of controlling pests. For example, EPA recently awarded
three grants to universities to help facilitate the use of IPM
practices in schools in multiple States, helping to promote cost-
effective strategies that reduce student exposure to pesticides and
pests. Due to previous work in this area, 18 Indiana schools have
reduced pest control costs by 90 percent by employing new IPM
techniques.\4\ The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes
plans to reduce funding for IPM efforts in schools in favor of other
priority activities. However, IPM strategies used in schools reduce
student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from pests
themselves. Therefore, ESA supports continuing the modest funding that
EPA has invested in school IPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ March 12, 2014 EPA press release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/
admpress.nsf/596e17d7cac720848525781f0043629e/
ebef2aed5d69e01585257c99006af60d!OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among EPA's State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in
the area of Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the
translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-
world approaches that work for local communities. For example, these
grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental risks associated
with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM
techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional
pest control methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee maintain
support for Pesticides Program Implementation grants.
ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically based
studies of pollinator populations and health. Pollinators play a vital
role in our Nation's agriculture industry; for example, bees pollinate
more than 90 crops in the United States and are essential for the
production of an estimated 70 percent of all the food we eat or export.
To ensure a healthy bee population, more research is needed to fully
understand the complexities of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and to
examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Pesticides
represent just one potential risk to bees, but both the risks and
benefits must be balanced, and those risks and benefits will vary among
different crops and different crop-producing regions of the United
States. EPA is well-positioned to help identify methods for protecting
bee health; the agency recently awarded agricultural grants to three
universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that lower
pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from pests. For
this reason, ESA supports EPA's participation in a proposed multi-
agency initiative to investigate pollinator health and develop
implementation plans to prevent pollinator population decline.
ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated with educational
institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
America's support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more
information about the Entomological Society of America, please see
http://www.entsoc.org/.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition
The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal
Forest Resource which represents purchasers of Federal timber in 32
States, with over 650 member companies and affiliated associations,
collectively representing over 390,000 employees.
We make the following specific programmatic recommendations for
fiscal year 2015:
Enact the budget cap exception recommended in the President's
request and in H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act; Focus
increased investments (15 percent increases) on National Forest Timber
Management, Wildland Hazardous Fuels Reduction, and Capital Improvement
& Maintenance; Continue CFLR projects to demonstrate collaborative
forest management. We strongly applaud the administration's budget for
proposing to increase timber outputs by almost 16 percent, and we
endorse the bi-partisan approach to wildfire funding in the Wildfire
Disaster Funding Act.
Our Mills Rely on Predictable, and Growing Supplies of Timber.--The
forest products industry is extremely capital intensive. Our member
companies have significant investments in logging and mill
infrastructure, which can help offset the costs of managing the
National Forests and return money to the Treasury. After weathering the
worst recession our industry has seen in almost a century, forest
products companies are seeing the benefits of a rebounding economy and
international markets, providing us an opportunity to modernize and
remain competitive. Several issues at the Forest Service inhibit our
ability to grow and compete. Unpredictable timber supplies caused by
erratic appropriations, fire borrowing, and obstructionist tactics by a
minority of radical groups make it difficult to commit to the
investments needed to keep our companies viable.
Eliminating Fire Borrowing, Provide Stable Appropriations.--Last
year was the second in a row in which the Forest Service redirected
significant funds (over $600 million) from other programs to pay for
wildfire suppression activities. Programs which directly support
improved forest health are among those penalized the most by this
process. The pattern of borrowing disrupts forest management and delays
timber sale projects unnecessarily, while doing nothing to help ensure
honest budgeting or reduced costs. Suppression borrowing concerns cause
the Forest Service to freeze accounts early in the summer, stopping
vital timber sale projects and Stewardship contract negotiations. The
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act holds tremendous promise and we urge the
Committee to move forward with it this year.
We also stress that the Forest Service has had to manage through a
long series of continuing resolutions, some lasting as little as a few
days. This culminated with the disruptive Government shutdown, which
halted 1,200 active timber sales. Contractors were given very little
time to close up operations and remove machinery from the woods. The
working men and women on our logging crews and in our mills should not
be the unintended collateral damage in high stakes political fights.
Disruptions in the timber sale program make it harder to manage the
National Forests, harder to reduce fuel loads, and harder for our
member companies to justify making the capital investments needed to
remain competitive. We urge Congress to use the appropriations process
to minimize these disruptions to the greatest extent possible.
The Need for Management.--As you know, the National Forest System
is experiencing significant forest health challenges. The Chief has
testified that the National Forests have between 65 and 82 million
acres in need of active management, with 45 million acres decimated by
bark beetles in the Rocky Mountains alone. Further, the Forest Service
has a $5.6 billion capital facilities maintenance backlog. This backlog
does not just affect the roads my members depend on to access timber,
but the trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers millions of Americans
use. Faced with deteriorating forest health and crumbling facilities,
we urge Congress to prioritize management and maintenance over
expansion of an overtaxed National Forest System.
The Need to Increase the Pace and Scale of Forest Management.--In
early 2012, the administration publicly committed to increasing the
pace and scale of managing the National Forest System, arguing that by
expanding forest restoration programs, forest health would improve,
fire danger would decrease, and timber outputs would climb to over 3
billion board feet. We applaud their 2015 budget request for attempting
to translate that commitment into action. However, we urge the
subcommittee to take a more direct route than that proposed by the
administration.
The administration has once again proposed a consolidated line
item, ``Integrated Resource Restoration'', funded at $820 million for
fiscal year 2015. As you know, this program has been implemented as a
pilot program in Regions 1, 3, and 4 since 2010. We have not seen any
indication that the pilot regions are experiencing a reduction in unit
costs, whether the metric is acres treated or units of wood produced.
Region 1, in particular, remains extraordinarily dysfunctional, with
timber output plummeting by more than 58 percent in Montana since the
pilot program began. There is no indication that an integrated or
collaborative approach has reduced the appetite for obstruction among
extremist groups who oppose all management.
Further, each of these Regions relies heavily on personal use fire
wood to meet their timber harvest goals and to artificially reduce
their unit costs. The three pilot Regions' timber programs included 31
percent, 21 percent, and 43 percent firewood, respectively. When
firewood is factored out, Region 1 and Region 4 had unit costs of over
$224 and $137 per thousand board feet each, making them the least
efficient Regions in the lower 48. IRR has made use of funds more
difficult to track and budget comparisons item to item or year to year
almost impossible.
Fiscal Year 2015 would be the 5th full fiscal year of IRR at the
pilot level. Ultimately, we aren't getting restoration or treatments
achieved through this program. We urge you to end the pilot program and
we oppose expansion to the rest of the country.
The administration has also recommended expanding the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLR) by 50 percent, increasing
the funding from the currently authorized level of $40 million per year
to $60 million per year. We have similar concerns about CFLR as we do
the IRR program. The Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC) members
are actively engaged in CFLR projects across the country. In many
cases, our members are among the leaders in these collaborative
efforts. However, as of today, we have yet to see significant results
from these projects, and drastically increasing the allocation of funds
to CFLR is not justified at this time.
We recently surveyed our members on the successes and failures of
the CFLR projects they are involved in. Just 60 percent said that the
program had led to increased timber outputs and increased acres
thinned. Only 53 percent said the program had reduced controversy
around managing the National Forests. In many cases, our members
reported that CFLR projects had completed no new National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documents, and in fact were reporting accomplishments
from projects whose NEPA was completed prior to the designation of the
CFLR projects.
We are extremely concerned about the lack of concrete matching
funds for already selected CFLR projects. We support continued funding
for CFLR at the authorized level. Congress should take steps to ensure
that CFLR funds are truly supplemental to, not displacing, regular
funds for the National Forest System (NFS) units with projects.
Stricter matching requirements to ensure concrete financial matches
should also be implemented. We urge the Committee to direct the Forest
Service to expand management across the country, and not simply focus
on CFLR project areas. There are many opportunities, and many
authorities, for expanded management.
The Need to Increase Efficiency in NFS Management.--As an industry,
we have learned how to economize, reduce costs, and do more with less.
We recognize that the Nation's fiscal situation demands austerity, and
we dialogue constantly with Federal land managers to find ways to
reduce costs and increase efficiency. Congress has been at the
forefront of these efforts. In recent years, the Congress has: Replaced
cumbersome administrative appeals with a streamlined objection process;
exempted projects that use a Categorical Exclusion from administrative
appeal or objection; expanded the use of designation by description to
all timber sales; and expanded forest health authorities beyond the
Wildland-Urban Interface.
We strongly urge you to continue these efforts by directing the
Forest Service to; meet their forest products output targets using only
commercial products such as sawlogs, pulpwood, and commercial biomass,
not personal use firewood; focus higher yielding forest management
projects on lands designated as suitable for timber production; and
meet a goal of 3.5 billion board feet in fiscal year 2015.
The current annual harvest from the National Forests represents
less than 10 percent of annual forest growth, and less than half the
allowable sale quantity in existing forest plans. In many Regions, the
Forest Service is falling short of its own management goals; including
response to the bark beetle outbreak in the Rockies and in managing
aspen habitat in the Lake States. Stepping up management, through
collaboratives where they exist and normal timber programs elsewhere,
will address pressing forest health concerns while bolstering
employment in economically distressed rural communities. Investing in
the Forest Service timber program is a very effective job creator,
generating 16.5 new direct and indirect jobs per million board feet
harvested.
We appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to remove the
arbitrary requirements for hazardous fuels reduction work in the
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). A greater percentage of lands in need
of fuels reduction are outside of the WUI, and mechanical thinning
allows the Forest Service to take advantage of the wood products
infrastructure to reduce treatment costs. Extensive Forest Service
research shows that mechanical thinning which includes removing useable
wood fiber, followed by prescribed fire, significantly reduce threats
from wildfire and forest pests.
BLM Forest Management.--The President's fiscal year 2015 budget
includes a 9.1 percent reduction in funding for the Bureau of Land
Management Oregon and California (BLM O&C) Land Management Program.
FFRC strongly supports reforming these critically important and
productive timberlands. We urge the Committee to reject the proposed
reduction and fund the O&C program at least at the 2014 enacted level.
Aggressive action is needed to offer regeneration harvests from these
lands that meet the needs of local mills and communities. We strongly
support the Presidential Decree (PD) Forest Management Program at no
less than the President's recommended level of $9.9 million.
Alaska.--The timber industry in Alaska faces several challenges
stemming from years of controversy over the management of the Tongass
National Forest. FFRC members depend upon supplies of timber from this
forest, and have been hard pressed as the Forest Service has placed
complete restrictions on harvest in roadless areas. Current efforts to
transition to second growth timber will not meet the local industries
needs for decades. Steps must be taken to offer a timber sale program
that complies with the National Forest Management Act and can sustain
the local value added industry in order to save the capacity to manage
the very small percent of the Tongass that is open to any harvest
(almost 90 percent of the Tongass is roadless). Local mills and
loggers, along with Governor Sean Parnell, have concluded that some
portion of the Tongass should be converted into State ownership in
order to meet the needs of the local economy. FFRC strongly supports
this effort. FFRC also strongly urges the subcommittee to make
permanent the Red Cedar language which it has included in previous
Interior bills for more than a decade. This language is absolutely
necessary to insure that USFS sales are not offered as deficit sales.
Conclusion.--Wood product demand remains strong, providing an
opportunity to expand management on the National Forests. More forest
management work needs to be done on the National Forests. Only Congress
can decide whether we will help meet that domestic and international
demand using timber from our National Forests, which must be milled
domestically before it can be exported. Only Congress can create
American jobs by using this market upswing to pay for badly needed
forest management work. To paraphrase our favorite bear, only you can
decide to act now, or you can allow the negative trends in forest
health and rural economic distress to continue.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
The Federation of State Humanities Councils respectfully requests
that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior allocate
$154.5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and
$46 million for the Federal/State Partnership for fiscal year 2015.
We would like to thank the members of this subcommittee for your
past support. The funding included in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus bill
for State Humanities Councils was extremely helpful to these
organizations, particularly following the severe cuts of the previous
year. Councils are careful stewards of these funds, which they
administer strategically to achieve the maximum benefit for the
communities in their States. As full partners of the NEH, councils
receive their core funding through the Federal/State Partnership line
of the NEH budget, which they use to leverage additional support from
foundations, corporations, private individuals, and State governments.
In 2013, every Federal dollar the councils awarded through grants to
local institutions leveraged, on average, $5.00 in local contributions.
Councils further extended their resources by forming partnerships with
more than 9,000 organizations throughout their States.
These numbers tell part of the story--but not the most important
part. Council programs improve not just individual lives but also the
civic and cultural lives of the communities in your States. The
benefits of the Federal funds invested in the State Humanities Councils
are realized through programs that (1) preserve local history and
culture, (2) support veterans, (3) serve rural communities, (4) reach
diverse audiences, (5) boost local economies, (6) enhance national
security, and (7) promote lifelong learning.
Council programs preserve local history and culture.--Programs that
help communities understand and appreciate their history have been a
staple of council work from the beginning, illuminating the events and
conditions that have shaped these unique places. Consider, for example,
the Idaho Humanities Council's ``Wilderness Considered'' reading and
discussion series, developed to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
1964 Wilderness Act. This program is designed not only to look at the
idea of wilderness in the American imagination but also to explore the
particular relationship that Idahoans ranging from ranchers to
snowmobilers to hunters and hikers have to wild places and the impact
this relationship has had on the State's character. Humanities
Washington, in partnership with the State Historical Society, is
travelling an exhibit entitled ``Hope in Hard Times'' to eight
communities. The exhibit and related activities will allow participants
to reflect on the ways Washingtonians during the Great Depression coped
with their struggles and sustained hope for a better future. It will
also invite them to share family and community stories as a means of
looking at the impact of that history on their own lives, reminding
themselves to look for their own opportunities to create change.
Though councils have been supporting such programs throughout their
history, they have continually explored fresh approaches, involving
scholars in new ways, engaging audiences more interactively, and
employing the many electronic tools at hand. The online State
encyclopedias developed by councils have given residents, visitors, and
educators unprecedented and constantly evolving access to the history
of the State. The Virginia encyclopedia, to cite an outstanding
example, allows visitors to scroll through an alphabetical index of
State figures and events, browse an interactive map, or bore more
deeply into topics covered by the blog. The encyclopedia also provides
resources for teachers and researchers.
In addition, council programs bring to light stories long hidden
but crucial to the State's or a community's understanding of its
culture and identity. The Minnesota Humanities Center, in partnership
with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and the National Museum of
the American Indian, developed an exhibit, ``Why Treaties Matter: Self-
Government in the Dakota and Ojibwe Nations,'' that has given more than
50,000 Minnesotans in 39 communities a deeper understanding of the
circumstances surrounding Minnesota land, its use, and the treatment of
the land's indigenous people, historically and today. The exhibit has
also been used in schools, prompting Kevin Gover, Director of the
National Museum of the American Indian to observe, ``Together, we can
work to educate a new generation of Minnesotans who understand basic
important facts about Minnesota's tribal nations.''
Finally, the Rhode Island Council for the Humanities is
collaborating with Brown University on Rhode Tour, a new statewide
digital history project. Rhode Tour features a smartphone app with GPS
that uses oral histories, pictures, and sound to tell Rhode Island's
story. The Rhode Island Council is partnering with organizations
throughout the State to provide the content for this digital history
tour, including stories on environmental, economic, and social issues.
Councils serve veterans.--A number of agencies and groups provide
services and programs for veterans, but the humanities have a special
role to play. Humanities scholars and facilitators have proven skill at
drawing out stories and exploring their meaning. Council programs look
at larger and deeper questions of what it means to individuals to be in
violent circumstances and what it means to a society to place their men
and women in such conditions. Over the past few years, councils have
developed a rich array of programs for and about veterans. These
include, among others, the Missouri Humanities Council's ``Proud to
Be'' volumes of veterans writings, the council-sponsored Literature and
Medicine reading and discussion programs for veterans' caregivers
throughout the country, and the Veterans' Voices programs sponsored by
the Minnesota Humanities Center and Humanities Texas that explore the
veteran experience through plays and discussion groups.
Cal Humanities recently announced a statewide multi-year program,
``War Comes Home,'' that will launch hundreds of events involving
dozens of partners throughout the State. Through speakers, reading and
discussion groups, public forums, oral histories, and teacher
resources, the program will help veterans and their families and
communities explore how Californians are welcoming their returning
veterans. All these council-sponsored programs have the potential not
only to allow veterans to tell their stories and to begin to re-
integrate into their communities, but also to compel the public to
listen, to wrestle with the consequences of sending people to war and
bringing them home, and to claim their own role and responsibility in
this process.
Councils serve rural communities.--A recent Federation survey
revealed that council programs reached more than 6,000 communities last
year, many in rural, even remote areas, where they are often the only
programs of this sort that small towns have access to. Whether they
involve individual speakers who stimulate a discussion well into the
evening, a reading and discussion program at the local library, or a
facilitated community conversation about an issue of concern, these
programs strengthen and revitalize communities. They unite and
enlighten residents. They encourage habits of dialogue.
The highly successful Museum on Main Street program, the product of
a partnership between State councils and the Smithsonian and designed
specifically for rural communities, shows the lasting benefits of a
relatively modest investment. Last year Frederick, Oklahoma, with a
population just under 4,000, hosted the exhibit ``New Harmonies:
Celebrating American Roots Music,'' which explored music, history, and
cultural movements such as desegregation and gender equality. The
Center's exhibit and program attendance grew by 50 percent and
donations increased by 150 percent. The Alaska Humanities Forum's
``Take Wing Alaska'' program helps rural Native Alaska students adjust
to urban college settings, with the ultimate aim of their gaining
knowledge to strengthen their communities once they return. The Forum
sponsors Urban and Campus Immersions in Anchorage that focus not only
on academic skills, but also on cultural strengths the students can use
to transition from a rural to an urban environment.
Council programs reach citizens of all ages, incomes, and levels of
education.--Increasingly, council programs engage young adults as well
as seniors, a variety of ethnic communities, immigrants, low-income
families, prison populations, and Native Americans. These groups are
not just passive recipients of council programs but partners and active
participants.
As our future leaders, teens and young adults are especially
important participants in humanities programs. Several councils support
or coordinate their State's National History Day, which offers students
intellectual, practical, and even emotional benefits. The Pennsylvania
council offers vibrant interactive programming for students with the
library-based Teen Reading Lounge. These programs supplement formal
education for young people and help instill habits of communication and
critical thinking that will serve them well into adulthood.
Councils also conduct programs that help immigrants and refugees
adjust to their new homes and enable long-time residents to learn about
the cultures of these new citizens. The New York Council for the
Humanities, in collaboration with the Citizens Committee for New York
City and several other groups, provided grants to faith-based or
neighborhood-based immigrant and cultural groups to encourage unity
through active engagement between new immigrant groups and their
longer-term neighbors as well as residents of different faiths.
Projects funded in 2013 through this first-of-its-kind program included
an interfaith celebration of Eid hosted by Afghans United, a cross-
cultural mural project with students from different ethnic and racial
backgrounds, and a film series sponsored by the National Council of
Negro Women that encouraged members of diverse communities to view and
discuss films about a variety of immigrant experiences.
Council programs boost local economies.--Council programs help
improve and revitalize such institutions as libraries, museums, and
schools, which gives communities a vibrancy that draws both new
residents and potential investors. Many councils conduct books
festivals that bring dollars to local economies. Many use the Museum on
Main Street exhibits to draw tourists. Still others are steadily
building cultural tourism programs that leverage local dollars. In
Ohio, where tourism is the fourth largest economic drive in the State,
Ohio Humanities offers grants and technical assistance to communities
seeking to engage in heritage tourism, offering authentic place-based
experiences for travelers. The council has also produced driving tours
drawing from ``The Ohio Guide,'' the 1940 publication of the Federal
Writers Project. Communities along the 11 selected routes report that
the tours have increased visitation.
The many book festivals that councils conduct in States including
Tennessee, Montana, Colorado, Virginia, South Carolina, and South
Dakota serve as another economic boost for host communities, drawing
readers and tourists from all regions of the State and beyond. A recent
economic impact study by the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and
Visitors Bureau estimated the Virginia Festival of the Book's total
impact at $3.9M. Over 600 hotel rooms are booked each year for the
South Carolina Book Festival, which generates more than $100,000 in
book sales. The Utah Humanities Council's statewide Book Festival has
for 16 years brought Utah readers and writers together with authors
from around the world to talk about books and ideas. Throughout the
month of October (National Book Month) historians, journalists,
biographers, politicians, and members of the public mingle with poets,
novelists, and children's writers in communities in every corner of the
State, both enriching the intellectual and cultural lives and
contributing to the economies of those communities.
The humanities and the humanities councils increase national
security.--Clearly councils do not directly affect national security
policy-making, but council programs contribute to the citizen
understanding of global issues that is the necessary prerequisite to
citizen involvement with the decisionmaking process and the elected
officials who do make these decisions. The Maine Humanities Council
offers evidence of the validity of this assumption with ``The World in
Your Library: A Foreign Policy Speakers Series,'' a speaker series
through which local libraries host three one-hour presentations, with
discussion, on foreign policy issues of their choice, providing a rare
opportunity for residents to explore these issues with experts in
foreign policy.
Finally, council programs promote lifelong learning.--This learning
extends to citizens who participate in the many community conversations
conducted by councils, to teachers who benefit from the council-
sponsored institutes and seminars that enrich and re-energize them, to
the parents and children who improve their reading skills and engage
with ideas through councils' family literacy programs.
The Virginia Foundation for the Humanities recently offered a
program, ``Segregation, Desegregation and Civil Rights in Virginia,''
that provided learning opportunities for several audiences. First, it
offered a day-long seminar that used events surrounding the 1959 school
closings in Arlington and Prince Edward county to help teachers
``consider new ways to understand and teach this multi-layered history;
the ways our collective understanding of citizenship and community was
challenged during the desegregation era; and why this history still
matters--and the issues remain current--in the present day.'' The
workshop was followed by a community conversation inviting residents to
recall their own experience of those years and discuss why these issues
still matter.
We have offered only a small sampling of the programs that enrich
and enliven communities throughout the Nation. We hope these examples
have demonstrated the significant difference that this modest
investment in Federal funds makes. And we hope you will look with favor
on our request for $46 million for the councils and $154.5 million for
NEH.
______
Prepared Statement of the Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner
Caucus
The undersigned organizations, members of the Fire Suppression
Funding Solutions Partner Caucus, urge the subcommittee to address the
vexing issue of wildfire suppression funding in fiscal year 2015
appropriations. We respectfully request that the subcommittee correct
this wildfire suppression funding issue by including language from the
bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA--H.R. 3992; S. 1875) in
the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. This language provides the structure to fund a
portion of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the
Interior (DOI) wildfire suppression costs through a budget cap
adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985, as amended. This would provide the USFS and DOI with a funding
structure similar to that used by other agencies who respond to natural
disaster emergencies.
The Partner Caucus is a diverse coalition of organizations brought
together in January of 2009 to find a solution to the impacts of
increasing suppression costs on land management agencies. Our coalition
includes national and local organizations, State forestry,
environmentalists, outdoor and recreation industry, sportsmen, timber
industry, local governments and many other groups interested in Federal
lands.
Our organizations are concerned current spending levels for the
suppression and FLAME accounts will not be sufficient for fiscal year
2015 and certainly not sustainable over the long term. The current
wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of transfers and
repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest
management activities. The agencies and first responders need a
predictable, stable, and efficient budget structure to deliver their
congressionally directed land management missions.
Numerous fire seasons over the past decade have required fire
funding transfers from non-suppression accounts, clearly demonstrating
the urgent need to change the suppression funding model at the USFS and
DOI. The last few fiscal years have increasingly reflected the need for
a new funding approach:
Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013
Carry-over levels in the FLAME accounts were rescinded in
fiscal year 2012, suppression was funded below the forecast,
and the fire season was very costly, particularly at the end of
the fiscal year. Suppression was also funded below the ten-year
average in fiscal year 2013 and the fire season was once again
very costly. Over $1 billion were transferred from USFS and DOI
programs at the end of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
combined.
In the past, repayments of transfers occurred through
emergency supplemental appropriations, which would occur well
after the USFS and DOI Bureaus had been severely impacted by
the transfers. However, fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013
suppression transfers were ``repaid'' from the entire Interior
bill for the following fiscal year. The result is that all
Interior Agencies and their programs are now impacted by
suppression funding. Additionally, the transfers have had long
lasting effects on the USFS' and DOI's implementation of
impacted programs that continue to this day.
Fiscal Year 2014
Suppression is funded at the full ten-year average. However,
with the increasing drought conditions across the Nation, the
fiscal year 2014 fire season is expected to be particularly
active and costly. There is every indication that the USFS and
DOI will run out of suppression funds and be forced to transfer
before the end of the season.
This pattern of funding is neither efficient nor sustainable. The
Wildfire Disaster Funding bill would provide the USFS and DOI with a
funding structure similar to that used by other agencies that respond
to natural disaster emergencies, which have budget cap exemptions for a
portion of disaster funding. This important change would free the
agencies to reinvest in core activities which have been reduced in
recent years due to a continued shift of limited resources to fund
wildfire suppression, including the very programs that would help to
decrease wildfire costs over time. Further, this change would end the
highly disruptive process of canceling and/or significantly delaying
ongoing project work, most often at the time such work is being
executed on the ground.
We appreciate this subcommittee's attention to this increasing and
unsustainable natural resource challenge. The fiscal year 2015
appropriations bill can provide for both necessary wildfire suppression
and also fire risk reduction activities that create jobs and reduce
firefighting costs in the long run. We are prepared to help and look
forward to assisting Congress in developing a sustainable and long-term
solution to fund emergency wildfire suppression.
The following are 226 groups supporting the Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act:
3 Legs Collaboration Services
4FRI: Four Forest Restoration Initiative Collaborative Stakeholder
Group
ACA Canoe--Kayak--SUP--Raft--Rescue
Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc.
Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group
Alliance for Community Trees
American Bird Conservancy
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Forest & Paper Association
American Forest Foundation
American Forest Resource Council
American Forests
American Hiking Society
American Loggers Council
American YouthWorks
Appalachian Mountain Club
Applegate Partnership and Watershed Council
Arid Land Innovation
Arizona Conservation Corps
Arizona Fire Chiefs Association
Arizona Prescribed Fire Council
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Association of National Grasslands
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
Black Hills Forest Resource Association
Black Hills Regional Multiple Use Coalition
Black Hills Resource, Conservation, and Development
Blue Goose Alliance
Blue Mountains Forest Partners
Boulder County, CO
BRL Services Inc./BRL Logging
Bull Moose Sportsmen's Alliance
California Deer Association
California Fire Safe Council
California Forestry Association
California Ski Industry Association
California Waterfowl
Center for Heirs' Property Preservation
Center for Sustainable Communities
Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council
Choose Outdoors
City of Ashland, OR
Civil War Trust
Clearwater Resource Council
Colorado Timber Industry Association
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Conservation Legacy
Conservation Northwest
ConservationCorps, MN & IA
Criley Consulting
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited
Eastern Arizona Counties Organization
Ecosystem Workforce Program
El Tesoro Retreat Center
Elliotsville Plantation, Inc
Endangered Species Coalition
Environment America
Environmental Stewards
Estrada Collaborative Resource Management, LLC
Federal Forest Resource Coalition
Flagstaff Fire Department
Flathead Economic Policy Center
Foothill Conservancy
Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina
Forest Business Network
Forest County Economic Development Partnership
Forest Energy Corporation
Forest Guild
Forest Health Task Force
Fourth Sector Strategies
Framing Our Community, Inc.
Friends of the Columbia Gorge
Friends of the Urban Forest
Front Range Roundtable
Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE)
Future Forest, LLC
Gila Tree Thinners
Gila WoodNet
Global Parks
Grassroots Outdoor Alliance
Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Hawks Aloft, Inc.
International Association of Fire Fighters
Idaho Conservation League
Idaho Forest Owners Association
Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners Association
Intermountain Forest Association
Intermountain Roundwood Association
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Wildland Fire
International Mountain Bicycling Association
Intertribal Timber Council
Jara Landworks
KHII Radio
Lake County Resources Initiative
Lemhi County
Little Colorado River Plateau RC&D
Lomakatsi Restoration Project
Louisiana Forestry Association
Maine Audubon
Mainland Planning, Inc
Mass Audubon
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions
Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
Massachusetts Resident
Masters of Foxhounds Association
McCutchanville Volunteer Fire Department
Mid Klamath Watershed Council
Montana Conservation Corps
Montana Wilderness Association
Montana Wood Products Association
Mottek Consulting
Mountain States Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association
Mt. Adams Resource Stewards
Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC
Mule Deer Foundation
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Forest Owners
National Association of Forest Service Retirees
National Association of State Foresters
National Association of University Forest Resources Programs
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Network of Forest Practitioners
National Parks Conservation Association
National Rifle Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Volunteer Fire Council
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wildfire Institute
National Wildlife Federation
National Wildlife Refuge Association
National Woodland Owners
Nevada Conservation Corps
New Mexico Forest Industry Association
New Mexico Prescribed Fire Council
New Mexico State Land Office
Northbrook Public Works
Northern Arizona Wood Products Association
Northern Forest Center
Northwest Connections
Northwest Forest Worker Center
Northwest Youth Corps
National Ski Areas Association
Outdoor Alliance
Outdoor Industry Association
Partnership for Rural America
Partnership for the National Trails System
Pheasants Forever/Quails Forever
Pinchot Institute for Conservation
Public Lands Council
Public Lands Foundation
Public Lands Service Coalition
Quality Deer Management Association
Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation
Restoration Technologies
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research
Ruffed Grouse Society
Rural County Representatives of California
Safari Club International
Salmon Valley Stewardship
San Juan Forest Health Partnership
Sierra Club
Sierra Forest Legacy
Siuslaw Institute
San Juan Woody-Invasives Initiative
Society of American Foresters
South Carolina Wildlife Federation
South Dakota Campground Owners Association
South Dakota ATV/UTV Association
Southeast Youth Corps
Southern Environmental Law Center
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative
Southern Oregon Timber Industries Assn.
Southwest Conservation Corps
Southwest Forests Sustainable Partnership
Spatial Interest, LLC
Sustainable Northwest
Swan Ecosystem Center
Taos County Economic Development Corporation
Teller County Home Builders Association
Texas Forestry Association
The Conservation Fund
The Corps Network
The Forest Guild
The National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
The Watershed Center
The Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Tierra y Montes SWCD
Town of Laona, Forest County, Wisconsin
Tree Musketeers
Tribal Environmental Policy Center
Trout Unlimited
Twin Willows Ranch
Upstate Forever
Ute Mountaineer
Vail Resorts
Village of Taos Ski Valley
Village Reconstruction and Development Project
Wallowa Resources
Washington State Fire Fighters' Association
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition
Watershed Research & Training Center
West Range Reclamation, LLC
Western Environmental Law Center
Wild South
WildEarth Guardians
Wildlife Forever
Winter Wildlands Alliance
Wisconsin Off-Road Vehicle Park, Inc.
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association Inc.
Wyoming Mining Association
Wyoming Stock Growers Association
York Land Trust
Zuni Mountain Forest Collaborative
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (FBSNWR), thank you for
this opportunity to submit comments in support of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. FBSNWR is a nonprofit volunteer organization formed in 1996
and represents citizens from throughout the United States who cherish
and support the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, our
members are concerned about its future and the role it plays in
preserving vital habitat types.
The Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) provides vital
habitat for neotropical migratory birds and nesting habitat for
endangered sea turtles. In addition, the refuge is a component of a
thriving nature-based tourism along coastal Alabama. The coastal
economy is dependent upon sound stewardship of natural resources of the
Gulf of Mexico, so we believe the development and sustainment of a
strong Bon Secour NWR and National Wildlife Refuge System is critical
to creating a resilient economy in southern Alabama and the Gulf Coast.
Our organization is an active partner with the National Wildlife
Refuge Association, who has focused on several key areas where support
of the National Wildlife Refuge System is sorely needed. Within this
context, we urge your action on the following:
1. Move towards fully funding the National Wildlife Refuge System at
$900 million annually for operations and maintenance, beginning with
$476 million in fiscal year 2015.
The present emphasis on budget austerity is especially troubling
for refuges on the Gulf Coast, for we may lose opportunities to
leverage funds generated by criminal and civil penalties associated
with the 2010 oil spill into long-term investments for these refuges.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be reluctant to expand or
improve facilities with these funds if the agency does not have
operational funds to staff and maintain facilities.
Bon Secour NWR needs a functional visitor and education center. The
Act that established the refuge in 1980 directed that the refuge
``serve as a living laboratory for scientists and students''. Bon
Secour is a natural wonder that contains all aspects of the marine
environment, so the refuge could demonstrate the importance of the
marine environment to coastal culture and economy as well as the very
survival of the planet.
2. Appropriate $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation easements on
working lands and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the
National Wildlife Refuge System and reauthorize LWCF at $900 million
annually.
Again, Gulf Coast wildlife refuges may lose opportunities to
leverage oil spill funds into acquisition of in-holdings and sensitive
habitats if LWCF funds area not available. Coastal properties are
expensive, so it will be difficult to rely solely on spill funds to
acquire land. However, combining LWCF funds with other sources would
likely enhance our chances to acquire key properties.
3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75
million.
The Bon Secour NWR is one of three refuges within the Gulf Coast
National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Grand Bay NWR (located in Jackson
County, Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama) is also within the
complex and has relied heavily on NAWCA funds to acquire lands within
the currently approved acquisition boundary. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service proposed in 2011 to expand the acquisition boundary by
approximately 8,000 acres.
4. Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs
including State Wildlife Grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, Coastal Grants, and the Department of the Interior's
Fire Management Program.
The Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR is also one of the three refuges
within the Gulf Coast NWR Complex and supports one of the elite fire
management operations with the National Wildlife Refuge System. Their
program represents over three decades of public investment in the
restoration of fire-dependent habitats that include critical habitat
for the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane and vital habitat for
numerous species of neotropical migratory birds. Managing fire-
dependent habitats that are bisected by an interstate highway and
surrounded by commercial and residential development has not been easy.
Moreover, these areas will burn by managed fires or wildfires, so it is
not a matter of choosing to exclude fire from these areas. Therefore,
supporting the continued investment of using prescribed fire becomes a
public safety and economic impact in southern Mississippi, for
wildfires present far more potential to create hazardous smoke
conditions along the busy I-10 corridor.
I will conclude with a reminder that the citizens of the Gulf Coast
were faced with a dire threat to their economy and culture when the
spill began 4 years ago, for our lives are directly connected to the
natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico. These National Wildlife
Refuges represent are a vital component for the stewardship of these
natural resources and represent decades of public investment. They
directly support the environment and economy through the science-based
management of the lands and waters for the benefit of wildlife, and
they connect citizens to these resources through opportunities to enjoy
the fish and wildlife.
The spill no longer dominates the headlines, but the Gulf Coast is
still hurting. While the nature-based tourism has rebounded well since
the spill, sustaining the natural features and resources that attract
customers cannot be certain. Assessing the long-term environmental
impacts of the spill will take time. Commercial fishing continues to
struggle, as water quality degradation and other impacts tied to
various types of coastal development hamper fishery productivity.
Development is resuming despite the recession. The hurricanes, oil
spill, and failure to meet the challenges now may leave a gap that will
be even more costly to fill in the future. Families who have been tied
to the fishing industry for generations question whether not they are
witnessing the end of their livelihood.
We need to support these refuges so that they can be engaged
partners in the coastal recovery. Our culture and economy depend on
active and sustainable stewardship of these natural resources, and the
Gulf Coast is a major component of the national economy.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call
upon the Friends of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge if we can be of
any assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands (FOMSI)
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 250
members of the Friends of Maine's Seabird Islands from across the
country, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on
the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. Thank you for your
past support of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world's
premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve
America's fish, wildlife and plants.
FOMSI is an all-volunteer group whose mission is to support the
Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge manages 59
islands on our 250-mile long coast, and several thousand acres of
mainland wildlife habitat. First, let me emphasize that we are grateful
that we have a National Wildlife Refuge on the coast of Maine. Why? For
many reasons, all of which lead back to the positive economic and
social benefits that are produced by the conservation of wild lands and
wise use of our natural resources. The 2006 National Survey of Hunting,
Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, found that, in Maine alone,
hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers generated nearly $1.5 billion
in revenue for Maine. Clearly, wild lands and healthy fish and wildlife
populations are important to this State's economy, and the National
Wildlife Refuges in Maine are a significant part of that!
Although we understand and take very seriously the economic
challenges that our Nation faces, it is important to point out the
positive economic impact that this Refuge has on local economies. In
Maine, according to studies conducted by Dr. Charles Colgan from the
University of Southern Maine, 120 companies provide services involving
seabird viewing as a recreational activity. These include small kayak
guides and outfitters all the way to large ships that go on seabird
watching cruises several times each day. An estimated 5,000 to 7,500
trips are made by people annually primarily for seabird viewing and
350,000 to 450,000 trips with seabird viewing as a secondary activity.
The total estimate for seabird-related spending was $5 million to $10
million in 2001. This does not count the number of birders and others
who have their own boats and do not take the organized trips, yet come
to this area specifically to see seabirds; accordingly, they have a
significant, but uncalculated impact on the economy, too. Nor does it
count the revenues from stores that sell merchandise from t-shirts to
binoculars that go along with birding.
Thousands of people come to the Maine coast each year to see the
charismatic Atlantic puffin, a bird that nests in the United States
only in Maine. Currently, over 90 percent of the Atlantic puffins
nesting in Maine nest on Refuge islands, where they are actively
protected by Refuge staff and partners, such as the National Audubon
Society and Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If funding
for this management is not maintained, these nesting birds will abandon
their colonies and Maine will return to the pre-Refuge situation in the
1970's and early 1980's when only gulls nested on many of the islands.
Seabird viewing and birder expenditures will fall, and our already
fragile economy will suffer further.
The economic impact described above is only a part of the positive
impact that the Refuge has on the State's economy. Others visit the
Refuge units to hunt, hike, fish, and learn about conservation. The
Fish and Wildlife Service's ``Banking on Nature'' report showed that
the local economic effects of recreational visits to this refuge
totaled $7.9 million in 2011, with associated employment of 71 jobs,
$2.2 million in employment income and $930,700 in total tax revenue.
That is a brief summary of the economic impacts that one refuge has
in our part of the country. There are five other refuges in Maine that
are also important to Maine's economy. Multiply that by the 556
National Wildlife Refuges in the System, and it is clear that Congress'
investment in the System pays off many-fold to our Nation's economy.
Our National Wildlife Refuges are often economic powerhouses,
especially in rural areas. In fact, ``Banking on Nature,'' found that
for every $1 that is appropriated for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS), $5 is returned to our Nation's economy.
Therefore, we respectfully ask you to:
1. Maintain management capabilities for the National Wildlife
Refuge System by approving a $4 million increase over fiscal year 2014
levels. The System actually needs $900 million annually to adequately
manage its 150 million acres; a funding allocation of $476 million in
fiscal year 2012 will simply maintain the status quo.
2. Appropriate $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation easements on
working lands and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the
National Wildlife Refuge System, and reauthorize LWCF at $900 million
annually. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per year (more
than $3 billion today), the LWCF is Refuges' most important land
acquisition tool. More than 8 million acres are unprotected within
existing refuge boundaries and there is an increasing need to establish
key wildlife corridors and connections between protected areas making
the LWCF more important than ever.
There are four significant inholdings for sale at the Maine Coastal
Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and more are expected to come on the
market soon. Funding of the LWCF at the authorized level will allow the
Refuge to acquire these important inholdings to further protect its
integrity.
3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at
$75 million. This Act helps the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leverage
Federal conservation efforts through partnerships that enable the
acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands to deliver multiple
benefits including habitat restoration and improved water quality.
The Refuge received partial funding from NAWCA this year to help
acquire Mahoney Island in Brooklin, Maine, a critical seabird nesting
island. We are grateful for that, and hope to receive more funding from
this important Act in the future.
4. Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs
including State Wildlife Grants ($58.7 million), the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund ($4 million), Coastal Grants ($13
million), and the Department of Interior's Fire Management Program ($60
million).
The State Wildlife Grant program is a very successful Federal-State
program that helps keep our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered.
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) grants conserve
the habitats that neotropical birds use along their migration north and
south and in their wintering range throughout the Caribbean, Central,
and South America. This Act fortifies investments on national wildlife
refuges by conserving ``our'' birds during critical periods of their
lifecycles spent outside of refuges and often outside the United
States.
The Coastal Program provides technical and financial assistance for
voluntary efforts to protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife.
This program is critical to implementing recovery projects such as
restoring and enhancing estuarine habitats, removing invasive species
and derelict fishing gear, and stabilizing shoreline. This program has
been a very important partner with the coastal refuges in Maine.
Fire is one of the Service's most important tools for managing
wildlife habitat; however, due to the catastrophic western wildfires
made worse by climate change and fuel loading, funds for refuge fire
management have been consistently diverted to fighting wildfires and
protecting the forest-urban interface. Resources are needed to allow
refuges to manage dangerous fuel loads in fire-dependent systems and to
use fire management to improve habitat for many threatened and
endangered species. The refuges in Maine actively use fire to protect
and enhance habitats for many species such as arctic terns and
woodcock.
We are proud of our National Wildlife Refuges, one of our country's
greatest conservation achievements. We are but one of 230 ``friends''
groups who support National Wildlife Refuges throughout the country.
Friends groups provide assistance to our National Wildlife Refuges
through monetary and equipment donations and volunteer labor. Last year
over 40,000 friends and volunteers provided services for the NWRS equal
to over 600 positions, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Volunteers
throughout the country provide an astonishing 20 percent of the work
done of Refuges each year! This is a further indication of how many
Americans support the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System is significant
and we are showing our support with our donated time and funds.
However, we need proper funding of the System so we can leverage our
taxpayer dollars to provide even more economic and social benefits to
our country.
Finally, let me also add that with all the negative stories in the
press today about Government appropriations and politics, the National
Wildlife Refuge System remains a positive success story since the first
Refuge was created by President Theodore Roosevelt over 100 years ago.
It has always enjoyed support from Congress and we thank you for that,
and for your continued support!
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill
Durkin, President of the Friends of RCNWR in Maine.
I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR for the
past 23 years. The group was founded in 1987; we are a small group of
about 200 members. This time of the year all of the letters go out to
Congress asking for support of the refuge. I have given numerous
written statements over the years and we really appreciate your support
in the past. This year, our refuge is not requesting any appropriations
directly for Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge; this is a request
for general funding of the System. I thank you all for your
consideration.
1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $476 million in
fiscal year 2015 for the operations and maintenance budget of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. All of the refuges are in dire need of staffing and upkeep.
Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities to hunt, fish, watch
wildlife and educate children about the environment; last year there
were over 46 million visitors to all of the Refuges combined. An
investment in the Nation's Refuge System is an excellent investment in
the American economy. Without increased funding for refuges, wildlife
conservation and public recreation opportunities will be jeopardized.
We fully supported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's request of $476 million
for O&M for the NWRS.
2. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, LWCF needs to be funded at the $168.8 million level. Created
by Congress in 1964 and authorized at $900 million per year (more than
$3 billion in today's dollars), the LWCF is our most important land and
easement acquisition tool. The President has included meaningful
increases to the program in his fiscal year 2015 budget, and I support
the administration's commitment to fully funding the program in the
near future. I urge a minimal commitment of $168.8 million to the
National Wildlife Refuge System. This wise investment in the Land and
Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to
the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund should be fully funded at $900
million annually--the congressionally authorized level. LWCF is good
for the economy, it is good for America's communities and their
recreational access; it is critical for our public lands and wildlife
habitat.
3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at
$75 million. NAWCA supports habitat restoration, water quality
improvements and carbon sequestration.
The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
of the Nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal
habitat, leading her to write the international best seller ``The Sea
Around Us''. This landmark study, led Rachel Carson to become an
advocate on behalf of this Nation's vast coastal habitat and the
wildlife that depends on it, the refuge that bears her name is
dedicated to the permanent protection of the salt marshes and estuaries
of the southern Maine coast. Last year, we celebrated the 50th
anniversary of Rachel Carson's publication of her historic book,
``Silent Spring'' and look forward in continuing her message through
various programs at the refuge here in Maine.
I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully
request the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee allocate $476 million
for the Refuge System's fiscal year 2015 Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
budget, and fund the LWCF at the $168.8 million level for fiscal year
2015. The LWCF request is constant every year, we need Congress to
standby their commitment that was made in 1964: stabilize the fund at
the $900 million level.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of protecting wildlife and it's habitat. Enjoy
your next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Friends of the
Florida Panther Refuge recommends the following funding for fiscal year
2015:
National Wildlife Refuge System......................... $476.4 million
Land and Water Conservation Fund........................ $168.8 million
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act............. $3.7 million
State Wildlife Grants................................... $58.7 million
Coastal Program......................................... $13.0 million
We also support funding changes within the fiscal year 2015 U.S.
Department of the Interior Wildlands Fire Budget to include:
--Preparedness.--A program increase of $34.1 million, including $15.0
million for tribal resource management;
--Resilient Landscape.--Program established at $30.0 million;
--Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR).--A program increase of $2.0
million; and
--Fixed Costs Increases.--Fixed cost increases of $4.2 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony concerning the
funding of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Department of
the Interior's Wildlands Fire Management Budget. The 26,400 acre
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) was established in
southwest Florida to protect the critically endangered Florida panther
and its habitat. The FPNWR is also populated with many other species
that are listed as threatened or endangered by Federal and State
agencies. The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge is a non-profit
volunteer organization with a mission to support the FPNWR and protect
the Florida panther in the wild. Our members are concerned for the
future of the habitat and wildlife on our refuge and Florida panther
habitat in general.
We are also concerned about maintaining Florida's unique
environment on public and private lands. Southwest Florida supports a
large tourist industry that is dependent on maintaining a healthy
environment. Funds spent on protecting species and water quality have a
significant economic impact on the region.
funding the national wildlife refuge system
Our National Wildlife Refuge system needs to be fully funded to
protect America's natural heritage. The Friends of the Florida Panther
Refuge urges the Senate to appropriate $476 million in fiscal year
2015. A budget of $900 million every year, with a minimum of $476
million for fiscal year 2015, is required to fully fund the operations
and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Funding less
than these amounts threatens permanent damage to the system.
Refuge mangers at the FPNWR are challenged by a variety of funding
shortfalls to fully carry out habitat restoration, invasive species
control, prescribed burning, baseline and updated wildlife inventories,
education/interpretation, law enforcement, visitor services as well as
technical assistance and collaborative efforts across boundaries with
private land holders. The staff at the FPNWR has been reduced by six
full time employees over the last 3 years representing a 32 percent
decrease in staff and is hard pressed to meet their goals.
the land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) should be appropriated
$168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 to acquire conservation easements on
working lands and to purchase outright the vital habitats to support
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
for protecting the integrity of Florida panther habitat. Funds of this
program along with funds from the State of Florida are critical to the
survival of the Florida panther and other Federal listed species. There
is an opportunity with private land easements to not only protect
Florida panther habitat but also the ranching heritage of central and
south Florida for future generations. This is a critical time through
easements and acquisition to provide wildlife corridors through central
and south Florida that will protect our life style, traditions, and
natural resources for future generations. Time will run out on this
opportunity with lasting negative effects. The window of to secure a
place for Florida panthers, conservation and compatible agriculture in
Florida is rapidly closing.
Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs
including State Wildlife Grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund, Coastal Grants, and the Department of Interior's
Fire Management Program.
State Wildlife Grants.--The Fish and Wildlife Service works with
Florida to keep common species common and restore declining species
before they warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act. We ask
the Senate to fund the State Wildlife Grants Program at $58.7 million
for fiscal year 2015 to fulfill the shared Federal-State responsibility
for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered.
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA).--Populations
of Neotropical birds are high on the Florida Panther National Wildlife
Refuge and our sister Refuge, the Ten Thousand Islands National
Wildlife Refuge. NMBCA grants conserve the habitats that neotropical
birds use along their migration north and south and in their wintering
range throughout the Caribbean, Central, and South America. This Act
fortifies investments on national wildlife refuges by conserving
``our'' birds during critical periods of their lifecycles spent outside
of refuges and often outside the United States. We request that the
Senate reauthorize the NMBCA and provide $3.7 million for fiscal year
2015.
Coastal Program.--Water birds, sea turtles, game fish and other
flora and fauna attract many visitors to our sister Refuge, Ten
Thousand National Wildlife Refuge. The Coastal Program provides
technical and financial assistance for voluntary efforts to protect and
restore coastal habitats for wildlife. The coastal program is critical
to implementing recovery projects such as restoring and enhancing
estuarine habitats, removing invasive species and derelict fishing
gear, and stabilizing shoreline. We ask Senate to fund the Coastal
Program at $13 million for fiscal year 2015.
U.S. Department of the Interior Wildlands Fire Management Budget.--
The Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge is highly dependent on the
use of prescribed burns to manage the habitat for the Florida panther
and its prey. Reduced funding of the fire operation budget has forced
the Refuge to reduce positions over the last several years. This
situation has left critical habitat unburned and increased dangerous
fuel loads in this highly fire-dependent system. The State and the
Federal governments have invested billions of dollars to restore the
Everglades, making a more resilient ecosystem. Fire management in this
region is needed complement the restoration. We urge the Senate to
include in fiscal year 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior Wildlands
Fire Budget:
--Preparedness.--A program increase of $34.1 million, including $15.0
million for tribal resource management;
--Resilient Landscape.--Program established at $30.0 million;
--Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR).--A program increase of $2.0
million; and
--Fixed Costs Increases.--Fixed cost increases of $4.2 million.
Thank you for consideration of our comments.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Fish and
Wildlife Refuge
Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf
of the Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Friends
of Conte). The Friends of Conte respectfully request $5 million ($2
million in discretionary funding; $3 million in mandatory funding) for
land acquisition projects in the Connecticut River Watershed as well as
full funding, $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
The Friends of Conte represent organizations big and small, from
all corners of our four-State watershed. Our diverse membership
includes groups that focus on educating urban constituencies in
Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, groups that focus
on providing recreational access to the river, business interests and
local and regional watershed groups that focus on protecting the water
that we drink and swim and fish in, and national non-profits whose work
includes the Connecticut River watershed. We have been dedicated to
recreation, education and conservation in the Connecticut River
Watershed for the past 7 years and represent more than 65 organizations
with more than 100,000 members.
The Connecticut River, New England's main artery for commerce and
transportation throughout the region's early development, gained
additional notoriety in 1991 when President George H. W. Bush signed
legislation establishing the Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge
(Conte Refuge). Uniquely legislated among other refuges in the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service system, the Conte Refuge was founded on three
pillars: land protection, cooperative management and environmental
education. The Conte Refuge is also unique as it attempts to conserve
an entire watershed in which 2.3 million individuals co-exist with
nature. Additionally, the Conte Refuge calls for only a small acreage
in public ownership, with the vast majority of the watershed in
privately-held lands. The refuge also works with those landowners to
help them achieve their personal conservation goals for their
properties.
The 4,840 acres and 35 tracts (1,274 acres and 14 tracts with
discretionary funding and an additional 3,566 acres and 21 tracts with
mandatory funding) in our funding request spans the entire four-State
Connecticut River watershed, protecting critical forests, wetland and
rivers. These acquisitions from willing sellers represent a key
opportunity to protect critical habitats and to provide recreational
access to the more than 2 million citizens of the watershed, as well as
to the 70 million individuals who are within a day's drive of the Conte
Refuge.
Providing these recreational opportunities not only makes
conservation sense, it makes good economic sense. In 2013, the Outdoor
Industry Association documented an economic impact of $23.6 billion in
consumer spending on outdoor recreation and more than 200,000 in direct
jobs in the four watershed States of Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and Connecticut.
More specifically, New England's healthy fish and wildlife
populations are also a backbone of the region's economy. New England's
fish and wildlife support a $5.31 billion-dollar wildlife-related
economy. This includes a $2.57 billion-dollar hunting and angling
economy and a $2.74 billion-dollar wildlife watching economy. In
addition to outdoor recreation, the nature services these lands provide
include water quality and streamflow protection, as water filters
through our forests prior to entering our rivers and streams, and flood
protection as floodplain forests absorb and slow flood waters.
As you know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was
established by Congress nearly 50 years ago and will expire next year.
We are at an important juncture. If we miss this opportunity to
celebrate and commemorate the 50th Anniversary of LWCF in all 50 States
at the full funding level and continue the conservation legacy of LWCF
for another 50 years; the quality of the natural environment will
impact the human environment. These impacts will be exacerbated by
changes in climate and land use. Actions made possible by the LWCF Act
of 1965 allow agency and elected leaders the opportunity to invest in
monumental ways to create another chapter in our Nation's conservation
legacy for future generations.
In closing, we thank you again for the opportunity to comment. The
Friends of Conte is a diverse association of organizations and
individuals from conservation, education, and recreation communities,
who are avid supporters of the Conte Refuge and the Connecticut River
watershed. We believe the investment of funds from the LWCF will
enhance recreation and conservation, protect clean water, and support
jobs and economic vitality across the entire four-State watershed.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 192
members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges
(FTBNWR), including Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Passage
Key NWR, and Pinellas NWR, I would like to thank you for your
commitment to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The 4 percent
funding increase that you passed for fiscal year 2014 made a huge
difference throughout the refuge system. We realize that in this time
of budget cuts, it may be difficult to justify increasing the NWRS
funding again, but once the Refuges start to decline it will cost many
times more than these small increases to return them to a condition
that will fulfill their mandates. We respectfully request that you
consider the following in your appropriations:
--Fund the National Wildlife Refuge System $476 million in fiscal
year 2015.
--Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million
for fiscal year 2015, including a minimal commitment of $168.8
million for the National Wildlife Refuge System.
--Fund $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at
$75 million.
--Increase funding for essential conservation programs including
$58.7 million for State Wildlife Grants, $4 million for the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, $13 million for
Coastal Grants, and $60 million for the Department of
Interior's Fire Management Program.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates
that the NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million annually in
operation and maintenance funding in order to properly administer its
150 million acres as mandated in the Refuge Improvement Act. The Refuge
System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our
wildlife, and 46.5 million annual visitors without increases in
maintenance and operation funds. The current budget is far short of the
amount actually required to effectively operate and maintain the
Refuges. We respectfully request that you increase the NWRS budget to
$476 million so that the Refuges do not backslide even further in
protecting these valuable lands and ecosystems. The investment yields
an impressive return, generating approximately 35,000 jobs and $2.4
billion in economic output each year. Every dollar appropriated to the
Refuge System returns and average of $4.87 to local economies as well
as providing $33 billion dollars' worth of clean water and other
environmental benefits such as clean air and water and a cool climate.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 and
authorized at $900 million. We ask that you reauthorize the LWCF at
$900 million for fiscal year 2015 with a minimal commitment of $168.8
million to the National Wildlife Refuge System. These funds are used
for land acquisition as well as less expensive easements or leases to
protect wildlife and their habitats. With the effects of a changing
climate, it is more important now than ever to establish key wildlife
corridors between protected areas so wildlife can migrate to more
suitable habitat as their historic ones change. These landscape level
conservation efforts through conservation easements and land purchases
are the best way to protect the diversity of flora and fauna. The price
of real estate is still low at this time and the $900 million can go
much further in protecting habitats than it can in a higher market.
When we start to lose species due to lack of food, water, shelter, or
space, we are changing the balance of nature. We urge you to fund the
LWCF at $900 million for fiscal year 2015 with $168.8 million to
acquire conservation easements on working lands and to purchase in-
holdings and vital habitat for the NWRS. The LWCF is not funded by
taxpayer money.
We ask that you appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the
Act at $75 million. NAWCA supports habitat restoration, water quality
improvements, and carbon sequestration. These projects developed by
individuals and at the community level benefit our declining migratory
bird species as well as ducks and waterfowl.
Essential conservation programs to protect habitat and wildlife
will cut expenses in the future by protecting and improving what we
have today. We request that you fund the State Wildlife Grants Program
at $58.7 million to fulfill the shared Federal-State responsibility for
keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered. The NMBCA
grants conserve habitats for Neotropical birds as they migrate. It
covers areas outside of refuges and often outside the U.S. that many of
our birds utilize during critical periods of their life. We request you
fund the NMBCA at $4 million for fiscal year 2015. The Coastal Program
provides technical and financial assistance for voluntary efforts to
protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife. We ask that you fund
this program at $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Lastly, prescribed
burns keep our refuges from becoming overgrown or having catastrophic
fires due to high fuel loads due to fire suppression. It is an
important tool for managing wildlife habitat. We urge you to provide
$60 million in dedicated funding to the Refuge System's fire program
through the Department of the Interior's Hazardous Fuel Reduction
program.
The Tampa Bay Refuges (TBR) are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay
on the west central Gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases a few
years ago meant increased management, protection, and restoration of
the Refuges and the ability to better meet the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. The wildlife on the refuges has done
well with the extra help. Due to those past increases in budget and
personnel the TBRs were able to plan for big picture issues such as
erosion and increased public use. Unfortunately, due to the budget
decreases, much of that planning will not be implemented.
The recent budget decreases and the sequestration have hurt our
refuges.
--The Crystal River NWR Complex which included the Tampa Bay Refuges
was comprised of 5 refuges. It is now part of the 9 refuge
North Florida NWR complex. In 2013, the Project Leader and both
refuge managers from the Crystal River Complex moved to other
refuges, leaving no manager at the Tampa Bay Refuges.
--We are coming into the summer nesting season on Egmont & Pinellas
NWR's. Without a manager and with the heavy visitation in the
warmer months, this is a big problem. The refuge law
enforcement (LE) officers are not able to patrol Egmont Key as
often during the key summer nesting season due to restrictions
in travel and overtime. This leaves the nesting birds open to
more intrusions by refuge visitors and nesting failures.
--If a staff member leaves, he/she may not be replaced so the refuge
can stay afloat financially for the rest of this fiscal year
because of the budgets. We have already lost a maintenance
position to keep the equipment, including the boats used to
access the island refuges, in good working order and now we are
down managers as well.
--The refuge was able to eradicate exotic plants and predators on the
refuges, but with the budget, there is little or no money to
monitor and keep up with the work that has already been done.
The result will be degraded habitat for refuges and their
wildlife, including nesting failures.
--Fire management budgets have been cut and prescribed fires have not
been conducted Egmont Key as needed. This opens the island, its
historic buildings, & visitor center up to a much higher
catastrophic wildfire risk.
--There simply isn't enough money in the budget to purchase safety
equipment, like a GPS, for the refuge boat. The Tampa Bay
Refuges 2014 budget didn't have enough money to pay for storage
at a marina for the boat used to get to the refuges. Our
Friends group made up the difference. Without a boat at a
convenient location, the staff must waste valuable time and
wages towing a boat from the maintenance yard 80 miles away and
then launching it near the islands. If the staff has to waste
3-4 hours of their day getting a boat ready they only have a
few hours to work, rather than a full 8 hour day working.
--The Ft. Dade Guardhouse on Egmont Key NWR has been restored and
will become the visitor center. The Refuge had grant money and
installed the first phase of the displays, but with the budgets
the way they are staff may not have time to keep this important
environmental education center open to the public, much less
finish the next phase.
--Egmont Key NWR has a huge erosion problem and can possibly be lost.
Because it is in an urban setting, the 32,000 pairs of birds
who nest there yearly don't have another location to go to.
Because of the lack of funding, this refuge and nesting habitat
could be lost in the not too distant future. Passage Key NWR
has eroded to the point that it is a sandbar at low tides and
no longer useful for nesting: those birds moved to Egmont.
There is nowhere else to go if Egmont is lost.
These are just a few of the things impacting the Tampa Bay Refuges.
Bottom line, funding cuts hurt the wildlife that the NWRS is mandated
to protect. The refuge system has a very small budget compared to the
whole Federal budget. It is not a big impact to the Federal budget to
give the refuges a little more funding whereas the impact of reduced
funding is devastating. Please consider funding $476 million for the
fiscal year 2015 Operations and Management budget.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was
incorporated and became a 501c3 in 2008 to better assist the Tampa Bay
National Wildlife Refuges with volunteers and fundraising. In 2013
FTBNWR was able to provide over 3000 volunteer hours to assist the
refuge staff with exotic invasive control, refuge cleanups, and
education. FTBNWR has been able to raise money to fund continued
removal of invasive plants on the Pinellas Refuges that degrade the
habitat for the wildlife. FTBNWR has also purchased equipment for the
refuge boat and contributed to the local storage of the boat. The
FTBNWR also continued their Education Program to provide outdoor
environmental educational programs at our local schools for grades K-5
and also environmental field trips to nearby preserves to teach our 4th
& 5th graders about the NWRS and the environment. Volunteers act as
bird stewards on Egmont Key NWR during the summer nesting season to
enhance the visitors experience on the refuge through education. Our
refuges do not have enough staff to provide these education programs so
we have filled that gap as volunteers. Our volunteers are passionate
about the Refuge System and donate their time, money, and expertise to
protect them.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges is one of
over 230 Friends groups who support the National Wildlife Refuges. The
interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System is significant and we
are proving it with our donated time and funds.
In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges believe the National Wildlife Refuge System can meet its
conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding
leveraged by the work of refuge staff and volunteers. We again extend
our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our
National Wildlife Refuge System. We encourage you to approve $476
million for the fiscal year 2015 National Wildlife Refuge System
Operations and Maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $900
million for fiscal year 2015 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as
well as a dedicated $168.8 million for the NWRS. Additionally, we urge
you to appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 to the NAWCA, $58.7
million to the State Wildlife Grants Program, $4 million to the NMBCA,
$13 million to the Coastal Program, and $60 million dedicated to the
Refuge System's fire program through the Department of the Interior's
Hazardous Fuel Reduction Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
summary
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to at least
fully fund the fiscal year 2015 request for the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). As one of our Nation's key science agencies, the USGS plays a
vital role in understanding and documenting mineral and energy
resources needed for economic growth; researching and monitoring
potential natural hazards that threaten U.S. and international
security; and determining and assessing water quality and
availability--keys to a healthy and prosperous society. Approximately
two-thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research and
development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use
planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering,
and education. Despite the critical role played by the USGS, funding
for the Survey has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade and
the request is still below the fiscal year 2010 budget. Given the
importance of the many activities of the Survey that protect lives and
property, stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide national
security, and enhance the quality of life, GSA believes that balanced
growth in Federal funding for the Survey is necessary for the future of
our Nation.
The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
society with over 26,000 members from academia, government, and
industry in all 50 States and more than 100 countries. Through its
meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
humankind.
u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
welfare
The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies.
Approximately two-thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research
and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and
decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by
communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use
planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering,
and education. USGS research addresses many of society's greatest
challenges for national security, health, and welfare. Several are
highlighted below.
--Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, wildfires, and landslides--are a major cause of
fatalities and economic losses. Recent natural disasters,
including the landslide in Washington and California
earthquakes, provide unmistakable evidence that the United
States remains vulnerable to staggering losses. An improved
scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future
losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and
magnitude and allow for better planning and mitigation in these
areas. GSA urges Congress to support efforts for USGS to
modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and
warning systems to protect communities from the devastating
personal and economic effects of natural disasters. GSA is
concerned about cuts to this important program in the request.
--A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce
Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action,
found, ``Energy and mineral resources are essential for the
Nation's fundamental functions, its economy, and its
security.'' Improved scientific understanding of these
resources will allow for their more economic and environmental
management and utilization. Nevertheless, Federal programs in
minerals science, research, information, data collection and
analysis have been severely weakened. Funding for the USGS
Mineral Resources Program, the only primary source for minerals
science and information, has been cut by 30 percent in constant
dollar terms over the last decade, reducing its ability to
provide critical information on mineral potential, production,
and consumption that is used for decisionmaking across the
Federal Government and by a range of businesses and industries.
--Many emerging energy technologies--such as wind turbines and solar
cells--depend on rare earth elements and critical minerals that
currently lack diversified sources of supply. China accounts
for 95 percent of world production of rare earth elements
(USGS, 2010). USGS research will play a lead role in helping
ease our dependence on these foreign sources.
--The ongoing water crisis in California and elsewhere is a testament
to our dependence on water. The availability and quality of
surface water and groundwater are vital to the well being of
both society and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding
of these resources through monitoring and research is necessary
to ensure adequate and safe water resources for the health and
welfare of society.
--USGS research on climate impacts is used by the Department of the
Interior and local policymakers and resource managers to make
sound decisions based on the best possible science. The Climate
Science Centers, for example, provide scientific information
necessary to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change's
effects at regional and local levels.
--The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely
sensed land data in the world, a tremendously important
resource for natural resource exploration, land use planning,
and assessing water resources, the impacts of natural
disasters, and global agriculture production. Last year's
successful launch of Landsat 8 is an important step to continue
to provide these resources. GSA supports interagency efforts to
plan a path forward for future support of Landsat.
Research in Earth science is fundamental to training and educating
the next generation of Earth science professionals. The United States
faces a looming shortage of qualified workers in these areas that are
critical for national security. We are very concerned that cuts in
earth science funding will cause students and young professionals to
leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of
professionals in areas that are already facing worker shortages.
Investments in these areas could lead to job growth, as demand for
these professionals now and in the future is assessed to be high.
The report Emerging Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining
Industries: A Call to Action, found, ``In mining (nonfuel and coal) a
personnel crisis for professionals and workers is pending and it
already exists for faculty.'' Another recent study, Status of the
Geoscience Workforce 2011, by the American Geosciences Institute found:
``The supply of newly trained geoscientists falls short of geoscience
workforce demand and replacement needs. . . . aggregate job projections
are expected to increase by 35 percent between 2008 and 2018. . . . The
majority of geoscientists in the workforce are within 15 years of
retirement age. By 2030, the unmet demand for geoscientists in the
petroleum industry will be approximately 13,000 workers for the
conservative demand industry estimate.''
Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
environmental quality, and national security. Earth science is a
critical component of the overall science and technology enterprise.
Growing support for Earth science in general and the U.S. Geological
Survey in particular are required to stimulate innovations that fuel
the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life.
As the National Science Board's recent 2014 Science & Engineering
Indicators reports, America's share of the world's R&D fell from 37
percent to 30 percent from 2001 and 2012. As other nations have been
increasing their support for long-term, high-risk research, we have
been allowing ours to stagnate or decline. We must reverse that trend
and tackle our mounting innovation deficit if we want to retain our
global economic leadership.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about
the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and
public investment in Earth science research--please visit
www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of
America
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am
representing the Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America,
and we wish to express our support for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, particularly the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request for
Forest Service land acquisition.
The President's proposed budget includes two line items, one in the
discretionary portion of the budget and the other in the mandatory
section, totaling $3 million, for Wasatch Watersheds-Bonneville
Shoreline Trail. Property currently owned by the Boy Scouts in Mill
Creek Canyon would be acquired by the Forest Service if Congress
approves sufficient funding. The requested funds, though not enough to
acquire all of the Boy Scout property available for sale, would allow
for a substantial first phase purchase. The Council has been interested
in selling approximately 700 acres to the Forest Service since 2011.
This is the first year, however, that funding has been included in the
Federal budget for the project.
Mill Creek Canyon is one of the main canyons in the Wasatch Front,
the iconic backdrop for the major population area of Utah. In the mid-
1800s, early settlers of Salt Lake City established 20 mills in the
canyon that provided everything from lumber to flour for the growing
population of settlers. Today, Mill Creek Canyon is well known to
residents of the Salt Lake Valley and has long been a popular area for
hiking, biking, and many other recreational activities. The Great Salt
Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) would like to sell five
parcels of land in this area that are considered surplus to its Camp
Tracy. The BSA will continue to own and operate the camp, while
planning to use the proceeds from the proposed sale to acquire land and
facilities elsewhere to benefit the youth of our community and
organization. These parcels were originally placer mining claims that
were donated to the Scouts nearly a century ago. Adding these parcels
to the national forest would also preserve the essential camp
experience for the 17,500 scouts and volunteers who visit Camp Tracy
each year.
Nearly all of the parcels contain segments of trails, including the
Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Pipeline Trail, Grandeur Peak Trail, and
Thayne Canyon Trail. Mill Creek Canyon is a major recreational
destination for hiking, biking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, and
picnicking due to its proximity to Salt Lake City and the greater
Wasatch Front area; the canyon entrance borders the Salt Lake City
limits. Currently the public lands in the area are being managed
jointly by Salt Lake County and the Forest Service. Including these
private parcels in the surrounding national forest will ensure public
access into the future and provide for better management of the trails,
trailheads, and other recreational sites.
Mill Creek Canyon is one of seven major canyons listed in Salt Lake
City's Watershed Management Plan and will play a role in the future
city water supply. The Watershed Management Plan recommends watershed
protection through acquisitions by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,
and the Forest Service. The resource management plan for the Uinta-
Wasatch-Cache National Forest charges the Forest Service with managing
and protecting watersheds used as a municipal water source in
cooperation with Salt Lake City. The property contains a portion of
Mill Creek--a tributary to the Jordan River--in addition to a number of
gulches and smaller canyons that feed into Mill Creek. The Forest
Service Watershed Condition Framework rating for Mill Creek is Class
Two--functioning at risk--meaning one or more existing attributes make
it susceptible to degradation. Forest Service ownership will protect
this important water resource, which could be impaired if the
surrounding land were to be sold for development rather than
conservation. The Forest Service is currently working with State
wildlife authorities on a project designed to support recovery of the
Bonneville cutthroat trout, which is native in this drainage and is
included on the Utah Sensitive Species List. Other wildlife found on
and around this land include bald eagle, deer, elk, mountain lion,
bighorn sheep, and Canada lynx--a species listed as threatened by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It is our desire that these lands be conserved, but we may have to
offer the property on the open market--and possible development--if the
Forest Service is unable to acquire the land in a timely fashion. As
mentioned previously, we have been working on this proposal with the
Forest Service for over 3 years and we need to utilize the proceeds
from the sale of this property to improve services to the growing
number of Scouts in the Salt Lake City metroplex. We want to work with
the Forest Service to preserve this land for its abundant natural
resources and recreational opportunities dear to the hearts of so many
visitors.
We urge the Interior Subcommittee to provide appropriations from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect Mill Creek Canyon
through this proposed land acquisition. I want to thank the Chairman
and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify on
behalf of this nationally important protection effort in Utah, and I
appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition
Members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to provide this
testimony about one of our world's most prized natural and economic
treasures--our Great Lakes. The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes
Coalition joins a bi-partisan group of 46 Representatives and 11
Senators in asking you to support $300 million for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative in fiscal year 2015. We appreciate the trust you
have shown the region over the last 4 years and ask you to maintain
this support.
Our Coalition is comprised of more than 120 environmental,
conservation, hunting, and fishing organizations; museums, zoos, and
aquariums; and businesses representing millions of people whose goal is
to restore and protect the Great Lakes. We came together to fight for
the Great Lakes, and we recognize the need for Federal assistance for
all great waters, including Puget Sound, the Everglades, Coastal
Louisiana, and Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Chairman and ranking member, 30 million people rely on the
Great Lakes for their drinking water, and the entire country benefits
from the commerce that depends on these waters. Protecting and
restoring them is a huge non-partisan priority for the people in the
region. We recognize that the Federal Government is our partner in an
endeavor to help heal the lakes through the undertaking of one of the
world's largest freshwater ecosystem restoration projects. Non-
governmental groups, industries, cities, and States are forging public-
private partnerships to clean up toxic hot spots, restore fish and
wildlife habitat, and combat invasive species. Our Coalition has
invested almost half a million dollars of our own resources to help our
member groups restore and protect this resource. The philanthropic
community has also invested approximately $100 million over the past 4
years through initiatives to educate citizens and policy makers about
the Great Lakes environment and to identify actions and policies that
most effectively will restore its health.
economic benefits
We do this work because cleaning up the Great Lakes is critical for
the health and quality of life of the region. It also drives economic
development--and jobs--in communities all around the Basin. Investments
in Great Lakes restoration are creating jobs and leading to long-term
economic benefits for the Great Lakes States and the country. A
Brookings Institution report shows that every $1 invested in Great
Lakes restoration generates at least $2 in return, making Great Lakes
restoration one of the best investments on the dollar in the Federal
budget. Research from Grand Valley State University shows that the
return for certain projects is closer to 6-to-1. The University of
Michigan has also demonstrated that over 1.5 million jobs are connected
to the Great Lakes, accounting for more than $60 billion in wages
annually. According to the Great Lakes Commission, more than 37 million
people boat, fish, hunt, and view wildlife in the region, generating
over $50 billion annually. Great Lakes businesses and individuals
account for about 28 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product,
according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.
We have also seen jobs being created by our Nation's efforts to
clean up the Great Lakes and restore fish and wildlife habitat. These
jobs include wetland scientists, electricians, engineers, landscape
architects, plumbers, truck drivers, and many others. While we do not
know how many jobs have been created to clean up the Great Lakes, it is
likely in the thousands. Consider:
--125 jobs were created for a $10 million project to restore fish and
wildlife habitat in Muskegon Lake, a Great Lakes Area of
Concern in Michigan.
--177 people are employed to control the invasive sea lamprey in the
Great Lakes, which costs the U.S. Government around $20 million
annually.
--174 jobs were created, some of which were filled by at-risk youth,
to remove dams and other barriers in a 150-mile stretch of the
Milwaukee River system.
Specifically, stories like that of business owner Jim Nichols of
Carry Manufacturing are increasingly common. Jim tells of how Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) projects are adding new orders for
his manufacturing business. Carry Manufacturing has manufactured water
control equipment since 1987. Their employees are being kept busy
building submersible pumps for GLRI projects that flood duck habitat or
drain areas to re-establish native habitat for sport fishing. The jobs
add up when you begin counting the men and women at other companies who
manufacture the pipes for the pumps, the control structures in which
the pumps are housed, and the hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers
that benefit from the improved environment the pumps help create.
investments producing results
The people that have been put to work protecting and restoring the
Great Lakes are working on projects that are producing results (from
EPA's 2014 congressional budget justification and 2013 report to
Congress):
--The Presque Isle, PA, Area of Concern (AOC) was delisted, the first
since 2006, and the second U.S. AOC since they were established
in 1987. The management actions necessary for delisting the
Sheboygan, Wisconsin, AOC were also completed, Ashtabula, Ohio,
is very close, and two more de-listings are expected in fiscal
year 2015. (EPA 2014)
--Between 2010 through 2013, 29 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) at
13 AOCs were removed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, more than tripling the total
number of BUIs removed in the preceding 22 years. More BUIs
have been removed since the GLRI began than between 1987 and
2009. (EPA 2014)
--From 2004 to 2009, the Great Lakes region was the only area in the
country to show a gain in wetland acreage. Now the GLRI is
building on that foundation with a goal to restore one million
acres in the Basin. So far, the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (among others) restored,
protected, or enhanced over 115,000 acres of wetlands and other
habitat. (EPA 2014)
--1,900 river miles were cleared of over 250 barriers resulting in
fish swimming into stretches of river where they have been
absent for decades. (EPA 2014)
--Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitoring, GLRI-sponsored
actions are increasing self-sustaining populations of native
species important to the Great Lakes, like lake sturgeon. For
example, efforts in the Saginaw River watershed have
contributed to the now self-sustaining walleye population in
Saginaw Bay, Michigan. (EPA 2013)
--Nearly 800,000 acres of Great Lakes agricultural land were put into
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation contracts to
reduce erosion and nutrient runoff into Great Lakes
tributaries. (EPA 2014)
These numbers are impressive. The stories behind them, however, are
more illuminating as to the types of results that we are seeing and
what is being accomplished. The Coalition has documented more than 100
restoration success stories across the region.\1\ Among them:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Found at www.healthylakes.org/successes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--At the Ashtabula River in Ohio, a sediment cleanup and habitat
restoration project has restored the lower two miles of the
river and advanced efforts to get it de-listed as a Great Lakes
Area of Concern. The project has improved water quality and
deepened the river channel, making the lower Ashtabula suitable
again for maritime commerce, fishing, and recreation boating.
--The Grand Calumet River in Indiana, which flows through a heavily
industrialized area south of Chicago, was for years considered
America's most polluted river. Thanks to a major cleanup, a
large wetland was restored and more than 575,000 cubic yards of
toxic mud was removed from the Lake Michigan tributary. The
restoration project addressed pollution that had led to fish
consumption advisories, drinking water restrictions, beach
closings, habitat destruction, and an array of other
environmental problems.
--At Clear Creek in Freedom, New York, excess stream erosion and
sediment, in-stream barriers, elevated water temperatures, and
competition from invasive fish restricted brook trout to a few
tributaries in the watershed. A Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative project restored 1,200 linear feet of in-stream
habitat and re-established fish passage over a sheet-pile grade
control structure, reconnecting six miles of prime trout
habitat.
how we are doing the work
How the region is accomplishing all this work is as impressive as
what we are doing. The GLRI, which President Obama first proposed in
2010, is a model for large, land-scape scale restoration. It ensures
that the focus remains on the highest regional priorities that were
identified through a large stakeholder process in 2005, which was
initiated by President George W. Bush. The initiative itself is
implementing a restoration strategy called the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes that over
1,500 people helped build. It also provides an outlet for the United
States to meet its obligations under the new Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement with Canada. The GLRI is a critical component towards
ensuring that the goals we set for ourselves in both the agreement and
comprehensive plan can be achieved.
Additionally, the GLRI sought to fix problems the Government
Accountability Office identified in 2003 when it complained that there
was inadequate coordination among Federal agencies and between Federal
and non-Federal stakeholders.\2\ Now, the EPA, working with other
Federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, NRCS, and
the National Park Service, can quickly convert the funding they receive
to supplement restoration activities through their existing, authorized
programs. This structure allows for funds to move quickly from EPA
through the interagency agreements EPA reaches with the other agencies
and onto the ground to complete important restoration work. This model
also ensures accountability through the establishment of an ``orchestra
leader'' (EPA), helps accelerate progress, and avoids potential
duplication, all of which help save taxpayers money while focusing
efforts on the highest, consensus-based priorities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We anticipate that the GLRI Action Plan for fiscal year 2015-
2019 will incorporate changes that address the concerns raised by GAO
in 2013. Those concerns included, in part, recommending the initiative
incorporate climate change into its goals and create metrics of success
that better link the ecological change being sought to the actions
being supported and undertaken.
\3\ Even with quick Federal action, the Great Lakes region has a
shortened work season because of winter conditions. This can result in
a longer time period for grantees to outlay GLRI funds rather than just
the obligation of funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
maintaining results until the job is done
Unfortunately, the health of the Great Lakes continues to be
seriously threatened by problems such as sewage overflows that close
beaches, toxic pollution that poses a threat to the health of people
and wildlife, algal blooms that harm local drinking water supplies, and
invasive species that hurt fish and wildlife populations and our
outdoor recreation economy. While we have cleaned up two AOCs, there
are still 27 more to go. Algal blooms in Lake Erie and other lakes
still result in cancelled charter boat tours and closed beaches.
Communities are still dealing with legacy pollutants that have led to
drinking water restrictions, beach closings, and fish consumption
advisories. Our work is not done so maintaining Federal funding is
needed.
Additionally, this Congress should remove all doubt that the region
is on the right path and pass legislation that specifically authorizes
the GLRI. Currently, EPA is using existing authorities coupled with the
legislative language you provide as the statutory basis for its
coordinating role. Passing legislation, such as that introduced by
Representative David Joyce and Senator Carl Levin, creates greater
certainty for the program and allows everyone to focus on getting the
job done.
Lastly, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) noted in a 2012 report
that the GLRI Action Plan supported initial Federal investments to
restore the Lakes because enough was known about the problems and
potential solutions to impairments in the Great Lakes to initiate
action; the Action Plan identified most of the key actions needed; and
the Action Plan is largely consistent with previous plans and
strategies. However, the SAB's report pointed out that the GLRI needs
to do better research, monitoring, and assessment. It also pointed out
that the GLRI lacks a formal science-based framework for assessing
progress and evaluating future priorities. We believe this science-
based framework and independent science advice is critical to make
Great Lakes restoration efforts as efficient and effective as possible;
that the region's scientists must be engaged in producing and helping
implement that plan and not just asked to react to a federally-
generated adaptive management blueprint; and that EPA must use an
appropriate portion of GLRI funds to implement, coordinate, and better
communicate the Federal and non-Federal research, monitoring, and
assessment--ongoing and required--for future success.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to share our views with you.
The GLRI is delivering results. But more work remains. Cutting
restoration funding now will only make projects harder and more
expensive the longer we wait. While we are greatly encouraged by the
progress we are seeing in local communities across the region, we all
must keep in mind that it will take time for all of us to see lakewide
environmental improvement in an ecosystem the size of the Great Lakes.
We are seeing hundreds of trees but it still will take time to make
them into a forest.
We also recognize the tough choices you face, but we believe that
restoring the Great Lakes is not only good for the environment but also
is good for the national economy as well. We hope you will maintain
$300 million for the GLRI next year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hopi Tribe
The Hopi Tribe: Issues of the Consolidated Tribal Government
Programs:
--Contract Support Cost.--The Hopi Tribe recommends that Congress
amend the Contract Support Cost (CSC) issue to include (1) full
funding (100 percent) for Indian tribes needed for CSC for
fiscal year 2015; (2) that fiscal year 2015 contain a separate
appropriation for CSC in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
budget structure; and (3) that the BIA propose the repeal of
the term ``not to exceed'' in the appropriations statutory
language with reference to the annual CSC appropriations.
--The Hopi Tribe request the following from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.--Fiscal year 2015 operating plan funding level on
internal transfers for Consolidated Tribal Government Program
contracts, Federal pay costs, tribal pay costs, and other
administrative cost. Pursuant to fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, the Department of the Interior was directed
to submit an operating plan to the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs. Our tribe is requesting this information so that we
can better understand how fiscal year 2015 Indian Affairs
funding levels will be determined.
There are many other important issues that need to be addressed,
including:
--The impacts of the fiscal year 2013 sequester for the BIA and
Indian Health Service.
--The proposed ``administrative cost savings'' cuts that will reduce
BIA staffing at BIA agencies and will reduce funding for future
638 contracts, in particular, the cuts to the real estate
services program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
to our organizations. We urge the subcommittee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2015 Department of Interior
appropriation.
rock creek park deer
The HSUS requests that funds made available in this Act give
preference to non-lethal deer management programs over lethal at Rock
Creek Park. The National Park Service (NPS) has been using lethal
methods for controlling the deer population in Rock Creek Park despite
the availability of non-lethal methods that cost significantly less
taxpayer money and result in a more effective long-term solution to
human-wildlife conflicts in the park and its environs. In the future,
we ask that priority be given to humane, non-lethal methods with
respect to decisions regarding funding deer management programs.
large constrictor snakes
In March 2010, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a
proposed rule to list nine large constrictor snakes as injurious under
the Lacey Act. However, in January 2012 the Secretary announced that
only four species would be listed. We encourage this subcommittee to
direct the FWS to immediately move forward with the ``injurious''
listing of the five remaining species, which will prohibit importation
and interstate movement of these animals as pets. A comprehensive
report by the U.S. Geological Survey showed these non-native snakes all
pose a medium or high risk to the health of our Nation's ecosystems.
Large constrictor snakes have been released or escaped into the
environment and have colonized Everglades National Park, continue to
threaten areas in Hawaii, and have established populations in Puerto
Rico. Scientists warn they may also become established in other areas
of the country. The Service must have the resources to respond quickly
to prevent the spread and establishment of these snakes into new areas.
environmental protection agency
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Research focused on molecular screening has the potential to
revolutionize toxicity testing, improving both its efficiency as well
as the quality of information available for human safety assessment in
the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). These ``next
generation tools'' hold considerable promise to speed up the
assessments of chemicals in the EDSP and reduce, and ultimately, may
replace animal use. We urge the subcommittee to incorporate the
following report language, which is also supported by the American
Chemistry Council:
The subcommittee recognizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is implementing the use of Tox21 information in the
prioritization of chemicals for screening in the Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP). The subcommittee supports this activity as
part of a pathway-based approach to endocrine assessment, and directs
EPA to focus its efforts to develop adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for
estrogen, androgen and thyroid modes of action and, when sufficient
scientific confidence has been demonstrated, to utilize mechanistic
information not only in prioritization, but also in hazard and risk
assessment to reduce, refine or replace tests involving living animals.
EPA is directed to develop a scientific confidence framework for AOPs
and associated prediction models, and after public comment and peer
review, implement this framework to assure confidence in specific AOPs
is explicitly demonstrated for intended uses.
The subcommittee also recognizes that EPA is continuing to extend
existing long-term reproduction studies in birds, fish, and other
species to two- or multi-generation tests for the EDSP. The
subcommittee understands that EPA contributed to an international
review of rat reproduction studies that showed the lack of utility of a
second generation and supporting replacement of the two-generation
mammalian study with a more efficient ``extended one-generation''
design. The subcommittee directs EPA to maximize the efficiency of each
EDSP protocol and minimize unnecessary costs and animal use by
assessing the utility (including sensitivity, specificity and value of
information added relative to the assessment of endocrine disruption)
of each endpoint in these multigenerational studies, including
specifically the need to produce more than one generation of offspring
in the bird, fish and amphibian EDSP Tier 2 tests and issue a public
report on its findings for comment and peer review. The subcommittee
also directs EPA to minimize or to eliminate unnecessary endocrine
screening and testing, and to use existing scientific data in lieu of
requiring new data, when possible and scientifically supportable. The
subcommittee understands that EPA is currently working with OECD to
develop and modify EDSP methods. EPA should work within the framework
and timing of the OECD Test Guideline work plan to minimize duplicative
efforts.
Science and Technology Account--21st Century Toxicology In 2007,
the National Research Council published its report titled ``Toxicity
Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.'' This report
catalyzed collaborative efforts across the research community to focus
on developing new, advanced molecular screening methods for use in
assessing potential adverse health effects of environmental agents. It
is widely recognized that the rapid emergence of omics technologies,
cell- and tissue-based methods and other advanced technologies offers
great promise to transform toxicology from a discipline largely based
on observational outcomes from animal tests as the basis for safety
determinations to a discipline that uses knowledge of biological
pathways and molecular modes of action to predict hazards and potential
risks. We urge the Committee to incorporate the following language:
The subcommittee supports EPA's leadership role in the creation of
a new paradigm for chemical risk assessment based on the incorporation
of advanced molecular biological and computational methods in lieu of
animal toxicity tests. The subcommittee encourages EPA to continue to
expand its extramural and intramural support for the use of pathway-
based approaches in environmental and human health research to further
define toxicity and disease pathways and develop tools for their
integration into evaluation strategies. Extramural and intramural
funding should be made available for research and development of cell
and tissue-based mechanistic methods, interpretation and prediction
tools, including pilot studies of pathway-based hazard and risk
assessment. The data sets and prediction models generated should be
transparent, publicly disseminated, consistent with corresponding
international efforts, and, to assure readiness and utility for
regulatory purposes, undergo public review and comment and independent
scientific peer review to establish relevance and reliability. The
subcommittee requests EPA provide a report on associated funding in
fiscal year 2014 for such activity and a progress report in the
congressional justification request, featuring a 5-year plan for
projected budgets for the development of mechanism-based methods,
including Tox21 and other related activities and prediction models and
activities specifically focused on establishing scientific confidence
in them for regulatory purposes. The subcommittee also requests EPA
prioritize an additional (1-3 percent) of its Science and Technology
budget from within existing funds for such activity.
multinational species conservation fund
The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $9.06 million
for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) program which
funds African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes like
chimps and gorillas, and sea turtles. The HSUS joins a broad coalition
of organizations in support of the administration's request while
ensuring that the sales from the semi-postal stamps benefiting this
program remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels. We also
request $13 million for the Wildlife Without Borders and International
Wildlife Trade programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Office of International Affairs.
While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, we
are concerned about past incidents and oppose any future use of funds
from these conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in
animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including live capture for
trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public display
industry--under the guise of conservation for these animals. Grants
made to projects under the MSCF must be consistent with the spirit of
the law.
bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) is one of the
leading advocates for the protection and welfare of wild horses and
burros in the U.S. with a long history of working collaboratively with
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--the agency mandated to protect
America's wild horses and burros--on the development of effective and
humane management techniques.
The HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in the number of
wild horses and burros gathered and removed from our rangelands
annually. We believe removing horses from the range without
implementing any active program for suppressing the population growth
rate has proven itself to be an unsustainable method of management of
our Nation's wild horses, and simply leads to a continual cycle of
roundups and removals when more long-term, cost-efficient and humane
management strategies, such as fertility control, are readily
available.
For years, the BLM has removed far more wild horses and burros from
the range than it could possibly expect to adopt annually, and as a
consequence, the costs associated with caring for these animals off the
range have continued to skyrocket. The annual costs associated with
caring for one wild horse in a long term holding facility is
approximately $500, and the average lifespan of a wild horse in
captivity is 30 years. Today, there are more than 50,000 wild horses
and burros in these pens, and the agency spends more than 50 percent of
its annual Wild Horse and Burro budget on holding costs. The BLM must
balance the number of animals removed from the range annually with the
number of animals it can expect to adopt in a given year if it hopes to
effectively reduce off-the-range management costs.
Further, the BLM's current program of management of wild horses has
negative effects that go beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. For
instance, the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences 2013
report ``Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program:
A Way Forward,'' commissioned by the BLM itself, stated that it is
BLM's own practices of managing wild horses ``below food-limited
carrying capacity'' by rounding up and removing a significant
proportion of the herd's population every three to 4 years that is
facilitating high horse population growth rates on the range.
As such, it is incumbent that the BLM move away from current
management practices to create a long-term, humane and financially
sustainable path. It is our belief that the most cost-effective and
humane approach is for the BLM to move aggressively forward with a
contraceptive program which prioritizes on-the-range management of wild
horses and burros. This path forward is supported by the National
Academy of Sciences report, which called for an increased usage of on-
the-range management tools, including the usage of the fertility
control vaccine PZP. Further, a 2008 paper determined that
contraception on-the-range could reduce total wild horse and burro
management costs by 14 percent, saving $6.1 million per year.\2\
Finally, the results of a paper describing an economic model
commissioned by The HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses on one
hypothetical Herd Management Area (HMA) with the fertility control
vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), the BLM could save approximately
$5 million dollars over 12 years while achieving and maintaining
Appropriate Management Levels (AML) of 874 horses. Since the BLM
estimates that more than 40,000 wild horses roam on 179 HMAs in the
United States, the use of PZP could result in a cost-savings of tens of
millions of dollars if applied broadly across all HMAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild
Horse Program, GAO/RCED-90-110 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 20, 1990).
\2\ Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in
wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, while we support the BLM's request for a 2.8
million dollar budget increase to fund additional research on
contraception and population growth suppression methods, we request
that the agency be required to immediately begin usage of the NAS-
recommended fertility control methods that are currently available.
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team
Thank you for the opportunity to address the serious funding needs
that have limited and continue to hinder the operations of tribal
judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the lead judge representing
the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. We thank this subcommittee
for the funding provided in prior years. These funds were a blessing to
tribes. It is the strong recommendation of the Independent Tribal
Courts Review Team that the Federal tribal courts budget be
substantially increased in fiscal year 2015 to support the needs of
tribal judicial systems.
budget priorities, requests and recommendations
1. +$10 million Increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level.
2. +$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act
of 1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year
2000 Public Law 106-559 (no funds have been appropriated to date).
3. Support the requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians.
The increase will support:
1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.
2. Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010.
3. Compliance with the VAWA Act of 2013.
4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.
5. State-of-the-Art Technology for Tribal Courts.
6. Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and
Privacy of Case Information.
7. Tribal Court Code Development.
8. Financial Code Development.
The Independent Court Review Team supports the proposed $1.35
million increase in the fiscal year 2014 President's budget but do not
support the $2.98 million internal transfer out by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA). The fight against crime and drugs has led to more
arrests which is increasing the caseload in the tribal court system.
The continuing implementation of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA)
and the recent enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),
further strains the capacity of the tribal judicial system which is
underfunded, understaffed and ill-equipped to function effectively and
in a manner comparable to non-Indian government judicial systems.
Tribal courts are at a critical stage in terms of need.
background:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the
Interior provides funding to tribal governments to supplement their
justice systems including courts. Tribal courts play a ``vital role''
in tribal self-determination and self-governance as cited in long-
standing Federal policy and acts of Congress. Funding levels from BIA
to support tribal justice systems have not met the Federal obligations.
There is a great deal of variation in the types of tribal courts
and how they apply laws. Some tribal courts resemble Western-style
courts in that written laws and court procedures are applied. Others
use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as
peacemaking, elders' councils, and sentencing circles. Some tribes have
both types of courts. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also manages a
small number of C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) courts.
Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of
Justice has administered the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, designed
to provide funds for tribes to plan, operate, and enhance tribal
judicial systems. They have made attempts to evaluate tribal courts but
discovered their means of doing so was insensitive to American Indian
and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people and unrealistic in the absence of
elements that were key to Indian Country, such as: (1) the importance
of tribal culture and traditions; (2) the inability to apply State and
local criminal justice initiatives to tribal settings; (3) the lack of
cooperation from non-tribal entities; and, (4) the lack of available
data on tribal justice.
The Independent Court Review Team has had more hands on success in
reviewing tribal court systems than any other entities. For
approximately 7 years, the Review Team travelled throughout Indian
Country assessing how tribal courts operate. During this time, the
Review Team completed 84 court reviews, and 28 Corrective Actions.
There is no other entity with more hands-on experience and knowledge
regarding the current status of tribal courts.
justification for request
1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do
with underpaid staff, under-experienced staff and minimal resources for
training. (We have determined that hiring tribal members limits the
inclination of staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.);
2. Compliance with the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.--To provide
judges, prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys and who are
bared to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in tribal courts;
3. Compliance with the 2013 VAWA Act.--To provide tribal courts
with the ability to provide non-Indians with all the rights under the
U.S. Constitution in domestic violence actions in tribal courts (12
person juries, provide attorneys for non-Indians, provide attorneys and
court personnel in domestic violence cases as in TLOA, etc.);
4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--
Salaries should be comparable to local and State court personnel to
keep pace with the non-tribal judicial systems and be competitive to
maintain existing personnel;
5. Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology.--(Software,
computers, phone systems, tape recording machines.) Many tribes cannot
afford to purchase or upgrade existing court equipment unless they get
a grant. This is accompanied by training expenses and licensing fees
which do not last after the grant ends;
6. Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and
Privacy of Case Information.--Most tribal courts do not even have a
full-time bailiff, much less a state-of-the-art security system that
uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to
happen;
7. Tribal Court Code Development.--Tribes cannot afford legal
consultation. A small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys.
These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development
and code development does not take priority. Tribes make do with under-
developed codes. The Adam Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who
were forced to develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume
jurisdiction. (States have never properly overseen law enforcement in a
Tribal jurisdiction.); and
8. Financial Code Development.--We have rarely seen tribes with
developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for
example, varies greatly from tribe to tribe. The usual process of who
collects it, where it is collected and how much it is, is never
consistent among tribes.
tribal courts
There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear
that tribal courts and justice systems are vital and important to the
communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud
of their court systems. Tribes with even modest resources tend to
allocate funding to courts before other costs. After decades of
existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a
level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases
surpassing, local non-Indian courts.
Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly
stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from their families.
Indian and non-Indian courts have developed formal and informal
agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have recognized
the benefit of having law-trained judges, without doing away with
judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems
have Appellate Courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even
the poorer tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most
importantly, tribes recognize the benefit of an independent judiciary
and have taken steps to insulate courts and judges from political
pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically fired
for decisions against the legislature.
--Example.--At one tribal court 14 jury trials scheduled in 2013
never occurred due to the lack of sufficient funds to perform
the following; the required number of potential jurors could
not be summoned, a jury of six people could not be seated, and
service to potential jurors could not be delivered.
Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that received $23.241
million in Federal funding in 2014. The Review Team's Assessments have
indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal courts at
26 percent of the funding needed to operate. Tribes who have economic
development generally subsidize their tribal courts. On the flip side,
tribes who cannot afford to assist in the financial operations of the
court are tasked with doing the best they can with what they have even
at the expense of decreasing or eliminating services elsewhere. This
while operating at a disadvantage with already overstrained resources
and underserved needs of the tribal citizens. The assessment suggests
that the smaller courts are both the busiest and most underfunded.
The grant funding in the Department of Justice (DOJ) is intended to
be temporary, but instead it is used for permanent needs; such as
funding a drug court clerk who then is used as a court clerk with drug
court duties. When the funding runs out, so does the permanent
position. We have witnessed many failed drug courts, failed court
management software projects (due to training costs) and incomplete
Code development projects. When the Justice funding runs out, so does
the project.
As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget in fiscal
year 2005, our Reviews specifically examined how tribes were using
Federal funding. In the seven fiscal years through September 31, 2011
there were only two isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of
Federal funds. It has been speculated that because of limited
resources, tribal courts compromise a person's due process and invoke
``speedy trials'' violations to save money. To the contrary everyone
who is processed through the tribal judicial system is afforded their
constitutional civil liberties and civil rights.
Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained and increased level of
funding. There are strong indications that the courts will put such
funding to good use.
Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal Appellate Court
Judges are mostly attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
courts do offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial
will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses
is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have Defense Advocates. These
advocates are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an
individual's rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are
not violated.) However, this is a large item in court budgets and if
the defense advocate, or prosecutor, should leave, the replacement
process is slow.
This Congress and this administration can do something great. Put
your money where your promises have been and support the Acts you have
passed by increasing funding for tribal courts. Thank You. Independent
Review Team: Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice Retired; Ralph G.
Gonzales, Esq.; Charles D. Robertson, Esq. and Myrna R. Rivera, Court
Reporter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission
My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). I appreciate the
opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee regarding the
views of the Compact's 26 member States on the fiscal year 2015 budget
request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
(OSM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its proposed
budget, OSM is requesting $53.2 million to fund title V grants to
States and Indian tribes for the implementation of their regulatory
programs, a reduction of $15.4 million or 22 percent below the fiscal
year 2014 enacted level. OSM also proposes to reduce mandatory spending
for the abandoned mine lands (AML) program by $64 million pursuant to a
legislative proposal to eliminate all AML funding for certified States
and tribes.
The Compact is comprised of 26 States that together produce some 95
percent of the Nation's coal, as well as important noncoal minerals.
The Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
land, water and other resources affected by mining through the
encouragement of programs in each of the party States that will achieve
comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the
usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and
maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining
industry.
OSM has projected an amount of $53.2 million for title V grants to
States and tribes in fiscal year 2015, an amount which is matched by
the States each year. These grants support the implementation of State
and tribal regulatory programs under the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and
effective operation of those programs. Pursuant to these primacy
programs, the States have the most direct and critical responsibilities
for conducting regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal
extraction operations on people and the environment. The States
accomplish this through a combination of permitting, inspection and
enforcement duties, designating lands as unsuitable for mining
operations, and ensuring that timely reclamation occurs after mining.
In fiscal year 2014, Congress approved $68.6 million for State
title V grants pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations bill.\1\ This
continued a much-needed trend whereby the amount appropriated for these
regulatory grants aligned with the demonstrated needs of the States and
tribes. The States are greatly encouraged by amounts approved by
Congress for title V grant funding over the past several fiscal years.
These grants had been stagnant for over 12 years and the gap between
the States' requests and what they received was widening. This
debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by inflation and
uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed
program improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to
minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction operations on
people and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In approving this amount for State grant funding in fiscal year
2014, Congress noted that: ``The bill provides $122,713,000 for
regulation and technology. Within this amount, the bill funds
regulatory grants at $68,590,000, equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted
level. The Committees find the budget proposal to reduce regulatory
grants would undermine the State-based regulatory system. It is
imperative that States continue to operate protective regulatory
programs as delegation of authority to the States is the cornerstone of
the surface mining regulatory program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its fiscal year 2015 budget, OSM has once again attempted to
reverse course and essentially unravel and undermine the progress made
by Congress in supporting State programs with adequate funding. As
States prepare their future budgets, we trust that the recent increases
approved by Congress will remain the new base on which we build our
programs. Given fiscal constraints on State budgets from the downturn
in the economy, some States have only recently been able to move beyond
hiring and salary freezes and restrictions on equipment and vehicle
purchases, all of which have inhibited States' ability to spend all of
their Federal grant money. A clear message from Congress that reliable,
consistent funding will continue into the future will do much to
stimulate support for these programs by State legislatures and budget
officers who each year, in the face of difficult fiscal climates and
constraints, are also dealing with the challenge of matching Federal
grant dollars with State funds. Please keep in mind that a 22 percent
cut in Federal funding generally translates to an additional 22 percent
cut for overall program funding for many States, especially those
without Federal lands, since these States can generally only match what
they receive in Federal money.
It is important to note that OSM does not disagree with the States'
demonstrated need for the requested amount of funding for title V
regulatory grants. Instead, OSM's solution for the drastic cuts comes
in the way of an unrealistic assumption that the States can simply
increase user fees in an effort to ``eliminate a de facto subsidy of
the coal industry.'' No specifics on how the States are to accomplish
this far reaching proposal are set forth, other than an expectation
that they will do so in the course of a single fiscal year. OSM's
proposal is completely out of touch with the realities associated with
establishing or enhancing user fees, especially given the need for
approvals by State legislatures. IMCC's polling of its member States
confirmed that, given the current fiscal and political implications of
such an initiative, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most
States to accomplish this feat at all, let alone in less than 1 year.
OSM is well aware of this, and yet has every intention of aggressively
moving forward with a proposal that is doomed from its inception. We
strongly urge the subcommittee to reject this approach and mandate that
OSM continue to work through the complexities associated with any
future user fees proposal in close cooperation with the States and
tribes prior to cutting Federal funding for State title V grants.\2\
Some of these efforts have recently begun and may prove useful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It has taken OSM over 3 years to develop a proposal of its own
for cost recovery that will apply to Federal and Indian lands programs
where OSM is the regulatory authority. On March 26 of last year, OSM
republished a proposed rule (78 Federal Register 20394) that would
adjust existing permit fees and assess new fees to recover the actual
costs for permit review and administration and permit enforcement
activities provided to the coal industry. Comments on the proposal were
due on May 28, 2013. OSM has asserted that the rule could serve as a
template for similar efforts by the States (even though, to date, the
agency has still not promulgated a final rule). Regardless of whether
OSM's assertion is true, and contrary to OSM's implication that the
States should have already moved forward with similar proposals of
their own based on the fact that OSM has included this suggested
approach in its last four proposed budgets, OSM is well aware of the
complexities associated with a proposal of this magnitude for the
States based on extensive information we have provided to the agency.
We are happy to share that information with the subcommittee. It will
clearly take more than a single fiscal year for the States to seriously
consider and undertake such an effort. And most importantly, the
subcommittee has directed OSM in each of the past 4 fiscal years ``to
discontinue efforts to push States to raise fees on industry as the
bill provides the funds necessary for States to run their regulatory
programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time that OSM is proposing significant cuts for State
programs, the agency is proposing sizeable increases for its own
program operations (almost $4 million) for Federal oversight of State
programs, including an increase of 12 full-time equivalents (FTEs). In
making the case for its funding increase, OSM's budget justification
document contains vague references to the need ``to improve the
implementation of existing laws'' and to ``strengthen OSM's skills
base.'' More specifically, OSM states in its budget justification
document that ``with greater technical skills, OSM anticipates improved
evaluation of permit-related actions and resolution of issues to
prevent unanticipated situations that otherwise may occur as operations
progress, thereby improving implementation of existing laws''. In our
view, this is code language for enhanced and expanded Federal oversight
of State programs and reflects a move by OSM to exert a more direct
role in State programs, especially regarding permitting decisions,
thereby weakening State primacy. However, without more to justify the
need for more oversight and the concomitant increase in funding for
Federal operations related thereto, Congress should reject this
request. The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSM's
annual State program evaluation reports demonstrates that the States
are implementing their programs effectively and in accordance with the
purposes and objectives of SMCRA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Congress agreed with this assessment when it commented as
follows on OSM's proposed increase in fiscal year 2014: ``The [Omnibus
Appropriations] agreement does not provide funds to expand and enhance
Federal oversight activities of State programs.'' Furthermore, the
States are confounded by OSM's desire to increase its staff by 12 FTEs
when it currently has more than twice that number of unfilled positions
in the agency. Is OSM attempting to add 12 new FTEs, or fill a portion
of the vacancies? In either event, the $4 million intended for this
purpose is better spent by the States in their role as the primary
enforcement and permitting SMCRA authority, rather than by OSM
oversight to second-guess State decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our view, this suggests that OSM is adequately accomplishing its
statutory oversight obligations with current Federal program funding
and that any increased workloads are likely to fall upon the States,
which have primary responsibility for implementing appropriate
adjustments to their programs identified during Federal oversight. In
this regard, we note that the Federal courts have made it abundantly
clear that SMCRA's allocation of exclusive jurisdiction to the States
was ``careful and deliberate'' and that Congress provided for
``mutually exclusive regulation by either the Secretary or State, but
not both.'' Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Ass'n, 248 F. 3d 275, 293-4
(4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1113 (2002). While the courts
have ruled consistently on this matter, the question remains for
Congress and the administration to determine, in light of deficit
reduction and spending cuts, how the limited amount of Federal funding
for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations
under SMCRA will be directed--to OSM or the States. For all the above
reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less than $69 million for
State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented in the
States' and tribes' estimates for actual program operating costs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We continue to be concerned about recent OSM initiatives,
primarily by policy directive, to duplicate and/or second-guess State
permitting decisions through the reflexive use of ``Ten-Day Notices''
(TDNs) as part of increased Federal oversight or through Federal
responses to citizen complaints. Aside from the fact that these actions
undermine the principles of primacy that underscore SMCRA and are
therefore likely to have debilitating impacts on the State-Federal
partnership envisioned by the act, they also have very direct impacts
on limited State and Federal resources that must be devoted to
addressing all TDNs, regardless of their veracity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to funding for State title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
program grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of
SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation
grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State title IV
grants are funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result,
the States should have received a total of $250 million in fiscal year
2015. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $186 million based on an
ill-conceived proposal to eliminate mandatory AML funding to States and
tribes that have been certified as completing their abandoned coal
reclamation programs. This $64 million reduction repudiates the
comprehensive restructuring of the AML program that was passed by
Congress in 2006, following over 10 years of congressional debate and
hard fought compromise among the affected parties. We urge the Congress
to reject this unjustified, ill-conceived proposal, delete it from the
budget and restore the full mandatory funding amount of $250 million.
We also endorse the statement of the National Association of Abandoned
Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), which goes into greater detail regarding
the implications of OSM's legislative proposal for the States and
tribes.
We further ask the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's
training program, including moneys for State travel. These programs are
central to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as
they provide necessary training and continuing education for State
agency personnel. We note that the States provide nearly half of the
instructors for OSM's training course and, through IMCC, sponsor and
staff benchmarking workshops on key regulatory program topics. IMCC
also urges the subcommittee to support funding for Technical Innovation
and Professional Services (TIPS), a program that directly benefits the
States by providing critical technical assistance. Finally, we support
funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.5
million.
With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
a hardrock AML program, the States have consistently advocated for
legislation that would allow them to address historic hardrock AML
problem areas, beginning with the inclusion of section 409 of SMCRA in
1977. There is clearly a need to establish both the funding mechanism
and the administrative program to address these legacy sites, be it
through a fee or through a meaningful Good Samaritan program that
provides liability protection for those undertaking this type of work.
We believe that OSM is in the best position to administer a hardrock
AML program, given its 35 years of experience in operating the title IV
program under SMCRA. Our only concern is that, while on the one hand
OSM is advocating for the establishment of a hardrock AML program, it
is also pushing for the elimination of funding for certified States and
tribes to accomplish this very work.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the
Office of Surface Mining's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015. We
would be happy to answer any questions or provide additional
information at your request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council
summary
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Rigdon,
president of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and deputy director
of natural resources for the Yakama Nation. The ITC offers the
following recommendations for fiscal year 2015 Indian forestry-related
activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of
Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWF), and the USDA
Forest Service (USFS):
bureau of indian affairs
1. Increase BIA forestry by $25 million as a first step to providing
the $100 million needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry
programs, as recommended by the Indian Forest Management Assessment
Team (IFMAT) III report.
2. Increase BIA forestry projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA
Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III.
3. Increase BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation funding to $20
million to support tribal participation.
4. Increase the BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.
5. Support the BIA Invasive Species request of $6.7 million.
office of wildland fire management
6. Support the Preparedness increase of $37 million.
7. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million.
8. Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.
9. Support the $30 million Resilient Landscapes initiative.
united state forest service
10. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative.
11. Encourage the USFS to make implementation of the Tribal Forest
Protection Act (TFPA) a ``priority.''
indian forest management assessment team iii
Many of our comments and recommendations reflect the third IFMAT
report, the statutorily required (Public Law 101-630, Sec. 312) decadal
review and report on tribal forests and forestry conducted by an
independent Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT). Previous
IFMAT reviews and reports were done in 1993 and 2003. The 2013 report,
IFMAT III, was mailed to this subcommittee about a month ago. We urge
the subcommittee to review the report and consider its findings and
recommendations in your fiscal year 2015 deliberations.
The IFMAT III report examines tribal forests using a ``FIT''
framework: Fire, Investment and Transformation:
--"Fire'' represents the increasingly large role wildland fire and
other threats present to the health and productivity of tribal
forests;
--"Investment'' represents the need for Federal funding and trust
support to meet forest-related fiduciary obligations and ensure
a sustainable future for Indian forests; and
--"Transformation'' represents the emergence of Indian forestry as a
model for sustainable landscape management.
IFMAT III examines eight specific review areas required by the
statute, including staffing and funding, and also looks at additional
issues such as climate change, the Anchor Forests initiative, and
implementation of the TFPA.
IFMAT III found that chronically insufficient funding and worsening
staff shortages pose threats to tribal forests and communities from
both foregone economic opportunities and resource losses due to
wildland fire, insects, disease, and climate change. Federal trust
management funding of Indian forests is still only one-third of that
for National Forests; an additional $100 million is needed to bring
Indian forestry and wildfire management to parity. Staffing shortfalls
are jeopardizing the capacity to care for forest resources; IFMAT III
found that 800 additional positions in a wide variety of skill areas
are needed to provide adequate staffing and $12.7 million is needed
annually for recruitment, training and retention.
Against this background, the ITC makes the following comments and
requests for fiscal year 2015:
bureau of indian affairs
1. Increase BIA forestry by $25 million as a first step to provide the
$100 million needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry
programs, as recommended by IFMAT III.
We request that the fiscal year 2015 BIA forestry budget be
increased by $25 million, to $70.9 million, to begin to reduce the
glaring $100 million funding disparity with other Federal forestry
programs as discussed in the IFMAT III report. Of the $25 million
increase, allocate $20 million to Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)
Forestry to strengthen base BIA and tribal forest staffing and
management activities and $5 million to forestry projects to reduce the
Forest Development planting and thinning backlog that covers one-sixth
of the trust forest area. As additional staffing capacity is developed
(see item 2 below), further budget movement toward parity funding can
be accommodated.
2. Increase BIA forestry projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA
Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III.
BIA and tribal forestry are facing a staffing crisis. The IFMAT III
report states 800 additional BIA forestry positions are needed, and an
increasing number of existing positions are unfilled due to retirements
and funding shortfalls. Trained personnel are needed to enable the
sustainable trust management of our forests, including the harvest of
timber needed to maintain forest health and support economies that
provide jobs and income for tribal communities. For example, on the
Yakama Reservation, 33 of the 55 BIA forestry positions have not been
filled for a long time, despite repeated tribal pleas. Harvest targets
sought by the tribe are not being met, forest health is suffering, and
economic opportunities are being lost. To begin to address this large
and growing personnel shortage and its negative consequences on the
Federal trust and tribal economies, $12.7 million is needed to start a
program to attract, train and retain forestry staff.
3. Increase BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation (CLC) funding to
$20 million to develop tribal capacity.
We request that CLC funding be increased by $10 million, with the
additional amount dedicated to supporting sustained tribal technical
and administrative engagement in DOI's climate initiatives. Because of
dependence on place and natural resources, tribes are particularly
vulnerable to climate change. The BIA's fiscal year 2015 CLC budget of
less than $10 million is inadequate to support the needs of the 566
federally-recognized tribes to monitor and address the impacts of
climate change over the long term.
4. Increase BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million.
ITC requests BIA ESA be funded at $10 million so the myriad listed
species throughout Indian Country nationwide can be better addressed.
BIA's $2.7 million request for ESA is an improvement over past years,
but the proposal is just half of the ESA per-acre funding for BLM and
still below the $3 million appropriated for BIA ESA in fiscal year
2002. A further significant increase in BIA ESA to $10 million is fully
warranted.
5. Support the BIA Invasive Species request of $6.7 million.
Invasive species are inflicting increasing damage on tribal trust
resources, including tribal forests. The $6.7 million request is needed
and welcome to help stem the invasive species encroachment that is
threatening trust resources.
department of the interior wildland fire management
6. Support the $37 million Preparedness increase.
The increase will alleviate the penalty BIA and the tribes now bear
in absorbing contract support costs (CSCs) for carrying out
Preparedness functions. This is in line with the policy goal of fully
funding CSCs without harming services. The requested increase also
strengthens tribal wildfire management capacity and provides for
recruitment and training of future generations of Native American
wildland fire fighters, whose jobs are a source of pride and economic
opportunity in tribal communities and provide a national asset in
wildland fire fighting.
7. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million.
ITC supports fiscal year 2015 Fuels Management funding restored to
its fiscal year 2010 $206 million level. The Department's fuels
reduction backlog remains huge, preventative projects are much more
cost effective than suppression, and fuels funding has never come close
to the projected amount needed to reduce risks of fuels. Within the
fiscal year 2015 Fuels Management appropriation, ITC strongly supports
the designation of $10 million for tribal resource management landscape
restoration, to allow tribes to engage in proactive fuels and forest
health projects on or off trust lands to protect tribal trust assets
and treaty rights. The ITC wishes to extend our gratitude to OWF for
moving beyond the difficult Hazardous Fuels Prioritization and
Allocation System (HFPAS) fuels fund allocation process, and its
efforts to seek the involvement of tribes in determining how available
funding can best be allocated to protect tribal communities and values.
8. Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal.
ITC supports the legislative proposal to treat extreme fire costs
(above 70 percent of the 10 year average) as the natural disasters that
they are, reducing the consequences of fire costs both on DOI's
operations and budgets.
9. Support the $30 million Resilient Landscape initiative.
With the initiative, fuels and health projects can be more broadly
applied beyond the wildland-urban interface (WUI).
united states forest service
10. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative.
We ask that you support, and encourage continued Forest Service
support of, the ITC's Anchor Forest initiative. The initiative is
fostering long-term collaborative active forest management across the
landscape to maintain ecological functions and sustain economically
viable infrastructure for harvesting, transportation, and processing
forest products. Tribes, with long-term commitment to stewardship, can
and must play a key role in fostering Anchor Forests. Currently, the
ITC Anchor Forest initiative involves three study areas in the States
of Washington and Idaho (involving Yakama, Colville, and the Spokane
and Coeur d'Alene Tribes), with participatory and resource support from
the USFS Regional Office. The project is bringing diverse interests to
the table to begin to develop the collaborative process of working
together in common purpose. Now, tribes in the Lakes States, the
Midwest and the Southwest are expressing interest in the Anchor Forest
concept for landscape-based forests. We ask the subcommittee to
encourage the USFS and other agencies within the Department of
Agriculture, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
Rural Development Administration, to support and participate in Anchor
Forests.
11. Encourage the USFS to make implementation of Tribal Forest
Protection Act (TFPA) a ``priority.''
Finally, we ask that you urge the USFS to make reform and
implementation of the TFPA (Public Law 108-278) a ``priority.'' The
TFPA was enacted to enable tribes to undertake fuels management and
forest restoration projects on Forest Service or BLM lands that pose a
fire, disease or other threat to tribal trust forests, reserved rights
and cultural resources. But only a handful of TFPA projects have been
implemented in the decade since the authority was enacted. USFS has
been painfully slow in adoption of the recommendations of an ITC review
of TFPA implementation, done in collaboration with the USFS and BIA. An
effective TFPA will help restore the landscape to a healthy and
resilient condition. We ask that you urge the Forest Service to make
the TFPA a ``priority'' to save landscapes at high risk to climate
change.
intertribal timber council background
The ITC is a 38-year-old association of some 60 forest owning
tribes and Alaska Native organizations that collectively manage more
than 90 percent of the 18 million acres of BIA trust timberland and
woodland. These forests cover about one third of the Indian trust land
base and provide thousands of jobs and significant economic activity in
and around Indian Country. Beyond their economic importance, forests
also store and filter the water and purify the air to sustain life
itself. They sustain habitats for the fish and wildlife, produce foods,
medicines, fuel, and materials for shelter, transportation, and
artistic expression. In short, our forests are vital to our economies,
cultures and spiritual well being.
Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, we invite you to come visit our
reservations and our forests to see what we have done and what we hope
to do in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I respectfully submit
these requests and recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets to honor
the trust responsibility and support tribal prosperity and well-being.
We renew our request that Congress work together to achieve a balanced
approach to the budget which includes raising new revenue sources and
do not rely solely on cuts to discretionary spending. We request the
following:
1. Move BIA and IHS contract support costs to mandatory spending.
2. Provide advanced appropriations for the Indian Health Service.
3. Increase Tribal Priority Allocation funding, and provide $15
million for the Housing Improvement Program within that fund.
4. Provide a $181.2 million increase for Purchased/Referred Care.
The Federal approach to deficit reduction has been significantly
unbalanced with non-defense Federal programs shouldering the fiscal
burden of these budget cuts. Discretionary programs have already
experienced $2.5 trillion in spending cuts as a result of reductions in
the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution, the Budget Control Act, the
American Taxpayer Relief Act, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and
the Farm Bill. At the same time, revenue has increased by only $778
billion. Tribes are funded out of the non-defense discretionary budget
and have experienced significant hardship with the imposed budget
reductions for tribal programs. Additional budgetary restrictions would
devastate our tribal economies impacting not only our tribal citizens
but also the surrounding non-Native communities whom we employ and
provide with much needed services, such as, public safety, education,
health and dental care.
In addition to the items detailed below, our tribe would like to
reiterate that we are a direct beneficiary of the collective tribal
efforts and continuing efforts of the National Congress of American
Indians, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Northwest
Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission. The tribe supports the requests and recommendations of
those organizations specifically.
1. Ensure that Contract Support Costs are Mandatory Spending.--We
are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund contract
support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to
support that goal. We acknowledge that the administration's request is
a direct response to Congress' actions with regard to fiscal year 2014
appropriations, which removed historical caps on CSC funding and
rejected the administration's proposal--put forward without tribal
consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to individually cap
contract support costs recovery at the contractor level. Contract
support costs funds vital administrative functions that allow us to
operate programs that provide critical services to our members--
programs like our full-service OB-GYN facilities in the Jamestown
Health Clinic, our comprehensive dental services in our dental clinic,
and the many services provided by our Community Health & Wellness
Program. If contract support costs are not fully funded, our programs
and services are directly impacted because we are forced to divert
limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We
therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope
that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Without any
permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC remains
subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though tribes
are legally entitled to full payment of CSC under the ISDEAA. Noting
these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to
consult with tribes on a permanent solution.
In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ``Entitlement'' as
``A legal obligation of the Federal Government to make payments to a
person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar
entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the
budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.''
Further, ``Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through
those programs' eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules.''
\1\ CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget
authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation
acts--as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is
not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States.
Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA--to end Federal domination
of Indian programs and allow for meaningful control by Indian tribes
over their own destinies in the face of Federal bureaucratic
resistance--will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that
allow the statute to function are considered ``discretionary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://
www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint
Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
basis.
2. The Need for Indian Health Service Advance Appropriations.--The
Federal health services to maintain and improve the health of American
Indians and Alaska Natives are consonant with and required by the
Federal Government's historical and unique legal relationship with, and
resulting responsibility to, the American Indian and Alaska Native
people. Since fiscal year 1998 there has been only 1 year (fiscal year
2006) when the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
appropriations bill has been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal
year. Even after enactment of an appropriations bill (or a series of
increasingly confusing continuing resolutions), there is an
apportionment process involving the Office of Management and Budget and
then a process within the IHS for allocation of funds to the IHS Area
Offices.
Seriously delayed funding causes the IHS and tribal healthcare
providers great challenges in planning and managing care for American
Indians and Alaska Natives. It significantly hampers tribal and IHS
healthcare providers' budgeting, recruitment, retention, provision of
services, facility maintenance and construction efforts. Receipt of
funds late also severely impacts our tribe's ability to invest the
funds and generate interest which can be used to offset the chronic
underfunding of the region's health programs. Providing sufficient,
timely, and predictable funding is needed to ensure the Government
meets its obligation to provide healthcare for Native people. We--and
all tribes and tribal organizations--are hampered by the uncertainty as
to whether Congress will provide funding for built-in costs, including
inflation and pay increases, what amount of funding we might receive
with regard to signing outside vendor/and or medical services
contracts, ordering supplies, and making crucial hiring decisions.
Advance Appropriations Explanation.--As you know, an advance
appropriation is funding that becomes available 1 year or more after
the year of the appropriations act in which it is contained. For
instance, if fiscal year 2016 advance appropriations for the IHS were
included in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, those advance appropriations would not be
counted against the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee's funding allocation but rather would be counted against
its fiscal year 2016 allocation. It would also be counted against the
ceiling in the fiscal year 2016 Budget Resolution, not the fiscal year
2015 Budget Resolution.
To begin an advanced appropriations cycle there must be an initial
transition appropriation which contains (1) an appropriation for the
year in which the bill was enacted (for instance, fiscal year 2015) and
(2) an advance appropriation for the following year (fiscal year 2016).
Thereafter, Congress can revert to appropriations containing only 1
year advance funding. If IHS funding was on an advance appropriations
cycle, tribal healthcare providers, as well as the IHS, would know the
funding a year earlier than is currently the case and would not be
subject to Continuing Resolutions. However, we note that advance
appropriations are subject to across-the-board reductions.
The Veterans Administration Experience.--In fiscal year 2010 the
Veterans Administration (VA) medical care programs achieved advance
appropriations. This came after many years of veterans' organizations
advocating for this change, including enactment of the Veterans Health
Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-81)
which authorized advance appropriations and specified which
appropriations accounts are to be eligible for advance appropriations.
The Act required the Secretary to include in documents submitted to
Congress, in support of the President's detailed budget estimates, the
funds necessary for the medical care accounts of the VA for the fiscal
year following the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted.
The fact that Congress has implemented advance appropriations for
the VA medical programs provides a compelling argument for tribes and
tribal organizations to be given equivalent status with regard to IHS
funding. Both systems provide direct medical care and both are the
result of Federal policies. Just as the veterans groups were alarmed at
the impact of delayed funding upon the provision of healthcare to
veterans and the ability of the VA to properly plan and manage its
resources, tribes and tribal organizations have those concerns about
the IHS health system. Currently there are to bills (H.R. 813/S. 932)
seeking to expand VA advance appropriation to all discretionary
accounts not just medical. We also note that there is legislation (H.R.
3229 and S. 1570) pending in this Congress that would expand advance
appropriations to the IHS. We thus request this subcommittee's active
support for any legislation that may be needed to authorize IHS advance
appropriations, to protect such funding from a point of order in the
Budget Resolution, and to appropriate the necessary funds.
3. $15 Million Increase for HIP Program in Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) Funding in the BIA Budget.--Tribal priority
allocations fund essential core governmental services. We use these
dollars to provide the most basic needs for our tribal citizens: food,
clothing and shelter and to provide critical services, including, law
enforcement, education, transportation, natural resources and economic
development. Since 1996, tribal government core services are operating
with over a 30 percent reduction in base funds. We urge you to
adequately fund TPA to enhance the health and well-being of our
communities.
Restore Funding to the Housing Improvement Program.--The HIP
program is an important component of TPA funding. It serves the
neediest population--those at 125 percent of the Federal income poverty
guidelines. The President requests only $8 million for this fund--even
funding from last year, which was a drastic reduction from the nearly
$12 million in fiscal year 2013. This reduction is based on the false
presumption that the program is duplicative of HUD programs. The
assumption is wrong, and we urge you to provide $15 million in funding
for this program that provides an essential service to our tribal
citizens: safe and sanitary housing.
4. $ 181.2 Million Increase Funding for Purchased/Referred Care
(formally called Contract Health Services).--Most IHS and tribally
operated direct care facilities do not provide the required emergency
and specialty care services, so tribes are forced to turn to the
private sector to fulfill this critical need. Purchased/Referred Care
funds are used to purchase essential healthcare services, including
inpatient and outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care,
transportation and medical support services (like diagnostic imaging,
physical therapy, laboratory, nutrition, and pharmacy services).
Thank you on behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jicarilla Apache Nation
March 31, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Ty Vicenti,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of Mrs. Barbara King
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name
is Barbara King and I am a resident of Texas, an owner of rural
property in Colorado, and an advocate for land exchange reform. I
testified in 2011 before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Environment, Interior and Related Agencies, and appreciate your
willingness to consider this additional testimony on the same subject.
I am convinced of the need for revising BLM land exchange regulations
to protect the public, based on what my neighbors and I experienced as
participants in the 2007, Emerald Mountain Land Exchange (EMLEX.) Your
committee can prevent the recklessness by which the land exchange
program is being managed by interviewing the officials responsible for
overseeing it to assess their actual knowledge of land exchange
regulations and the Land Exchange Handbook policies on public
notification and working with land exchange facilitators (specifically
for-profit real estate brokers.) I believe you will be astounded at
what you find, and will see an immediate need to revise these
regulations so they are clear and reasonable.
At the State level, land managers such as Colorado's John Beck
should be asked why they admittedly do not follow the BLM Land Exchange
Handbook policies, cavalierly putting your constituents' historic land
use patterns and land values at risk. Mr. Beck had told me that the
Handbook is only a guide, and no case law enforces it. Obviously, the
very wide discretion given to land managers to ignore these policies
can easily lead to poor decisions with enormous consequences.
Specifically, as shown in the EMLEX, BLM does not exercise the Full
Disclosure policy whereby land exchange facilitators must reveal all
purchase contracts they hold with prospective owners of the Federal
land prior to land appraisals. If BLM does not provide this information
to appraisers, as they failed to do in the EMLEX, Federal land
appraisals cannot be guaranteed to meet regulation standards. Why does
BLM not make this a regulation given the reports year after year of the
inadequacy of the appraisal process? Nor, in the EMLEX, were the names
of all prospective owners added to the mailing list, ignoring a
Handbook requirement to include everyone expressing an ownership
interest in the Federal land. This action is crucial to the public, but
irrelevant to and ignored by BLM. Failure to obtain full disclosure,
according to the very critical 2009, Government Accountability Office
(GAO) report, ``BLM and the Forest Service Have Improved Oversight of
the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are Needed,'' has
predictable results. GAO writes ``Without consistent application, the
agencies fail to obtain critical information and potentially risk
losing the ability to control the exchange process.'' A big part of the
problem is lack of trained staff. As GAO wrote ``The agencies cannot
ensure that realty staff develop and maintain necessary skills.''
The two problems, inadequate public notification and failure to
provide appraisers with complete information, are serious, but the
solutions are so straightforward and cost-neutral that I believe your
subcommittee will support revising land exchange regulations as you
consider funding for the FLPMA this year. Your answers to two questions
should determine whether you are willing to do so. First, should BLM
notify rural landowners adjacent to Federal land when BLM plans to
dispose of it? The Department of the Interior (DOI), and most
vehemently, the acting Inspector General, Mary Kendall, says ``NO!''
That is a clue there is a big problem with common sense at DOI.
Second, do you believe a Federal land appraisal can be guaranteed
to be accurate if the appraiser is unaware of its intended use by those
holding purchase contracts for it? Of course not! However, DOI says,
yes.
I believe that your subcommittee, charged with oversight of the BLM
land exchange program, will serve the public well by challenging the
Administration's counterintuitive thinking.
The public needs you to find out why BLM officials do not follow
their Handbook and its checklist of procedures critical to running a
program that, if mismanaged, can literally ruin your constituents'
livelihoods. Who can't follow a checklist?
Interviewing two current Department of the Interior (DOI) officials
who are responsible for oversight within DOI will reveal why these
problems persist. Challenging them directly by asking them detailed
questions will show you the remarkable lack of competence and interest
within the DOI to do any oversight of this program. Since my
Congressional representative, John Culberson (R-TX) and I began our
inquiries about the program in 2009, DOI employees have revealed a
systemic, evidently coordinated, refusal to examine the problems with
the BLM land exchange program identified in the 2009, GAO report. I was
told by BLM Deputy Secretary Ned Farquhar in 2009 that he had neither
the time nor staff to look into the fact that the Colorado BLM office
had not followed its policies regarding public notification or working
with facilitators in the EMLEX. Subsequently, he relied on a report
from the Colorado office defending their management of the exchange. No
one at DOI ever challenged its accuracy by examining case file records
or documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
requests which clearly showed that all BLM officials, including
Director Bob Abbey simply repeated numerous demonstrably false
statements about the exchange to Mr. Culberson and me. Finally, and
shockingly, the acting Inspector General, Mary Kendall, somehow
``confirmed'' Mr. Abby's false statements, and refused to offer a shred
of support for her conclusion that BLM had, indeed followed its
policies. If Democrats on your subcommittee take an interest in this,
it will be an outstanding example of principle over partisanship. If
not, the reverse is apparent.
Why does the land exchange program need your oversight? When
Federal officials make false statements to congressional appropriators
who question them, they must believe you do not have the staff or time
to hold them accountable for what is either gross incompetence or
willful disregard for facts in order to protect the administration.
Thorough public notification of BLM's actions and obtaining fair value
for Federal land are of critical importance to the public, so the
regulations and policies addressing those issues should be written
clearly for everyone to understand. BLM's cavalier disregard for your
own fundamental property rights will be apparent to members and staff
who talk with administration officials about land exchange regulations
and policies. Mr. Farquhar and Ms. Kendall should be asked to explain
their interpretations of and opinions about the following:
1. Public notification regulations and Handbook policies.
2. Regulations and Policies regarding oversight of facilitators:
GAO report 09-611 made excellent recommendations for improving
oversight of facilitators that could be implemented fairly easily if
BLM would simply acknowledge the problem. Unfortunately, DOI's response
included in that report, written by Acting Assistant Secretary, Land
and Minerals Management, Mr. Ned Farquhar does not even acknowledge the
problems with oversight noted in the report, or comment on GAO's
suggestions to correct them. In the report, GAO states the need for
additional documentation by the National Land Exchange Team that the
Full Disclosure provision of the agreement to initiate (ATI) is indeed
exercised in a facilitated land exchange. BLM still refuses to do so.
The influence of lobbyists for facilitators may be the reason for this
because the risk of inaccurate appraisals is clear.
3. Oversight of land exchange and appraisal processes within BLM
and DOI: GAO report 08-106 ``Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act
Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and
Acquisitions and 10-259T ``Challenges to Implementing the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act'' identify management weaknesses and the
lack of staff. ``BLM officials reported that they lacked knowledgeable
realty staff to conduct land acquisitions, as well as other BLM or
department staff to conduct appraisals, surveys, and resource studies.
The turnover of management in the State Office conducting the most
exchanges, Colorado, is remarkably high. Colorado has had seven State
Directors during the period 2002-2014 (Wenker, Koza, Wisely, Hunsaker,
Barden, Hankins, Welch). The turnover at the Federal level just with
the Obama administration shows the need for clear regulations and
policies that these officials and the public can understand. Hopefully,
DOI Secretary Jewell, BLM Director Kornze and Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management Schneider will, unlike their predecessors,
accept public and congressional scrutiny and make the changes that need
to be made. Ironically, it was Secretary Salazar who stated, in his
2011, ``Plan for Retrospective Regulatory Review'' that ``Through this
process, we want to gather the best ideas from the public on how to fix
regulations that need fixing, eliminate those that are no longer
needed, and make government work better for the people we serve.'' Your
subcommittee has the power to take these problems seriously and fix
them. Here is a start. Ms. Kendall's refusal to provide Mr. Culberson
with a full report on her ``appraisal review'' of one of the EMLEX
parcels indicates her profound lack of transparency and contempt for
Congressional scrutiny.
4. Suggested Revisions to land exchange regulations and Handbook
a. Regulations CFR 43 2201. 2 and 2201.7-1 should be amended such
that the category of those ``appropriate'' includes
1. adjacent landowners
2015 Appropriations Bill Language proposed by
Representative John Culberson (R-TX): ``Section 206 of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1716) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection: `(j) In the case of any
exchange involving public land or National Forest
System land to be carried out (whether directly or
through a third-party) under this Act or other
applicable law, the Secretary concerned shall provide
written notice of the proposed land exchange to each
owner of non-Federal land adjoining the parcel of
public land or National Forest System land proposed for
exchange and each owner of non-Federal land adjoining
the non-Federal land proposed to be acquired in the
exchange. The Secretary shall determine adjoining
landowners using the most-recent available tax records.
For purposes of providing notification under this
subsection, adjoining land means land sharing any
length of border with the public land, National Forest
System land, or non-Federal land subject to the
proposed exchange, including contact solely at a
boundary corner.
2. ``interested parties'' defined as (a) parties who
requested information about the exchange directly from BLM (as
required by the Handbook) (b) any party known to the
facilitator to have an ownership interest in the BLM land shown
by a contract with the facilitator or a related agreement to
purchase all or part of the newly exchanged BLM property. This
information is required to be provided to BLM through the Full
Disclosure provision of the ATI.
b. Implement these Specific Directives regarding Land Exchanges
based on the GAO report GAO-09-611 through revising regulations to
require this:
--ensure careful and fully documented reviews by National Land
Exchange Team (NLET) that identify key problems and record
their resolutions
--Clearly define third-party facilitators
--Consistently apply disclosure policies to them an, crucially,
include documentation of the disclosure in the case file and
verification of the disclosure by NLET
c. Revisions to the BLM Land Exchange Handbook Chapter 11E.
Role of Facilitators in Assembling Multiple Parcels or
Multiple Ownerships.
BLM should plainly define the meaning of words used in their
regulations, policy and personal communications such as
``interested party,'' ``participant'' and ``client.'' Exchange
facilitators must be required to be aware of all exchange
regulations and policy. BLM realty staff must review all
facilitator's Employment Agreements to verify that the Scope of
Work offered to clients is consistent with exchange policy. BLM
should add an additional step to the land exchange review
process, as GAO-09-611 recommends (p. 42) so that the National
Land Exchange Team documents that the Full Disclosure provision
was exercised, shown by BLM realty staff having reviewed all
contracts the facilitator holds. Both the State realty office
and the NLET reviews should be in the exchange case file.
--BLM should distribute a Land Exchange Fact Sheet to ``interested
parties'' holding a contract or related agreement with the
facilitator, clarifying the roles of BLM and its
facilitator and the exchange parameters.
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to
approve fiscal year 2015 funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. We ask Congress to continue
supporting the important work of this agency, which increases public
access to the arts, nurtures cultural diversity, promotes the creation
of new artistic works, and cultivates a sense of cultural and historic
pride, all while supporting millions of jobs in communities nationwide.
The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions
America's orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its
diverse membership of approximately 800 orchestras runs the gamut from
world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from summer festivals to
student and youth ensembles. Orchestras unite people through creativity
and artistry, fuel local economies and civic vitality, and educate
young people and adults. The League remains committed to helping
orchestras engage with their communities, and the NEA plays an
invaluable role through its direct grants, Federal/State partnerships,
and research on trends in public participation and workforce
development.
The award of a competitive NEA grant is widely considered an
affirmation of national artistic significance. The ability to present
nationally recognized programs is highly valued by communities large
and small, and being an NEA grant recipient is critical in securing
additional funding for a variety of programming and operations. In
fiscal year 2013, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 100 direct
grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America categories.
In the current fiscal year 2014 period, the following eleven
highlighted awards total $200,000 in NEA grants, supporting orchestras
that together employ more than 800 musicians and 360 full- and part-
time staff.
nea funding increases access for underserved communities
Together with the organizations it supports, the NEA is dedicated
to improving public access to the arts. With a Challenge America grant,
the Gulf Coast Symphony Orchestra produced ``Something Old, Something
New,'' a classical music concert featuring trombonist Joe Alessi. The
project was created to serve a low-income, rural community. In addition
to the public performance, there was also a public dress rehearsal, a
master class for a local high school, and free community outreach
performances held in Gulfport and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. The
public dress rehearsal attracts a full range of local citizens--from
high school and college students to residents of retirement homes and
local veterans. The Gulf Coast Symphony and its musicians accomplish
all of this with the help of just three staff members and an active
board.
Another Challenge America recipient serving many with a modest
grant is the Bismarck-Mandan Symphony Orchestra (BMSO), the only full
symphony orchestra in western and south central North Dakota. With two
full-time and two part-time staff, roughly 75 musicians, and more than
40 volunteers, the BMSO will present a series of concerts and
activities with guest violinist Michael Ludwig in Bismarck, the
orchestra's home base, and Mott, a rural community of 732 people. The
orchestra and Mr. Ludwig will work with local partners in Mott to
present a classroom program for student musicians at Mott-Regent
Junior/Senior High School, a recital for residents of the Good
Samaritan Society-Mott, which provides shelter and supportive services
to older persons and others in need, and perform a free evening recital
at Mott's Playhouse Theater. These activities will benefit a community
that would otherwise need to travel more than 100 miles to Bismarck in
order to enjoy professional music performances.
Orchestras are finding ways to engage underserved communities that
are nearby as well as those many miles away. The Seattle Symphony
Orchestra (SSO), which employs 150 full-time staff including 84
musicians, will utilize its NEA Art Works grant to help support the New
Music Works performance project, which employs music composition as a
tool to increase public participation in the arts and creates skill
development opportunities for youth. The project will feature
compositions that bridge traditional and contemporary cultures. Among
these works is a new piece co-created by northwest Native American
youth and artists through the SSO's Cultural Exchanges, which are
hosted at tribal venues on a quarterly basis to foster closer
relationships and collaborative work with the tribes.
nea grants help orchestras engage, educate, and equip america's youth
The experience of live music can bring disparate communities and
partners together, united in the purpose of educating and encouraging
young people. The Greensboro Symphony's OrKIDStra program, for example,
partners with Guilford County Head Start to serve preschoolers
throughout the Piedmont Triad. Tying together literacy skills with
classical music, the symphony provides more than 600 Head Start
children with free books related to a specific concert theme. Head
Start educators work with the children, who later see the book brought
to life in an interactive concert featuring the symphony's Percussion
Ensemble and a professional storyteller. Building upon the great
success of last year's program, the Greensboro Symphony, with its 13
full and part-time staff and more than 80 musicians, is expanding its
OrKIDStra program this year to include several public performances at
the Greensboro Science Center's new Carolina SciQuarium facility in May
2014.
The Kansas City Symphony, with 80 full-time musicians, 31 full-time
staff members, and as many as 200 part-time/seasonal employees, offers
more than 170 performances and also education programs that connect
with more than 40,000 children and teachers each year, many of whom are
in rural and underserved areas. The Kansas City Symphony's ``Festival
of Rhythm'' program featured performances by percussionist Martin
Grubinger playing John Corigliano's percussion concerto Conjurer, and
the Festival also included a free community concert of percussion
works, a public lecture by Corigliano, and a master class and pre-
concert discussions with Grubinger, all reaching more than 6,000
people. In addition, nearly 17,000 students and teachers from 20
communities in northwest Missouri and 21 communities in northeast
Kansas learned about rhythm and percussion at 12 KinderKonzerts and
Link Up performances.
Thanks to an NEA Challenge America grant, the Fort Smith Symphony
Orchestra, which employs four full-time staff and 93 per-service
professional musicians, was able to offer for free, an interactive
educational program called EARQUAKE!TM. In partnership with
both public and private schools, this award-winning, live concert
series reached 3,500 sixth-graders in a five county region in western
Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma, engaging them in a total symphony
experience designed to encourage music appreciation and future
participation in the arts. EARQUAKE!TM concerts featured
exciting music by the full orchestra, complete with video projection,
audience participation, and performances by violist Tazonio Anderson.
Nearly one-fourth of the Fort Smith students live in poverty, and
participating rural Arkansas and Oklahoma schools have acute economic
disadvantages with limited arts education budgets.
The San Francisco Symphony Youth Orchestra will use its Art Works
grant from the NEA to support the Artistic Development Program. The
program complements the youth orchestra's core activity of weekly
rehearsals and concert performances by providing students with
coaching, mentorship, and specialized training in chamber music.
Students will receive free tickets to San Francisco Symphony
performances and participate in master classes with guest artists such
as composer John Adams, violinist Joshua Bell, and pianist Garrick
Ohlsson. Participants will also rehearse at least twice a year with San
Francisco Symphony Music Director Michael Tilson Thomas. The San
Francisco Symphony currently employs 107 full-time orchestra members
and 123 full-time staff.
nea funding encourages new works and local artistry
NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative work of American
composers and musicians. Whether the music is newly composed, inspired
by classics, or blends music from different genres, the artistry
supported by the NEA is as diverse as the communities that surround
their grantees. The Utah Symphony Utah Opera, whose 56 full-
time and 20 part-time employees and 85 full time musicians help bring
music to 450,000 residents in Utah and the Intermountain region,
received an Art Works grant to support the premiere performance of a
percussion concerto by Andrew Norman. Mr. Norman chose the percussion
as the solo medium due to its physicality, which he feels compellingly
demonstrates the theatrical aspect of live orchestral performance. The
world premiere performance of his concerto will feature guest artist
Colin Currie in Abravanel Hall, Salt Lake City.
The Portland Symphony Orchestra, led by 82 musicians along with 12
full-time and 5 part-time staff, received an Art Works grant to support
audience engagement with both traditional and contemporary compositions
in celebration of the orchestra's 90th anniversary season. The
orchestra will perform all nine of Beethoven's symphonies over the next
three concert seasons, with the upcoming season's February concert to
feature Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 and a Beethoven-inspired
commissioned piece by a young American composer. A national,
competitive application process will held to help launch and promote
the career of the selected young American composer, who will also
participate in a ``mini-residency'' which will involve participating in
community events such as education symposiums, master classes in local
schools, and Q&A events for concert audiences.
Also supporting the work of living composers is the Arkansas
Symphony Orchestra, which will use its Art Works funding to support a
residency, commission, and premiere of a new work by American composer
Christopher Theofinidis. In addition to working with orchestra
musicians prior to the premiere, Mr. Theofinidis will also work with
underserved students in central Arkansas and take part in pre-concert
lectures. The orchestra, which employs eleven full-time musicians,
eighty part-time musicians, and twelve full-time staff members, serves
over 120,000 Arkansans a year with live music and is proud to premiere
the work of Mr. Theofinidis.
The Chicago Sinfonietta, with its 62 musicians, a staff of 4 full-
time and 7 part-time employees, and 30-member board, will use its Art
Works grant to present unique programming that blends musical and
cultural genres. The Cross-Cultural Genre Fusion concert, with related
educational activities, is a multicultural exploration of the
intersection between symphonic and electronic music and will feature a
Bhangra DJ together with two guest conductors--one Brazilian and one
African American. Each conductor will conduct one half of the concert
and will focus on their individual cultural heritage. Educational
activities will include pre-concert discussions and school visits.
Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of
NEA support for orchestras and communities across the Nation. These are
but a sampling of the innovative compositions, thoughtful programming
for underserved regions and populations, and lifelong learning
opportunities orchestras provide in service to adults and children from
all walks of life. The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national
forum to promote excellence and engagement through high standards for
artistic products and the highest expectation of accessibility remains
one of the strongest arguments for a Federal role in support of the
arts. We urge you to support creativity and access to the arts by
approving $155 million in funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Maniilaq Association
Summary.--The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native regional
non-profit organization representing twelve tribes in Northwest Alaska.
We provide health services through a self-governance agreement with the
Indian Health Service (IHS) and social services through a self-
governance agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We make
the following recommendations regarding fiscal year 2015 IHS funding.
--Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic leases in Alaska by
at leaset $8.5 million
--Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending.
--Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians
--Fund the IHS budget with advanced appropriations.
--Provide a $50 million allocation to the IHS from the ACA's
mandatory Prevention and Public Health Fund for tribal
behavioral health grants.
--Improve the safety of Alaska Native communities by affirming tribal
jurisdiction.
funding for village built clinics in alaska
Maniilaq urges Congress to provide full funding for Village Built
Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs are vital to the provision of basic
healthcare in rural Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the
Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (IHCIA). The CHAP, which IHS is directed by the IHCIA
to carry out, utilizes a network of community health aides and
practitioners to provide primary healthcare services in rural and
isolated areas where access to those services might not otherwise
exist.
Despite the statutory requirement in the IHCIA that the IHS carry
out the CHAP in order to ensure access to healthcare in rural Alaska,
over the years the IHS has failed to fund VBC leases anywhere near the
level of current need. Instead, the IHS has insisted that its funding
for VBC leases is capped at $3 million--the amount appropriated by
Congress for VBC leases in 1989. The 1989 appropriation was not a cap
restricting IHS allocation of funds in later years, however, and the
IHS has discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. The
failure of the IHS to allocate funding to VBC leases to meet its
statutory obligations under the IHCIA has forced Maniilaq to divert
funding from critical healthcare programs to make up the difference,
meaning that Maniilaq must offer fewer healthcare services to our
communities.
Maniilaq, along with other tribes and tribal organizations in
Alaska, has discussed this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and
has proposed solutions that the IHS continues to ignore. Accordingly,
Maniilaq has recently sought to restructure funding for its VBC
facilities by requesting that the IHS enter into leases for those
facilities under its Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (ISDEAA) Section 105(l) leasing authority, and that the leases be
incorporated into Maniilaq's ISDEAA funding agreement. Section 105(l)
and its implementing regulations at 25 C.F.R. Part 900 require that the
Secretary enter into a lease with a tribe or tribal organization, on a
mandatory basis upon the request of the tribe or tribal organization,
for a facility used by the tribe or tribal organization for the
administration and delivery of services under an ISDEAA compact. The
statute and implementing regulations also require the Secretary to
compensate the tribe or tribal organization for certain costs
associated with the lease.
The IHS, however, refused the lease proposal, stating that the
agency will not enter into leases with ISDEAA tribal contractors for
VBC facilities. IHS also took the position that even if it were to
approve the lease, the Secretary may unilaterally elect to provide
essentially meaningless ``non-monetary compensation'' in lieu of the
costs listed in the statute and regulations for a Section 105(l) lease.
In response, and with the support of several other major tribal
organizations, Maniilaq filed suit in Federal District Court early last
year asking the court to affirm that the IHS is required by statute to
enter into a Section 105(l) lease and to negotiate monetary
compensation as provided in the implementing regulations.
If Maniilaq prevails, the case could establish legal precedent that
will allow tribal contractors in Alaska to negotiate for full funding
for VBCs as part of their funding agreements under the IHS's ISDEAA
leasing authority. Such a victory could address the issue of IHS
recalcitrance that has plagued the VBC program, since full compensation
would finally be mandatory. However, support is still needed from
Congress to ensure that adequate funding is available for VBC leases
regardless of how the leases are structured. The CHAP in Alaska is
critical to the provision of basic and essential healthcare services in
isolated and rural areas, but the program hinges on the continued
availability of properly maintained VBC space for program operation.
Maniilaq therefore urges Congress to appropriate at least an additional
$8.5 million in dedicated funds to fully fund the VBC leasing program.
mandatory funding for contract support costs
We are pleased that Congress chose to fully fund contract support
costs (CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2014, and that the
administration has supported that effort in fiscal year 2015. CSC fund
vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that
provide critical services to our community members. If contract support
costs are not fully funded, however, our programs and services are
adversely affected because we are forced to divert limited program
funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore
appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it
carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. However, full funding
for CSC must not come with a penalty--tribes should not have to see a
reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of
Indian program funds. Without any permanent measure to ensure full
funding, payment of CSC remains subject to agency ``discretion'' even
though tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting
these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to
consult with tribes on a permanent solution.
There is a logical permanent solution Congress can implement: CSC
should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the ISDEAA,
the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation,
affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget for CSC is currently
funded and controlled through appropriation acts--as if it were a
discretionary program. Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement for
the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations, recognized that the
current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and
the current approach leaves the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations in the ``untenable position of appropriating
discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract
support costs.'' Congress also noted that, ``Typically obligations of
this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious
solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the
statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
entitlement, not a discretionary program. Maniilaq therefore strongly
urges the Congress to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis.
reauthorize the special diabetes program
While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment
(Public Law 113-93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
$150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
at increased funding levels.
fund the ihs through advanced appropriations
Last year we provided extensive testimony to this subcommittee
requesting advanced appropriations for the IHS budget. We refer you to
that testimony for a full description of the benefits of such an
approach. In sum, the goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare
providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of Federal
appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties
of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Congress
provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical
accounts, and the request is for parity in the appropriations schedule
for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS advance appropriations has
been introduced--H.R. 3229 by Representative Young and S. 1570 by
Senators Murkowski and Begich. We submitted testimony to the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs' April 2, 2014, hearing on S. 1570. We
request that you support such efforts, and work with these sponsors and
tribal representatives to move the IHS to an advanced appropriations
framework.
increase funding for behavioral health, suicide prevention, and alcohol
& substance abuse treatment
Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities'
behavioral and mental health. There is a dire need for more prevention
funding for suicide intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse
prevention, particularly for our youth. These efforts go hand in hand,
as the problems often overlap. Alaska has twice the national rate of
suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring
hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly 6
times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among all Alaskans
increased by 33 percent between 2005-2008--a period when the national
rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide epidemic
is alcohol and substance abuse, or a mental health disorder. The
overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide suffer from
diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance abuse problems.
However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 months, and
due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people,
particularly young people.
Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as
well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect.
Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the
State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of
guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found that tribes
and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly,
because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more
successful than those that don't. Included in the Affordable Care Act
is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion over 10 years) for a Prevention and
Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress may allocate funding to
various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the administration requested that
$50 million of it be allocated to a new tribal behavioral health grant
program; unfortunately Congress did not provide that allocation. We
urge that Congress allocate $50 million from the PPH to the IHS in
fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that it be recurring.
support tribal jurisdiction to protect alaska communities
We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe
Families and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska
tribes' jurisdiction to protect their communities by dealing locally
with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. At
the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in
S. 1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women
Act Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal
jurisdiction over domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes
will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding
law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our
congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial
importance to Alaska Native communities.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Peter Meineck
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Peter
Meineck and I am a professor of classics at New York University, the
founding director of the Aquila Theatre Company and a proud member of
the Bedford Fire Department in New York where I serve as a volunteer
Firefighter and EMT. I write to testify on behalf of the National
Humanities Alliance and Aquila Theatre in enthusiastic support for the
Alliance's fiscal year 2015 request of $154.5 million in funding for
the National Endowment for the Humanities--which is nothing less than a
great American treasure.
I mentioned in my introduction that I am a volunteer Firefighter in
Bedford, New York. My hamlet of Katonah, part of the town of Bedford,
includes the home of John Jay, the author of several of the Federalist
Papers, member of the Continental Congress, signatory to the
Declaration of Independence and our first Chief Justice. Like almost
all the members of the Continental Congress, Jay received a classical
education and could read both Greek and Latin. In fact, Thomas
Jefferson was so enthusiastic he exclaimed, ``I thank on my knees, him
who directed my early education, for having put into my possession this
rich source of delight; and I would not exchange it for anything which
I could then have acquired, and have not since acquired.'' John Jay's
works and those of his colleagues reflect the profound influence the
classical world had on the conception and creation of the United States
of America.
This is strikingly apparent in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and
Madison, Jay's fellow New York delegates to the Continental Congress,
devoted the entirety of Federalist no. 18 to a sophisticated objective
appraisal of why the Ancient Greek city states failed to coalesce into
one nation. This became a powerful historical argument in support of
the confederation of the 13 colonies into a Federal United States. They
wrote, ``Had Greece been united by a stricter confederation, and
persevered in her union, she would never have worn the chains of
Macedon; and might have proved a barrier to the vast projects of
Rome.'' Right from the start, Americans drew inspiration from their
knowledge of the classical past.
John Jay well understood that knowledge was essential if the
American experiment was to succeed. In a letter to Pennsylvania
delegate Benjamin Rush in 1785 he wrote, ``Knowledge is the soul of the
Republic and the only way to diminish the weak and wicked.'' Later in
1789, he echoed this theme by writing to Timothy Matlack that
``Knowledge is essential for the duration of liberty,'' and in the same
year, he felt confident that the American Revolution would succeed
because ``In my opinion more light and knowledge are diffused through
the mass of the people of this country than any other.''
Jay received his classical education at Kings College in New York,
renamed as Columbia University, and I was able to read Jay's letters in
his own hand because of a superb digital archive held there. These
historic papers are available online for all and funded by the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the agency which embodies the sentiments
of John Jay that ``Knowledge is the soul of the Republic'' and
essential for the survival of liberty.
Long before there was the NEH to help scholars undergo important
research and disseminate their knowledge, support documentary film
makers and archives, and fund important public programs in libraries,
museums, galleries, VA hospitals and community centers, the classics
provided many early Americans with the historical exemplars and
literary metaphors by which they examined their own lives. Abigail
Adams wrote countless letters from Boston to her husband John, far away
in Philadelphia, during the war. She signed them ``Diana,'' after the
Roman goddess of the hunt and later ``Portia,'' the wife of the Roman
republican, Brutus. Adams wrote back as ``Lysander,'' the famous
Spartan General who ended the Peloponnesian War. Abigail's passion for
the classics was evidently so great that John felt compelled to write,
``Amidst your Ardor for Greek and Latin I hope you will not forget your
mother Tongue. Read Somewhat in the English Poets every day. . . . You
will never be alone, with a Poet in your Pocket. You will never have an
idle Hour.'' Now, there are a fair few more Americans than in 1780, and
it is the National Endowment for the Humanities that brings us ``Poetry
in Motion'' on the subway and places living poets in communities
throughout America, offering access, education, inspiration and
knowledge.
With that in mind, I would like to briefly describe the NEH funded
program that I directed called Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives that used
the works of Homer, Aeschylus Sophocles and Euripides to foster
informed public discussions on the veteran in American society. Between
2010-2013, the program toured to 106 communities in 31 States, staging
244 live events, comprising staged readings and discussions, public
lectures, reading groups, film screenings and theatre workshops. We
hired 62 classics professors and sent them out into the field where
they worked with professional actors, librarians, museum curators,
performing arts center staff and members of veteran organizations.
110,865 people attended the live events. This works out to a cost to
the Federal Government of only $7.22 per person, and if we add the
program web site's recorded hits of 678,000, it only comes to around
one dollar per person.
The stated aim of the program was to use ancient dramatic
literature to bring members of the veteran community and the public
together around the common themes found between the ancient literature
and the experiences of war and homecoming. We staged these free events
in public spaces dedicated to reading, art and culture--places that
were right in the heart of the inner city, rural and underserved
communities we visited. Here, Americans had the opportunity to freely
exchange ideas framed by the deeper context of the classical texts.
One program participant, a U.S. Army Ranger sergeant who has served
in several tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, summed up the way in which
classical texts can be a context for modern military experience: ``With
the Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives project I liked that the experiences
were filtered through classical myth. This distance allows both
performers and audience members to use their imaginations in an
empathetic way, rather than merely evoking sympathy. The use of myth
(or perhaps any fictionalized narrative) also helps free us from
anachronistic terms such as PTSD or psychological wound, or whatever
else they want to use to describe someone who has undergone a
significant change due to military service. Classical myth places the
emphasis back on character and story, and helps reject the laziness of
labels. Arguably, the abstract nature of myth also allows individuals
to reflect on their own experiences with the subject at hand, and to
flesh out the experience with some combination of memory and
imagination.''
Of course, there are as many responses and experiences as there are
veterans but one veteran of the Vietnam war felt that the program was
helping to make American's literate about war, something he believed
was essential in any democracy. It was always remarkable to see how the
classical stories elicited deeply personal and heartfelt responses. At
one event in a military museum in Iowa, a long serving non commissioned
officer of the Iowa National Guard latched on to the tension inherent
in the moment in Book 23 of Homer's Odyssey, when the hero is finally
reunited with his wife, Penelope. This Iowan and his wife recognized
the intimacy of something simple between them that could suddenly
transcend the long separations of multiple deployments. Like Odysseus
himself, who is moved to tears when he hears tales of the Trojan War
sung by a bard, there were many sniffles in the audience at this
beautifully simple and completely human moment that was captured and
written down in a foreign land some 2750 years ago: for the humanities
constantly remind us what it means to be human.
In Mississippi, a leather-clad member of Rolling Thunder--the
veteran motorcycle group--responded quite differently to the same
passage. After hearing the Homeric simile of how Odysseus felt like a
drowning man, he stood up and said ``I have told nobody this, not even
my wife here, but when I came home from Vietnam I threw my uniform in
the trash at the airport and went home in disguise, just like Odysseus
and I too felt like a drowning man--all that death --I didn't think I
could love any one or be loved by anyone again--I felt like I was
drowning, until my girlfriend, my wife here, gave me her hand and
rescued this drowning man. How did Homer know this?''
As the program progressed, we met more veterans from Iraq and
Afghanistan, mostly keeping silent at first, perhaps even suspicious,
but we noticed the veterans of the Vietnam War making contact and
talking to them after the event. New mutually supportive relationships
were formed--veterans helping veterans. We also started to encounter
female combat veterans, nurses from Vietnam who had been deployed in
the field, Army personnel working with front line troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, sometimes telling us about two enemies--the one they were
there to fight and the enemy within--harassment, sexual assault and
rape. The ancient plays resounded even amongst the most difficult and
uncomfortable of topics and allowed us to talk about them. These
classical works became ``our mirror held up to nature,'' advice Hamlet
gives the players after he has been moved himself by watching one of
them perform a classical piece about Queen Hecuba at the fall of Troy.
We met veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War and
those who served in between, and we learned so much about the meaning
of these classic plays from them. Their insights were often so keen and
insightful that many of our classics scholars came to see aspects of
these works in a completely new light. VA Psychologist Dr. Jonathan
Shay in his book, Odysseus in America, wrote that Greek drama was
theatre by combat veterans, performed by combat veterans for an
audience made up of combat veterans--perhaps this was one reason why
these ancient works resounded.
The NEH has provided us with funds for a new humanities/veterans
project called YouStories: Classics, Conversation, Connection. Here, we
take the devices that worked so well on Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives and
are creating a combination of live events and a new story collecting
app, where veterans and the public can upload their own video stories.
These are spoken into a smart phone, tablet or computer after being
inspired by the ancient materials included with the app. These stories
will then be collected, curated and displayed online and also archived
at the Library of Congress. This program has a special focus on female
veterans and we hope that these ancient plays might inspire, provoke
and provide a context for their stories--their experiences as Americans
serving their country at a time of war.
The aim of my testimony today has been to try to convince you of
the continuing power of the classics in American life and how the
National Endowment for the Humanities has allowed a truly national and
human program to flourish. Their prestigious award helped create media
and institutional interest in the program and attract additional
funding from private foundations and individuals. Their selection
process is highly rigorous and the expert advice and tireless help of
their program staff is nothing short of priceless.
I conclude with the words of a great man far more eloquent than I.
In his last speech delivered in Memphis on April 3, 1968--the day
before my first birthday--Martin Luther King took us on a monumental
and historic flight of fancy telling us:
``I would move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus.
And I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and
Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed
the great and eternal issues of reality.''
The National Endowment for the Humanities does just this--it
enables those discussions of great and eternal issues of reality and
via its excellent public programming sends them out across the Nation
helping to empower our democracy with that most valuable of human
resources--knowledge.
Thank you very much.
the national humanities alliance
Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national
humanities policy in the areas of research, preservation, public
programming, and teaching. More than one hundred organizations are
members of NHA, including scholarly associations, humanities research
centers, colleges, universities, and organizations of museums,
libraries, historical societies, humanities councils, and higher
education institutions.
the aquila theatre
Founded in 1991, Aquila Theatre's mission is to bring the greatest
theatrical works to the greatest number. To this end Aquila presents a
regular season of plays in New York, at international festivals, and
tours to approximately seventy American towns and cities each year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee: The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
(Metropolitan) encourages the subcommittee's support for the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air
Management. The BLM Budget requests $45.352 million for this
Subactivity. This Subactivity includes Colorado River Salinity Control
as a primary focus area. For fiscal year 2015, Federal funding of $5.2
million for general water quality improvement efforts within the
Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity
specific projects is needed in this primary focus area to prevent
further degradation of Colorado River water quality and increased
downstream economic damages.
The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause
approximately $300 million in damages to water users each year. While
this figure is significant, had it not been for the efforts of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity Control
Program), salinity concentrations of Colorado River water today would
have been about 90 milligrams per liter (mg/L) higher, which has
avoided additional damages of approximately $200 million per year.
Metropolitan is the regional water supplier for most of urban
southern California, providing supplemental water to retail agencies
that serve over 18 million people. Water imported via the Colorado
River Aqueduct has the highest level of salinity of all of
Metropolitan's sources of supply, averaging around 630 mg/L since 1976,
which leads to economic damages. For example, damages occur from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the cost of cooling operations, and the cost of
water softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in
the commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
water in the municipal sector.
Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for
many years. To deal with the concern, the International Boundary and
Water Commission signed Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive
Solution to the International Problem of the Salinity of the Colorado
River in 1973, and the President signed into law the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 (Act). High total dissolved solids
in the Colorado River as it enters Mexico and the concerns of the seven
Colorado River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River
water in the United States drove these initial actions. To foster
interstate cooperation and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States'
efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and
pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the Basin that
were deposited in prehistoric marine environments. They are easily
eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system, and enter the
River through both natural and anthropogenic sources.
The Salinity Control Program reduces salinity by preventing salts
from dissolving and mixing with the River's flow. Irrigation
improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, lined ditches) and vegetation
management reduce the amount of salt transported to the Colorado River.
Point sources such as saline springs are also controlled.
The Salinity Control Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits the
Upper Colorado River Basin water users through more efficient water
management, increased crop production, benefits to local economies
through construction contracts, and through environmental enhancements.
The Salinity Control Program benefits Lower Basin water users, hundreds
of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, through
reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California's
Colorado River water users are presently suffering economic damages in
the hundreds of millions of dollars per year due to the River's
salinity.
The Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall ``develop
a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the
Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.'' BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin.
Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and
managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management
practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion processes
from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited
in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are
dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems
downstream.
Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
effective salinity control measures available. These measures
significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide
Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its on-farm
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Over the past years, the Salinity Control Program has proven to be
a very cost effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of
increased salinity in the Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of
this important Basin-wide program is essential.
BLM proposes a 20 percent increase in Colorado River Salinity
Control funding in the budget request over the 2014 level. Metropolitan
encourages the subcommittee's support for sufficient funding in the
Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management to allow for expenditure
of $5.2 million for general water quality improvement efforts in the
Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity
specific projects in 2015. These amounts are needed to prevent further
degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased
downstream economic damages.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Bruce Stover and I serve as the Director of the Inactive
Mine Reclamation Program within the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. I am submitting this statement on behalf of the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP) for which I
currently serve as president. The NAAMLP represents 31 States and
tribes with federally approved abandoned mine land reclamation (AML)
programs authorized under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Title IV of SMCRA was amended in 2006 and
significantly changed how State and tribal AML grants are funded. These
grants are still based on receipts from a fee on coal production, but
beginning in fiscal year 2008, the grants are funded primarily by
mandatory appropriations. As a result, the States and tribes should
receive $250 million in fiscal year 2015. In its fiscal year 2015
proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is requesting $186
million for State and tribal AML grants, a reduction of $64 million.
OSM's budget also includes three legislative proposals, the first of
which would eliminate funding to States and tribes that have
``certified'' completion of their highest priority abandoned coal
reclamation sites; the second of which would return the AML reclamation
fee paid by coal operators to pre-2006 levels; and the third of which
would establish a hardrock AML fee and accompanying program.
Over the past 35 years, the accomplishments of the States and
tribes under the AML program has resulted in tens of thousands of acres
of abandoned mine lands having been reclaimed, thousands of mine
openings having been closed, and safeguards for people, property and
the environment having been put in place. Be assured that States and
tribes continue to be committed to address the unabated hazards at both
coal and noncoal abandoned mines. We are united in achieving the goals
and objectives as set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted--
including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the
environment, providing employment, and adding to the economies of
communities impacted by past coal and noncoal mining. In this regard, a
newly updated ``Safeguarding, Reclaiming, Restoring'' accomplishments
report prepared by State and tribal administrators of AML programs
under SMCRA is available at http://naamlp.net/documents/, which
provides several on-the-ground examples of the type of work that is
being done around the country.
When passed in 1977, SMCRA set national regulatory and reclamation
standards for coal mining. The act also established a Reclamation Trust
Fund to work towards eliminating the innumerable health, safety and
environmental problems that existed throughout the Nation from mines
that were abandoned prior to the act. The Fund generates revenue
through a fee on current coal production. This fee is collected by OSM
and distributed to States and tribes that have federally approved
regulatory and AML programs. The promise Congress made in 1977, and
with every subsequent amendment to the act, was that, at a minimum,
half the money generated from fees collected by OSM on coal mined
within the boundaries of a State or tribe, referred to as ``State
Share'', would be returned for the uses described in title IV of the
act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility for regulating active
coal mining operations pursuant to title V of SMCRA. The 2006
amendments clarified the scope of what the State Share funds could be
used for and reaffirmed the promise made by Congress in 1977.
If a State or tribe was successful in completing reclamation of
abandoned coal mines and was able to ``certify'' under section 411 of
SMCRA,\1\ then the State share funds could be used to address a myriad
of other abandoned mine issues as authorized by SMCRA and as further
defined under each State's or tribe's Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan,
each of which is approved by OSM. Like all abandoned mine reclamation,
the work of certified States and tribes eliminates health and safety
problems, cleans up the environment, and creates jobs in rural areas
impacted by mining. In this regard, the certified States and tribes
have been good stewards of the AML funds they receive, especially with
regard to addressing dangerous noncoal mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While a certified State or tribe confirms at the time of
certification that it has completed all of the coal sites on its
current inventory, the certification contemplates that new, formerly
unidentified high priority coal AML sites may occur in the future and
the State/tribe commits to addressing these sites immediately. All AML
States and tribes, including those that are certified, have identified
additional previously unknown high priority coal sites as a result of
on-going field investigations, new information and features that have
been expressed to the surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elimination of funding for certified State and tribal AML
grants not only breaks the promise of State and tribal share funding,
but upsets the balance and compromise that was achieved in the
comprehensive restructuring of SMCRA accomplished by the 2006
amendments following more than 10 years of discussion and negotiation
by all affected parties. The funding reduction is inconsistent with the
administration's stated goals regarding jobs and environmental
protection. We therefore respectively ask the subcommittee to support
continued funding for certified States and tribes at the statutorily
authorized levels, and turn back any efforts by OSM to amend SMCRA in
this regard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In this regard, we should note that funding to certified States
and tribes was already capped at $15 million annually pursuant to an
amendment to SMCRA as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (Public Law 112-14) in 2012. Furthermore, on October 2,
2013, SMCRA was amended once again to increase the annual distribution
amount for each certified State and tribe to $28 million in fiscal year
2014 and $75 million in fiscal year 2015 (Helium Stewardship Act of
2013, Public Law 113-40, section 10(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the course of the past few years, State and tribal AML program
have seen heightened concern by some in Washington that the States and
tribes are not spending the increased AML grant moneys that they have
received under the 2006 amendments in a more expeditious manner, thus
resulting in what the administration has characterized as unacceptable
levels of ``undelivered orders.'' There seems to be a fundamental
disconnect between the way the States and tribes are required to
administer, manage, and record the dispersal of their AML grant funds
and the way Federal agencies like the Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
report the usage of grant funds.
From the perspective of OSM, there appears to be a substantial
balance of ``undelivered orders'', money that has been allotted by the
Federal program but has not yet been ``spent'' by the State or tribe
(i.e. withdrawn from Treasury). In fact, this is a mischaracterization
of the current status of these ``undelivered'' AML moneys. As the
following table demonstrates (see the figure on the next page), the
vast majority of the allotted AML grant fund money is already committed
to reclamation projects at various stages. The States and tribes define
their use of the term ``committed funds'' as those which have been
exclusively applied to or reserved for a specific project or purpose,
and thus are unavailable for any other purpose. This is consistent with
the regulations which define ``expended'' as ``moneys have been
obligated, encumbered, or committed by contract . . . ''. It is
therefore more appropriate to view grants in terms of committed funds
rather than undelivered orders, with regard to accurate tracking of
grant distribution.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A second dimension to the disconnect between how the States and
tribes track grant expenditures and how OSM accounts for these funds is
the amount of time and the number of regulatory obligations required to
administer the AML contracting process in a responsible manner. A
typical AML site requires a long and stringent process related to
design, engagement of local citizens and leaders, interagency
governmental review and coordination; bidding and contracting; and of
course construction on the site--all of which must take place before
the funds are drawn down, and are therefore finally considered
``spent'' by OSM.
Further complicating the matter from the State/tribal perspective
is the fact that the 2006 increases in mandatory funding required an
increase in the staff and other administrative resources required to
continue administering the program at the same level of efficiency and
effectiveness. State and tribal AML programs have made these
adjustments in a prudent manner over the last 5 years of funding
expansion, and though there may have been some apparent initial lag,
the programs have in fact maintained their ability to efficiently and
responsibly commit program funding. It should also be kept in mind that
AML administrators utilize a complex system for prioritizing AML sites
in order to meet the mandates of the law and ensure that the grant
funds are spent in the most effective and productive manner possible.
Any analysis of AML grant expenditures must therefore be balanced
against appropriate program management and the responsible improvement
of the safety and health of our citizens and the environment, as set
forth in SMCRA. We welcome the opportunity to brief your subcommittee
in more detail regarding this issue should you so desire.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 319
program. In fiscal year 2014, language was included in OSM's
appropriation that encouraged the use of these types of matching funds,
particularly for the purpose of environmental restoration related to
treatment or abatement of acid mine drainage (AMD) from abandoned
mines. This is an ongoing, and often expensive, problem, especially in
Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests the subcommittee to once again
include language in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill that would
allow the use of AML funds for any non-Federal cost share required by
the Federal Government for AMD abatement.
We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's training
program and Technical Innovation and Professional Services (TIPS),
including moneys for State/tribal travel. These programs are central to
the effective implementation of State and tribal AML programs as they
provide necessary training and continuing education for State/tribal
agency personnel, as well as critical technical assistance. These
programs saw drastic cuts as a result of sequestration and we are
hopeful that Congress will restore the necessary funding for these
critical programs in the fiscal year 2015 appropriation. Finally, we
support funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount
of $1.5 million because it facilitates and enhances State and local
partnerships by providing direct financial assistance to watershed
organizations for acid mine drainage remediation.
With regard to the proposal contained in OSM's budget to establish
a hardrock AML program, the States and tribes have consistently
advocated for legislation that would allow us to address historic
hardrock AML problem areas, beginning with the inclusion of section 409
of SMCRA in 1977. There is clearly a need to establish both the funding
mechanism and the administrative program to address these legacy sites.
We believe that OSM is in the best position to administer this program,
given its 35 years of experience in operating the title IV program
under SMCRA. Our only concern is that, while on the one hand OSM is
advocating for the establishment of a hardrock AML program, it is also
pushing for the elimination of funding for certified States and tribes
to accomplish this very work. Granted, OSM's position is based on its
belief that SMCRA funding should be restricted to high priority coal
problems only. However, Congress clearly felt differently from the
outset of SMCRA's formation and, while there have been many recent
opportunities to adjust its views and amend SMCRA accordingly, Congress
has chosen not to do so. To the contrary, Congress has adopted
legislation that would clarify the use of SMCRA AML funds to address
noncoal problems. Nonetheless, we would welcome an opportunity to work
closely with OSM in examining the potential for a hardrock AML program,
wherever it may reside and however it may be constituted.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding
OSM's proposed budget for fiscal year 2015. We would be happy to answer
any questions you may have or provide additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
(NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the
fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), particularly grants to State and local air pollution control
agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which are
part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program.
Specifically, NACAA recommends that: (1) grants to State and local air
quality agencies be increased by $35 million above the President's
fiscal year 2015 request, raising the total to $278.2 million; (2)
State and local air pollution control agencies be provided with the
flexibility to determine how best to use any additional resources; and
(3) grant funds for fine particulate matter monitoring remain under
Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105
authority, as EPA is proposing. NACAA's recommendations will be
explained more fully in this testimony.
NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of air
pollution control agencies in 42 States, the District of Columbia, four
territories and 116 metropolitan areas. The members of NACAA have the
primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act for implementing the
Nation's clean air program. The air quality professionals in the member
agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in the
United States. These observations and recommendations are based upon
that experience. The views expressed in this document do not
necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air
pollution control agency in the country.
1. nacaa recommends a $35-million increase above the president's
request
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2015 proposes to
increase Federal funding for State and local air quality grants by $15
million over fiscal year 2014 levels (for a total of $243.2 million).
Within the request, there is a proposed increase of $24.3 million for
implementing greenhouse gas (GHG) activities. While NACAA supports
additional funding for new GHG activities that will be required of
State and local air agencies, the members are disappointed that part of
this increase would be obtained by shifting--essentially cutting--$9
million from the ``core'' programs of State and local air pollution
control agencies, which are the foundation of their clean air
implementation efforts. NACAA is gratified that the budget request
recognizes the important work of State and local agencies to protect
public health; however, a net increase of $15 million above fiscal year
2014 levels is not nearly enough. Accordingly, NACAA requests an
increase of $50 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2014--or $35 million above the President's fiscal year 2015 request--
for State and local air agencies to carry out their responsibilities.
State and Local Air Quality Agencies Face Many Challenges
Section 101(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act finds that air pollution
control is the ``primary responsibility of States and local
governments.'' Accordingly, these agencies are continuously required to
implement numerous, extremely important programmatic responsibilities
to obtain and maintain healthful air quality for this country. These
include not only new programs, but also ongoing activities that
constitute the ``core'' of their clean air efforts, that is, the day-
to-day responsibilities that are the foundation of their programs.
One new initiative facing State and local air agencies, for which
EPA is proposing increased funds, is the implementation of regulations
to address greenhouse gases under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
State and local agencies will be required to lay the groundwork to
develop approvable State plans to meet Section 111(d) emission
guidelines for reducing carbon dioxide. Additionally, State and local
agencies will need funds for the collection, review and use of GHG
emission data, as well as to support State and local permitting
activities for new and existing sources of GHG emissions that trigger
permitting requirements as established in the GHG Tailoring Rule.
In addition to these new efforts, State and local air agencies must
also continue their ongoing activities and core programs. These are the
foundation of their clean air implementation efforts. For example,
among the many tasks facing air quality agencies are those associated
with the implementation of (1) the health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, including particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide,
lead and carbon monoxide; (2) air toxics rules; (3) motor vehicle and
fuels programs; and (4) permitting programs, including for ``minor''
sources.
For both the new activities and the ongoing programs, State and
local air agencies must carry out a variety of resource- and labor-
intensive activities. These include, among others, developing plans,
including State Implementation Plans (SIPs); compiling comprehensive
emission inventories; carrying out complex modeling; analyzing
extensive data; expanding and operating monitoring networks; adopting
and enforcing regulations; addressing complicated transport issues; and
informing and involving the public in air quality decisions and issues.
State and Local Air Agencies Have Long Been Underfunded
State and local air quality agencies have struggled with
insufficient resources for many years. A study NACAA conducted several
years ago revealed an annual shortfall of $550 million in Federal
grants for State and local air programs.\1\ The adverse economic
situation at the State and local levels strains already overburdened
budgets and causes air agencies to make painful choices to cut air
pollution programs that are important for public health and/or
eliminate staff. Due to these economic hardships, States and localities
increasingly rely on Federal contributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of
State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, (April 2009), NACAA,
www.4cleanair.org/Documents/reportneedssurvey
042709.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 105 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government
to provide grants for up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local
air programs, while States and localities must provide a 40-percent
match. In reality, State and local air agencies provide over three-
fourths of their budgets (not including permit fees under the Federal
title V program), while Federal grants constitute only one quarter.
State and local agencies are certainly providing more than their fair
share of the resources necessary, as the following table demonstrates:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In addition to this inequity, the purchasing power of Federal
grants has decreased due to inflation. In fact, between fiscal year
2000 and 2014, purchasing power has decreased by nearly 16 percent. All
this has taken place while State and local responsibilities have
expanded each year.
While the current economic climate does not allow for full Federal
funding of all the necessary air programs, NACAA hopes that Congress
will recognize the critical importance of public health and air quality
and provide much-needed increases to these important programs.
Our Air Pollution Problem Has Not Been Solved
Federal, State and local efforts to implement the Clean Air Act
have been hugely successful in providing significant health and welfare
benefits throughout most areas of the country. Yet, notwithstanding
this progress, much remains to be done. According to EPA,
[S]ince passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990,
nationwide air quality has improved significantly. Levels of
those pollutants linked to the greatest health impacts continue
to decline. From 2003 to 2012, population-weighted ambient
concentrations of fine particulate matter and ozone have
decreased 26 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Even with
this progress, in 2012 approximately 45 percent of the U.S.
population lived in counties with air that did not meet health-
based standards for at least one pollutant.\2\
With respect to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), Federal rules,
implemented by State and local air pollution control agencies, are
estimated to reduce HAP emissions by approximately 1.5 million tons per
year.\3\ However, in spite of this progress, EPA's latest HAP data
showed that the entire population of the United States had an increased
cancer risk of over 10 in one million (one in one million is generally
considered ``acceptable'') in 2005, due to exposure to a variety of
HAPs included in EPA's analysis.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Fiscal year 2015 EPA Budget in Brief (March 2014), page 13.
\3\ www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html.
\4\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet, http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad fact is more people die or get sick from air pollution than
from almost any other problem under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year \5\ and many
others suffer serious health problems as a result of exposure to air
pollution. According to EPA, ``[l]ong-term exposure to elevated levels
of certain air pollutants has been associated with increased risk of
cancer, premature mortality, and damage to the immune, neurological,
reproductive, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.'' \6\
Additionally, air pollution exposure is associated with adverse effects
on learning, memory, IQ and behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/.
\6\ Draft fiscal year 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan (November 19,
2013), page 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. nacaa recommends flexibility in the use of grant increases
While NACAA is pleased that the budget request includes increased
grant funding for climate-related responsibilities facing State and
local air agencies, some of it would come at the expense of State and
local core programs, which are essential to their efforts. NACAA
strongly believes that significant increases are required for both.
Rather than target specific amounts for climate or other air programs,
NACAA recommends that State and local air agencies be given the
flexibility to use any additional grants for whatever efforts are of
the highest priority to them, whether they are climate-related or other
clean air activities, including core programs.
3. nacaa recommends that authority for monitoring grants remain under
section 103
EPA has once again proposed to begin shifting funds for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring from Section 103 authority, where
no match is needed, to Section 105, which would require additional
matching funds. In the past, Congress responded favorably to requests
to keep these funds under Section 103 authority, which is very much
appreciated. NACAA is making the same request for fiscal year 2015. For
individual agencies that have concerns about the matching requirements,
this will ensure that they do not have to refuse these critically
needed monitoring funds simply because they do not have the resources
to provide the required match. NACAA recommends that Congress call for
these grants to be provided under Section 103 authority.
conclusion
While NACAA appreciates the proposed increase to State and local
air grants contained in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget, it is
insufficient for the State and local air agencies that are being called
upon to take on significant new responsibilities and continue their
current activities and it does not provide sufficient flexibility on
how the funds are spent. Accordingly, NACAA recommends that Congress
provide an increase of $35 million above the President's request for
fiscal year 2015 for grants to State and local air agencies under
Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, for a total of $278.2
million, and that State and local agencies be given the flexibility to
use any additional funds for the highest clean air priorities in their
areas. Additionally, NACAA recommends that grant funds for fine
particulate matter monitoring remain under Section 103 authority,
rather than being shifted to Section 105 authority, as EPA is
proposing.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on this
important issue and for considering the funding needs of State and
local air quality programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National
Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the 56
energy offices in the States, territories and the District of Columbia.
NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for the ENERGY
STAR program (within the Climate Protection Division of the Office of
Air and Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
NASEO supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific
report language directing that the funds be utilized only for the
ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY STAR program is successful, voluntary
and cost-effective. With increasing electricity prices and volatile
natural gas markets, ENERGY STAR can help consumers and businesses
control expenditures over the long term. The program is strongly
supported by product manufacturers, and ENERGY STAR leverages the
States' energy efficiency actions.
The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
works with States, local governments and business to achieve these
goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has worked very
closely with EPA and over 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners. With very
limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program works closely with the State
energy offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make
better energy decisions, and catalyzes product efficiency improvements
by manufacturers without regulation or mandates.
ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as
buildings. In 2013, nearly 300 million ENERGY STAR products were
purchased across more than 70 product categories. The ENERGY STAR label
is recognized across the United States. It makes the work of the State
energy offices much easier, by working with the public on easily
recognized products, services and targets. In order to obtain the
ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet established guidelines. ENERGY
STAR's voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY STAR Buildings,
ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small Business, and ENERGY STAR Labeled
Products. The program operates by encouraging consumers and working
closely with State and local governments to purchase these products and
services. Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through education.
State energy offices are working with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR
products, ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public
housing, etc. In Alaska, the State's Home Energy Rebate Program
leverages ENERGY STAR products in delivering this successful program.
Another example of leveraging this key national program is the Nebraska
Energy Office, which since 2005 has utilized ENERGY STAR as the
standard for certifying home and office electronics that are eligible
under the State's successful and long-running Dollar and Energy Savings
Loan program (approximately $300 million in loans with only $106,000 in
defaults). The Montana Alternative Energy Revolving Loan Program
utilizes a 3.5 percent interest rate, with a 15-year time limit.
In addition to the State partners, the program has over 16,000
voluntary partners including over 2,000 manufacturers using the label,
more than 1,000 retail partners, more than 5,000 builder partners,
4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and thousands of energy service
providers. The ENERGY STAR New Homes program works with States and home
builders to develop the next generation of technologies and approaches
to make homes more comfortable, healthy, and energy efficient. To date,
over 1.5 million homes across the country have been certified by the
ENERGY STAR New Homes program. In California, over 150,000 homes have
been ENERGY STAR certified. Additionally, States such as Alaska, Rhode
Island, Vermont, New Mexico, Oregon, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Missouri all have had at least 3,300 homes participating in the
program. We are also working closely with EPA in the implementation of
the ENERGY STAR Challenge, which is encouraging commercial and
industrial building owners to reduce energy use by 10 percent or more,
usually through very simple actions. There are over 4,300 participants
in the ENERGY STAR Challenge, representing every State in the country.
We are working with the building owners to identify the level of energy
use and compare that to a national metric, establish goals and work
with them to make the specified improvements. Again, this is being done
without mandates.
The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy
efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR business partners
program. In Kentucky, the State has partnered with school districts and
engineering firms to advance ENERGY STAR rated schools, resulting in
more than 250 ENERGY STAR rated schools in the State, a 400 percent
increase since 2010. Other States that have over 150 ENERGY STAR rated
schools include California, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, and
Michigan. Other types of buildings can receive ENERGY STAR
certification; for example, a new data center in South Dakota recently
obtained the ENERGY STAR certification, joining only 59 other data
centers in the country with this distinction.
EPA has been increasing the technical assistance work with the
State energy offices in such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager
(how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target,
and financing options for building improvements and building upgrade
strategies. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State
energy offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal
buildings, saving taxpayer dollars. Nearly 40 percent of the country's
commercial building space utilizes Portfolio Manager.
The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities
commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
We encourage these continued efforts.
conclusion
The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding in
fiscal year 2015. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified.
NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are
working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
critical national programs without mandates.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
opportunity to submit written public testimony to the Senate
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies regarding
our fiscal year 2015 appropriations recommendations. Our priorities
focus primarily on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service (Forest
Service) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs.
State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
with forest health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-
thirds of the Nation's 751 million acres of forests. The Forest Service
S&PF mission area provides vital support for delivering these services
alongside other socioeconomic and environmental health benefits in both
rural and urban areas. The comprehensive process for delivering these
services is articulated in each State Forest Action Plan, authorized in
the 2008 Farm Bill and continued in the recently passed Agriculture Act
of 2014. S&PF programs provide a significant return on the Federal
investment by leveraging the boots-on-the-ground and financial
resources of State agencies to deliver assistance to forest landowners,
tribes, and communities. As we continue to face difficult financial
challenges, State foresters, in partnership with the S&PF mission area
of the Forest Service, are best positioned to maximize the
effectiveness of the resources available to respond to priority forest
issues and focus efforts in those areas where they are needed most.
Your support of the following programs is critical to helping
States address the many and varied challenges outlined in State Forest
Action Plans.
wildland fire and forest fuels
Wildland Fire Funding.--The Forest Service and Department of the
Interior were forced to transfer a combined $636 million in fiscal year
2013 to fund fire suppression activities. We greatly appreciate your
support in reimbursing the Forest Service and Department of the
Interior these transferred amounts through the continuing resolution
last fall. Unfortunately early estimates for the cost of wildland fire
suppression in fiscal year 2014 indicate that costs could once again
exceed the 10-year average.
In the span of only 2 years--from fiscal year 2012 to 2013--the
agencies were forced to transfer more than $1 billion, funds that
Congress had appropriated to other priority programs, to fund wildland
fire suppression. In order to avoid these disruptive transfers in the
future, we urge you to include language mirroring the bi-partisan
Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, introduced in the House and Senate, in
the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. This important
change to fire funding at the Federal level is needed to enable the
Forest Service to deliver on its own land management objectives and to
deliver critical Research and State & Private Forestry Programs to the
Nation's non-Federal forests without any further disruption from fire
transfers.
State Fire Assistance.--More people living in fire-prone
landscapes, high fuel loads, drought and unhealthy landscapes are among
the factors that led State foresters to identify wildland fire as a
significant priority issue in their Forest Action Plans. These factors
have created a wildland fire situation that has become increasingly
expensive, complex, and, in many cases, threatens human life and
property. In 2013, more than 47,500 wildland fires burned over 4.3
million acres.\1\ In the wake of these larger fires, more than 2,135
structures were destroyed, including at least 1090 residences.\2\ Of
the 72,681 communities across the country currently at risk of wildland
fire, only 12,434 (17.5 percent) are prepared for wildland fire.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire
Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed March 3, 2014 at http://
www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2013_Statssumm/intro_
summary13.pdf.
\2\ National Interagency Coordination Center.
\3\ National Association of State Foresters, Communities at Risk
Report Fiscal Year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism
that assists States and local fire departments to respond to wildland
fires and conduct management activities to mitigate fire risk on non-
Federal lands. Further, SFA helps train and equip local first
responders who are often the first resources to arrive at a wildland
fire incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their
costs small. By directing resources to actions that help reduce the
number of large wildland fires--including prevention education,
preparedness activities, and fuels mitigation--the SFA program directly
addresses concerns over rising wildland fire suppression costs, while
also reducing wildland fire risk to communities. In fiscal year 2013,
SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments on nearly 130,000 acres
(with another 119,120 acres treated with leveraged funding) and
provided assistance to over 23,600 communities as they prepare for and
mitigate the risk of wildland fire. NASF supports funding the State
Fire Assistance program at $86 million in fiscal year 2015.
forest pests and invasive plants
Among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action Plans
are exotic forest pests and invasive species. The growing number of
damaging pests is often a result of the introduction and spread by way
of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood, and through various
types of recreation. These pests have the potential to displace native
trees, shrubs and other vegetation types in forests. The Forest Service
estimates that hundreds of native and nonnative insects and diseases
damage the Nation's forests each year. In 2010, approximately 6.\4\
million acres suffered mortality from insects and diseases4 and there
is an estimated 81.3 million acres at risk from insects and disease
over the next 15 years.\5\ These losses impact the availability of
clean and abundant water, wildlife habitat, clean air, and other
environmental services. Further, extensive areas of high insect or
disease mortality can set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic
wildfire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in
the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2014 at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/
ConditionsReport_2011.pdf.
\5\ Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive
Summary. Last accessed on March, 5, 2014 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/
foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Exec_
summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the Cooperative Forest Health Management program
provides technical and financial assistance to States and territories
to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest
lands. Funding for the Program supports activities related to
prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and
plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring through pest
surveys. The Forest Health program helps protect communities already
facing outbreaks and helps prevent exposure of more of the Nation's
forests and trees to the devastating and costly effects of exotic and
invasive pests and pathogens. NASF supports funding the Forest Health--
Cooperative Lands Program at $48 million in fiscal year 2015.
working forest landscapes--forest stewardship program
Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape and
provide an estimated 900,000 jobs, in addition to clean water, wood
products, and other essential services to millions of Americans. For
instance, 80 percent of renewable biomass energy comes from wood, 53
percent of all freshwater in the U.S. originates on forest land and
more than $200 billion in sales of consumer products and services are
provided through the Nation's forests each year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Society of American Foresters. The State of America's Forests.
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the
United States and support an average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\7\
The ability of working forests to continue providing jobs, renewable
energy, clean and abundant water and other important services is in
jeopardy as private forests are lost to development. The Forest Service
estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at
risk of conversion to urban development over the next two decades. The
Forest Stewardship Program, Forest Legacy Program, and other programs
within USDA are key tools identified in the Forest Action Plans to keep
working forests intact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the most extensive family
forest-owner assistance program in the country. Management assistance
is delivered in cooperation with State forestry agencies through
technical assistance services and the development and implementation of
Forest Stewardship Plans. In fiscal year 2013, nationwide, more than 20
million acres of private forest lands were managed according to Forest
Stewardship Plans. The program provides information to private
landowners to help them manage their land for wildlife, recreation,
aesthetics, timber production, and many other purposes. The technical
assistance provided through the FSP is a gateway to other effective
USDA, State, and private sector programs designed to help keep working
forests intact. For instance, the FSP enables landowners to participate
in USDA programs including the Forest Legacy Program and Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. NASF supports funding the Forest
Stewardship Program at $29 million in fiscal year 2015.
urban and community forest management challenges
Urban forests provide environmental, social, and economic benefits
to the more than 84 percent of Americans who live in metropolitan
areas. Forest Action Plans identified a number of benefits associated
with urban forests including energy savings, improved air quality,
neighborhood stability, aesthetic values, reduced noise, and improved
quality of life for communities across the country. At the same time,
the plans reported a number of threats to urban and community forests
including fire in the wildland urban interface (WUI), urbanization and
development, invasive plants and insects, diseases and others.
Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1990 (CFAA), the Forest Service's Urban and Community Forestry
(U&CF) program has provided technical and financial assistance to
promote stewardship of urban forests in communities of all sizes across
the country. The program is delivered in close partnership with State
foresters and leverages existing local efforts that have helped
thousands of communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their
tree cover and green spaces. This ``green infrastructure'' is a
cornerstone for neighborhood stability and revitalization and the
numerous contributions this program provides the urban environment
should not be under estimated. In fiscal year 2013, the U&CF program
delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to
7,292 communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
territories and affiliated Pacific Island nations. The program reached
over 198 million Americans (i.e., over 60 percent of the U.S.
population) in fiscal year 12. NASF supports funding the Urban and
Community Forestry program at $31 million in fiscal year 2015.
importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest
Service Research, is the Nation's only comprehensive forest inventory
system for assessing the health and sustainability of the Nation's
forests across all ownerships.\8\ FIA provides essential data related
to forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest health
data and delivers baseline inventory estimates used in State Forest
Action Plans and by many others to understand forest trends and support
investment in forest products facilities that provide jobs and needed
products to society. The program provides unbiased information that
serves as the basis for monitoring trends in wildlife habitat, wildfire
risk, insect and disease threats, predicting spread of invasive
species, and for responding to priorities identified in the Forest
Action Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The program has not yet been fully implemented in all States
including Interior Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Farm Bill directed the Forest Service to revise the FIA
strategic plan, and State Foresters are actively engaged with the
Agency as they consider a new strategic plan for this crucial program.
This program has wide bipartisan support and NASF supports funding the
Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $72 million in fiscal year
2015.
landscape scale restoration
We appreciate the support of the subcommittee for State Forest
Action Plans demonstrated through the establishment of the Landscape
Scale Restoration (LSR) budget line item in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2014. State foresters look forward to working
with members of the subcommittee and the Forest Service to make sure
that, through LSR, we prioritize funds and resources to maximize return
on investments to conserve, protect, and enhance our Nation's forests.
The LSR line item codifies the competitive allocation of Cooperative
Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA) funds which began under direction from
the 2008 Farm Bill--but State foresters believe that LSR can and should
do more.
In the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act Conference
Report, the subcommittee directed the Forest Service to develop a
process allowing State foresters flexibility, with appropriate
accountability, to reallocate a percentage of authorizations for CFAA
programs to address State priorities consistent with State Forest
Action Plans. NASF has worked closely with the Forest Service to
explore how States could utilize funding flexibility to meet their own
unique and changing needs; however issues around the need to request
reprogramming of funds has been a barrier to implementing funding
flexibility. State foresters believe that LSR provides a perfect
opportunity to demonstrate the value in providing States the
flexibility to meet these unique needs through the allocation of their
CFAA funds. Such a model would include continued funding for the
competitive allocation of CFAA funds with the addition of an allocation
to States to further implementation of each State Forest Action Plan.
NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at
$23.5 million in fiscal year 2015 and would like to work with the
subcommittee to direct that a portion of LSR funds be made available to
State forestry agencies, based on overall percentage of CFAA funds
received, to further implement their State Forest Action Plan.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Fiscal Year 2015 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Total Request:
--$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs);
--$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs);
--$6 million for survey, inventory and digitization of records;
--$5 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented
populations; and
--$10 million for a bricks & mortar competitive grant program.
Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16
U.S.C. 470h) U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park Service
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).
unique and successful federal-state partnership
In 1966 Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage
enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA16 U.S.C. 470),
which established historic preservation as a priority of the Federal
Government. Recognizing that States are the experts of their own
history, instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the
Department Of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation partner with the States and use SHPOs to: (1) locate and
record historic resources; (2) nominate significant historic resources
to the National Register of Historic Places; (3) cultivate historic
preservation programs at the local government level; (4) provide funds
for preservation activities; (5) comment on Federal rehabilitation tax
credit projects; (6) review all Federal projects for their impact on
historic properties; and (7) provide technical assistance to Federal
agencies, State and local governments and the private sector. And,
States provide a forty percent minimum match to the Federal
appropriation.
jobs and economic development
From the West to the East coasts, historic preservation plays a key
role in creating, maintaining, and growing communities while preserving
their historical significance. The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit
(HTC) program, administered by the State Historic Preservation Offices
in cooperation with the National Park Service, is an important driver
in economic development. The program benefits communities by:
--Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property by returning
vacant or underutilized structures to the tax roles and
stimulating adjacent development projects.
--Encouraging protection of landmarks through the promotion,
recognition, and designation of historic structures, and acting
as a catalyst for further community renewal.
--Revitalizing downtowns and neighborhoods and often increasing the
amount of available housing within the community.
Since inception, the HTC has rehabilitated nearly 39,000 buildings,
created 2.4 million jobs and leveraged $109 billion in private
investment nationwide. On average, the HTC leverages $5 dollars in
private investment for every $1 dollar in Federal funding creating
highly effective public-private partnerships. In 2013, the HTC spurred
$3.39 billion in rehabilitation work, created nearly 63,000 skilled,
local jobs and over 25,000 new or renovated housing units. All of which
brings short and long-term economic opportunities for the community.
A recent successful example is the $100 million rehabilitation of
Building 91 of the former R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. manufacturing plant
in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. This 242,000 square foot building now
houses the research department arm of the Wake Forest University
Baptist Medical Center along with space for other biotechnology start-
up companies. Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines said of the project,
``It's been extremely gratifying to watch this solid old building
bounce back to life. It lets us preserve some of the city's tobacco
heritage while putting us on a path toward a knowledge based future.''
Heritage tourism also creates jobs, new businesses, builds
community pride and can improve quality of life. SHPOs are essential,
ground level partners in identifying historic places and providing
research for tourism interpretation. A minimal $3 million increase in
SHPO funding would allow SHPOs to expand their public outreach and
assistance, enabling communities to take greater advantage of heritage
tourism opportunities. Cultural and heritage travelers spend an average
of $994 per trip and contribute more than $192 billion annually to the
U.S. economy.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Cultural and Heritage Tourism Study (October 2009)
conducted by Mandala Research, LLC for U.S. Cultural & Heritage Tourism
Marketing Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Gozaic/Heritage
Travel Inc., a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
community revitalization
Nationwide, communities have experienced how historic preservation
plays a prominent and effective role in community and neighborhood
revitalization. In many cases, historic preservation combats the
effects of vacancy by using the historic built environment as a
catalyst for community change. These changes result in historic
downtown districts and neighborhoods becoming ``destinations''
consisting of restaurants, office space, art galleries, specialty
shops, living spaces, and civic centers.
The City of Franklin, Tennessee has identified historic
preservation as one of the main priorities in their Land Use Plan.
Because of their preservation efforts and the ensuing economic
development, the American Planning Association named the Downtown
Franklin Neighborhood as one of the ``Great Places in America.''
Franklin believes that taking care of their built environment does more
than just save old buildings. It provides economic development,
community pride, and a sense of belonging that helps build the future.
The rehabilitation of the American Brewery building in Baltimore,
Maryland is another success. The $25 million rehabilitation project is
located in the Broadway East neighborhood, a low-income area of row
houses and small commercial storefronts that suffer from abandonment
and blight. The tenants in the newly restored structure include
Humanim, a social services organization, which is providing workforce
development services and job creation opportunities directly to the
surrounding neighborhood. In addition to relocating its 250 employees
there, the organization made 40 local hires and the once abandoned
structure is now spurring greater developer confidence in the
community.
finding and saving america's heritage
While historic preservation generates economic development and
community revitalization, it of course also saves old buildings and
significant places. These sites represent the many people, places, and
events that have left marks on and shaped our national landscape. The
authors of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act wrote:
``the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should
be preserved as a living part of our community life and
development in order to give a sense of orientation to the
American people;''
The first step in preserving and protecting America's heritage is
identifying it--which comes through survey, inventory and creating
digital records. This information forms the fundamental building blocks
of our Nation's historic preservation program and is a key program area
that's lacking at the current level of appropriation. The NCSHPO
requests a minimum of $6 million a year, for each of the next 10 years,
specifically for survey, inventory, and records digitization.
Having accurate, up-to-date, digitally accessible information on
our Nation's historic resources would drastically increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of all local, State, and Federal projects.
From deciding on the design of local in-fill development, to State
transportation planning projects, to Federal large-scale energy
projects and disaster recovery efforts--every single project, and the
American people would benefit.
Once identified and documented, America's historic resources are
primarily recognized at the local, State, and national levels through
historic districts and listing on National and State Historic
Registers. State Historic Preservation Officers, through the authority
of the National Historic Preservation Act assist, support and encourage
communities with their efforts. National Register recognition by the
Secretary confirms citizens' belief in the significance of their
community.
The National Historic Preservation program is primarily one of
assistance, not acquisition. The Federal Government does not own,
manage, or maintain responsibility for most of the historic assets in
the National Historic Preservation program. Instead, the program,
through the SHPOs, provides individuals, communities, and local, State,
and Federal Governments the tools they need to identify preserve and
utilize the historic assets of importance to them.
To that end, in addition to the $6 million for survey, inventory,
and digitization, the NCSHPO requests a minimum of $50 million for
SHPOs, to simply sustain their current operating levels. The NCSHPO
also requests $3 million for a competitive grant program to survey and
nominate to the National Register of Historic Places or National
Landmark Program, sites associated with populations that are currently
underrepresented. SHPOs have created many programs and activities to
support this effort but the current funding level restricts their
ability to be fully implemented. Three million will provide a positive
step in their implementation. The NCSHPO also supports $10 million for
a competitive grant program that provides seed money for bricks &
mortar rehabilitation projects listed at the local, State, and national
levels of significance. There is currently no Federal funding provided
for this activity.
The NCSHPO also requests that in 2015, the subcommittee supports a
reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund that includes full
and permanent funding at $150 million a year.
2013 state historic preservation offices' accomplishments
SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2013. While virtually
every State continues to experience staffing and operational
reductions, SHPOs are still charged with implementing the requirements
of the NHPA to the fullest extent. Highlights of 2013 historic
preservation accomplishments include:
--Reviewing nearly 103,000 Federal undertakings within 30 days.
--Leveraging over $3.39 billion of private investment in the
rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under HTC
program.
--An estimated 70,000 jobs created by the HTC program in 2013.
--Over 7,000 low and moderate income housing units created through
the HTC.
--Approximately 16.3 million acres surveyed for the presence or
absence of cultural resources.
--1,175 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
--82,100 National Register eligibility opinions.
--29 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
--Under local law, CLG's newly designated 54,500 properties, and
93,900 properties took part in local preservation review,
programs, and incentives.
conclusion
On behalf of all 59 SHPOs, I'd like to thank you Chairman Reed,
Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for the
opportunity to submit testimony.
Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary
in the past is often rare and precious today, and what is common and
ordinary today may be extraordinary--50, 100 or 500 years from now. I
would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to historic
preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
preserving our Nation's history and our collective sense of place.
Through our partnership, SHPOs remain committed to working together to
identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's historic heritage. Thank
you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), we
thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on Native
American programs in the Interior appropriations bill. NCAI is the
oldest and largest American Indian organization in the United States.
Tribal leaders created NCAI in 1944 as a response to termination and
assimilation policies that threatened the existence of American Indian
and Alaska Native tribes. As the most representative organization of
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, NCAI serves the broad
interests of tribal governments across the Nation. As Congress
considers the fiscal year 2015 budget and beyond, leaders of tribal
nations call on decision-makers to ensure that the promises made to
Indian Country are honored in the Federal budget.
NCAI includes recommendations for Interior bureaus, the Indian
Health Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency, but the fiscal
year 2015 Indian Country Budget Request \1\ includes many more specific
recommendations and we urge this subcommittee to use it as a resource
during this appropriations cycle. NCAI also supports the testimony of
the National Indian Health Board, National Indian Child Welfare
Association, National Indian Education Association, and American Indian
Higher Education Consortium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Congress of American Indians. (January 2014). Fiscal
year 2015 Indian Country Budget Requests: An honorable budget for
Indian country. Washington, DC: Author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
introduction
Annual funding decisions by Congress are an expression of our
Nation's moral priorities. Numerous treaties, statutes, and court
decisions have created a fundamental contract between tribal nations
and the United States: tribes ceded millions of acres of land that made
the United States what it is today, and in return tribes have the right
of continued self-government and the right to exist as distinct peoples
on their own lands. And for its part, the United States has assumed a
trust responsibility to protect these rights and to fulfill its solemn
commitments to Indian tribes and their members. Part of this trust
responsibility includes basic governmental services in Indian Country,
funding for which is appropriated in the discretionary portion of the
Federal budget. The Federal budget for tribal governmental services
reflects the extent to which the United States honors its promises to
Indian people.
department of the interior, bureau of indian affairs (bia)
The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Operation of Indian
Programs account is $2.4 billion, an increase of $33.8 million, or 1.4
percent, above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The fiscal year 2015
budget request for the Construction account is $109.9 million; a
decrease of $216,000 below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a total of $922.6 million in
Tribal Priority Allocations, an increase of $19.3 million over the
fiscal year 2014 level, a 2 percent increase.
The budget request for contract support is $251 million; including
funding for the Indian Self-Determination Fund, an increase of $4
million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The requested amount
will fully fund estimated fiscal year 2015 contract support costs,
according to BIA based on the most recent analysis. NCAI commends the
administration for requesting full funding for Contract Support Costs
in fiscal year 2015. NCAI recommends that the Tribal Grant Support
Costs for tribally controlled schools and residential facilities should
also be fully funded. Tribal Grant Support Costs (formerly referred to
as Administrative Cost Grants) funding is provided to the schools to
cover administrative and indirect costs incurred in operating contract
and grant schools. In school year 2012-2013, tribally controlled grant
schools received an estimated 64 percent of the grant support funding
needed as defined by the administrative cost grants formula.
Major Initiatives
The Tiwahe (Family) Initiative would provide an additional $11.6
million to expand Indian Affairs' capacity to address Indian child and
family welfare and job training issues and implement processes to
better sustain Indian families. Increases include: $10 million to build
on social services and Indian child welfare programs that provide
culturally-appropriate services toward health promotion, family
stability, and strengthening tribal communities; $550,000 to expand job
placement and training programs; BIA law enforcement would begin a
pilot program to implement a strategy for alternatives to incarceration
and increased treatment; $1 million to develop and institutionalize a
program for evaluating social service and community development needs
and to inform programmatic design, evaluation, management, and
budgeting.
Tribal leaders through the Tribal Interior Budget Council have
repeatedly called for increases to Social services and Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA) funding. NCAI also supports increases to these two
activities. ICWA was enacted in 1978 in response to the troubling
practices of public and private child welfare agencies that were
systematically removing American Indian and Alaska Native children from
their homes, communities, and culture, and placing them in non-Indian
foster and adoptive homes. The Act not only provides protections for
Native children in State child welfare and judicial systems but
recognizes the sovereign right of tribes to care for their children.
The crippling of Native economies before the Self-Determination Era
left tribal citizens overwhelmingly impoverished, facing high
unemployment compared to non-Native people, and with few economic
opportunities. The barriers to employment vary region-to-region in
Indian Country, but include geographic remoteness, a weak private
sector, poor basic infrastructure, and even a lack of basic law
enforcement infrastructure. This, coupled with the recent economic down
turn, makes the Social Service program an essential yet underfunded
part of anti-poverty programming on reservations nationwide. For these
reasons, NCAI supports the increase BIA Social Services.
Education increases include: $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley
education assistance grants to support a new student count in 2015 and
provides funding for the projected increase in the number of students
eligible for grants; $1 million to support the ongoing evaluation of
the BIE school system. NCAI also recommends $263.4 million for School
Construction and Repair, $73 million For Tribal Grant Support Costs;
$431 million for Indian School Equalization Program Formula Funds; $73
million for Indian student transportation; and $42 million for Johnson
O'Malley funding (justification is included in the fiscal year 2015
Indian Country Budget).
Public Safety.--Indian Country has long struggled with high crime
victimization rates. Violent crimes impose economic costs on the
victims and their families, in the form of medical and other expenses
and the loss of earnings. Areas with high crime also experience reduced
investment. Safe communities are necessary for economic development.
Moreover, the Indian Law and Order Commission found that tribal nations
throughout our country would benefit enormously if locally based and
accountable law enforcement officers were staffed at levels comparable
to similarly situated communities off-reservation. In 2010, DOI
established a High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG) initiative to
reduce violent crime by at least 5 percent over 24 months on four
reservations that were experiencing high rates of violent crime. In
fiscal year 2010, all four locations received an increase in base
funding to support additional sworn staff. The additional resources
assisted in closing the staffing gap and bringing each location up to
national sworn staffing levels as listed under the U.S. Department of
Justice Uniform Crime Report staffing averages. The effort resulted in
a 35 percent decrease in violent crime across the four sites. The
Indian Law and Order Commission report states, ``[d]espite the current
budget reality, the results of the HPPG Initiative should not be
forgotten: parity in law enforcement services prevents crime and
reduces violent crime rates.'' \2\ NCAI also recommends an increase for
BIA tribal courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Indian Law & Order Commission. (November 2013). A roadmap for
making Native America safer: Report to the President & Congress of the
United States, Executive Summary, p. xxx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA Overall.--NCAI appreciates recent support for some tribal
programs over the last few years, especially for the Indian Health
Service, contract support costs, and law enforcement. In the fiscal
year 2015 President's budget, DOI's current appropriations would
increase 2.6 percent, without BIA. For BIA to at least match the 2.6
percent increase over fiscal year 2014 for DOI's current appropriation
level would require an additional $69.2 million. About 91 percent of
the funding proposed that that would benefit Indian tribes in DOI is
through BIA and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
(OST) and 9 percent of funds to tribes (excluding fire) are in other
bureaus.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Agency 2015 Request Tribes Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Geological Survey (USGS)....... $1,073,268 $7,600 0.7
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)... 1,476,202 10,700 0.7
National Park Service (NPS)....... 2,614,599 13,500 0.5
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)... 1,113,542 16,900 1.5
Dept. Wide Programs............... 876,053 35,000 4.0
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)....... 1,042,995 186,500 17.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other Interior agencies certainly provide assistance to Indian
tribes. The President's budget includes funds for tribes such other DOI
budgets: 0.7 percent of the USGS budget, 0.7 percent of the USFWS
budget, 0.5 percent of the NPS budget, and 18 percent of the BOR
budget.\3\ NCAI appreciates that, for instance, USGS is increasingly
engaging with tribes to develop climate adaptation programs and working
to meet tribes' needs for scientific and planning information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Analysis of Appendix A of the Fiscal Year 2015 Interior Budget
in Brief, retrieved at http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2015/
highlights/upload/A001.pdf and March 26 Testimony of Asst. Sec.
Washburn before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, retrieved at
http://www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/upload/files/
032614%20Kevin%20Washburn%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USFWS also is improving its work with tribes, such as with the
North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC). Increased
tribal engagement is good, to the extent that non-BIA bureaus are
assisting tribes, providing resources and upholding the Federal trust
responsibility.
But BIA provides the primary resources for carrying out the core
governmental services to about 2 million American Indians and Alaska
Natives. Funding for tribal capacity building is critical. Individual
projects, such as the NPLCC, do not provide the long-term capability
that tribes need to be able to address climate issues. The $9.947
million in the BIA's budget for Cooperative Landscape Conservation does
not go far for 566 federally recognized tribes. Even as other agencies
work to improve meeting their obligations to tribes, NCAI urges
Congress to ensure that the BIA budget can provide the resources that
modern and sophisticated tribal governments require.
indian health services
NCAI requests that for fiscal year 2015, Congress truly restore the
sequestration cuts remaining from fy 2013, and adjust for inflation and
population growth. Though discretionary spending is not facing
sequestration in fiscal year 2015, NCAI urges this subcommittee to
continue to advocate for a permanent, full exemption from
sequestration, as well as rescissions, for Tribal programs for fiscal
year 2016 and beyond. NCAI supports the recommendations of the Tribal
Budget Formulation Workgroup for fiscal year 2015 as well as the
National Indian Health Board's testimony.
environmental protection agency (epa)
Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) Grants.--GAP would receive
a $31 million increase in base funding in the President's budget, which
would increase the average size of grants made to eligible tribes while
providing tribes with a stronger foundation to build tribal capacity;
and further the EPA's partnership and collaboration with tribes to
address a wider set of program responsibilities and challenges. As the
largest single source of the EPA's funding to tribes, the Tribal GAP
grants assist tribes to establish the capacity to implement programs to
address environmental and public health issues in Indian Country. NCAI
supports this proposed increase.
conclusion
Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns on programs
that fulfill treaty and trust obligations in the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. We look forward to working
with this subcommittee on a bipartisan basis once again this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Child Welfare Association
The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national
American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) nonprofit organization. NICWA has
over 30 years of experience providing leadership in the development of
public policy that supports tribal self-determination in child welfare
and children's mental health systems. We urge Congress, as they make
budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2015, to not forget the unique
interest of AI/AN children and families. This testimony will provide
recommendations for the following programs administered by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior: Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention ($43 million), Social
Services ($40.8 million), Welfare Assistance ($80 million), and Indian
Child Welfare Act Program (Tribal Priority Allocation--$15.6 million;
Self-Governance--$16.5 million; Off-Reservation Program--$5 million).
Tribes have an important relationship with their children and
families; they are experts in the needs of AI/AN children, best-suited
to effectively serve those needs, and most able to improve these
children's child welfare outcomes (NICWA & Pew Charitable Trust, 2007).
In addition, statistics show that AI/AN children face elevated rates of
child abuse and neglect (Department of Health and Human Services,
2012). The key to successful tribal child welfare is a budget that
avoids unnecessary restraint on tribal decisionmaking and accounts for
the elevated need in tribal communities.
priority program recommendation
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
recommendation.--Appropriate $43 million for the three discretionary
grant programs under this law: (1) $10 million for the Indian Child
Abuse Treatment Grant Program; (2) $30 million for the Indian Child
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program; and (3) $3
million for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers so
that tribes will finally get this vital funding.
The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
(ICPFVP; Public Law 101-630), was enacted to fill gaps in tribal child
welfare services--specifically child protection and child abuse
treatment--and to encourage coordination between child abuse and
domestic violence programs.
AI/AN women are more likely than any other racial group to
experience intimate partner violence (IPV); 39 percent of AI/AN women
report having experienced IPV at some point in their lives (Black and
Breiding, 2008). Studies show that in 49 percent-70 percent of cases,
men who abuse their partners also abuse their children (White Eagle,
Clairmont, and Hunter, 2011). The ICPFVP programs are the only funds
specifically authorized for tribes to address these issues. The three
programs authorized under this line item provide funding for child
abuse treatment and prevention; investigation of child abuse reports;
family violence treatment services; and the establishment of BIA Indian
child resource and family service centers to assist tribes with the
investigation, prevention, and treatment of victims of child abuse and
domestic violence. In spite of the great need, and these programs'
authorization in 1991, only the BIA Indian child resource and family
centers have ever received funding and that was only in one fiscal
year.
This year the President introduced an important Indian Country
budget initiative: the Tiwahe (Family) Initiative. This initiative aims
to empower tribal communities in order to strengthen AI/AN families by
``directing additional resources to support culturally appropriate
social services and a more holistic approach toward family stability''
(U.S. DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information Indian
Affairs fiscal year 2015 (``Greenbook''), 2014, p. IA-ES-2). This
initiative will provide additional funding to the BIA Social Service
Program, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) program, and to BIA job
training and job placement programs. Omitting the funding for ICPFVPA
programs leaves a gap in the President's initiative. For this reason,
and as a part of this Tiwahe Initiative, the programs under this grant
should be fully appropriated.
other program recommendations
Social Services recommendation.--Increase funding by $5 million as
recommended by the President's proposed Tiwahe Initiative for a total
appropriation of $40.8 million so that child protective services can be
fortified.
The BIA Social Services line item funds contracted/compacted tribal
social workers who help families get assistance and protect children
and elders, BIA social work staff at regional and agency offices,
support programs for AI/AN individuals, and training and technical
assistance to tribal social service programs.
This line item is, therefore, an essential part of tribal child
welfare systems. The Social Service line item helps AI/AN families meet
their basic needs which prevents involvement with the child welfare
system. It provides the only BIA funding available for child protective
services in Indian Country (because the ICPFVPA remains unfunded).
The President has proposed a $5 million increase in Social Service
funding in his fiscal year 2015 budget as part of the Tiwahe (Family)
Initiative. These funds are to be used ``to add much needed additional
social workers for both tribal and [BIA] operated programs''
(Greenbook, 2014, p. IA-HS-2). These social workers are to be dedicated
to child protection, and it is the hope of the President that this
increase in capacity will allow tribal child welfare systems to ``focus
on long-term strategies to address the impact of family violence on the
break-up of the families'' and ``to provide more prevention,
intervention, and outreach activities'' (Greenbook, 2014, p. IA-HS-2).
We commend the President for the Tiwahe Initiative and this proposed
increase in funding for tribal social services and ask that Congress
fund Social Services at $40.8 million as recommended by the President.
Welfare Assistance recommendation.--Increase current funding levels
to $80 million to provide a safety net for Native families and assist
grandfamilies and other kinship caregivers in tribal communities.
The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of
funding to AI/AN families: General Assistance, Child Assistance, Non-
Medical Institutional or Custodial Care of Adults, Burial Assistance,
and Emergency Assistance. General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, and
Child Assistance are particularly important to tribal child welfare
programs.
General Assistance provides financial assistance for essential
needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and utilities while individuals
who are ineligible for all other financial assistance programs work
towards independence as outlined in a self-sufficiency plan. AI/AN
children are more likely to live in households that are below the
poverty line. Thirty-four percent of AI/AN children live in households
with incomes below the poverty line as compared to 20.7 percent of
children nationwide (Maternal and Child Health Bureau, 2012). In
addition, nearly 19 percent of the AI/AN labor force is unemployed on
reservations (2006-2010 American Community Survey)--twice the rate for
the total population. These funds are essential to the basic well-being
of the families who receive them and also an important tool for child
welfare agencies working to keep families together. These funds, like
Emergency Assistance, also funded under this line item, often provide
the financial assistance necessary to prevent neglect and the removal
of a child.
Child Assistance provides payments on behalf of children who are
placed outside their homes in foster, adoptive, or guardianship care.
Because tribal governments have a responsibility to support the
placement of AI/AN children that live on tribal lands under their
jurisdiction who cannot remain safely at home, these funds are
critical. Currently only three tribes have access to title IV-E, the
funding stream States use to support out-of-home placements. Other
tribes rely on Child Assistance funds for this purpose. Without these
funds, tribes would have to place children in unsubsidized substitute
care homes. This would put an undue burden on tribal foster families
and make foster care recruitment in AI/AN communities all the more
difficult.
The current funding level for these important services just begins
to meet the need in tribal communities. For this reason, the funds
should be increased by $5 million. This amount will provide necessary
support to AI/AN families at risk of being torn apart, to children in
relative placements, and to AI/AN individuals and families who need a
hand up.
ICWA Funding recommendation.--Increase the ICWA On or Near
Reservation Program appropriations by $5 million and the Self-
Governance and Consolidated Tribal Government ICWA On or Near
Reservation appropriations by $5 million, for a total increase of $10
million to help tribes meet the needs of their communities. Appropriate
an additional $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, Off-
Reservation ICWA Program to ensure ICWA protects all children.
At the time that ICWA was passed, Congress estimated that between
$26 million and $62 million was required to fully fund tribal child
welfare programs on or near reservations during the first years of the
grant program (U.S. Senate Report 95-597). ICWA funding is used for
family reunification and rehabilitation, case management, foster care
recruitment and retention, and adoption services. As the President has
recognized in his Tiwahe (Family) Initiative, increased ICWA funding is
essential for strong AI/AN families and communities. This funding is
designed to ``prevent the breakup of Indian families or reunite them if
break-up occurs'' (Greenbook, 2014 p. IA-HS-3). This funding is also
used to ``expand the capabilities of tribes to intervene in involuntary
court proceedings and ensure the children are not separated from their
cultural base'' (Greenbook, IA-HS-3). Despite its importance to so many
facets of tribal child welfare, it remains underfunded, even as tribes
remain ineligible for other important child welfare funding like CAPTA
State Grants, and Title XX Social Service Block Grants to which States
have access.
Specifically, as part of the Tiwahe Initiative, the President
recommends a $5 million increase to ICWA on-reservation funding to be
shared between Tribal Priority Allocation and Self-Governance/638/
Consolidated Tribal Government Programs. This would amount to an
approximate increase of $2.5 million to each of these ICWA on-
reservation programs. We commend the President for this initiative and
for his recognition of the important of ICWA funding to tribal
communities and families. Spreading the $5 million increase between
both Tribal Priority Allocation tribes and Self-Governance/638/
Consolidated Tribal Government Programs, however, will prevent a
significant increase in actual ICWA funding for all tribes. ICWA is
such a foundation to the Tiwahe Initiative that we recommend a $5
million increase to each of the ICWA on-reservation funding programs.
This would mean a $5 million increase to the Tribal Priority Allocation
as well as a $5 million increase to Self-Governance/638/Consolidated
Tribal Government Programs for ICWA purposes.
The protections of ICWA apply to AI/AN children on-reservation and
children who live in urban areas. For this reason, ICWA authorizes
child welfare funding for urban ICWA programs. From 1979-1996, funding
was allocated for ICWA grants to urban organizations serving AI/AN
peoples. This off-reservation ICWA program has not since been funded
since, despite the fact that, according to the 2010 Census, 67 percent
of AI/AN people lived off-reservation. Urban programs provide important
ICWA services including recruitment of AI/AN foster homes, case
management, identification of at-risk families for services, and in-
home services that help children stay in their homes or be reunified
with their parents. As a result of the loss of funding, the majority of
these programs have disintegrated. It is for this reason that to truly
fulfill the Tiwahe Initiative, funding for off-reservation ICWA
programs must be reinstated and appropriated at $5 million to ensure
that all AI/AN children are protected by the ICWA.
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year
2012 2013 * enacted 2014 President's 2015
enacted enacted Budget recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Reservation: Tribal Priority $10,850,000 $10,628,000 $10,710,000 $13,128,000 $15,628,000
Allocation.........................
On-Reservation: Self-Gov/638/Consol. 11,300,000 11,480,000 number not $13,980,000 16,480,000
Tribal Gov't Program............... available
Off-Reservation..................... 0 0 0 0 5,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Reflects sequestration effects.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Education Association
The National Indian Education Association (NIEA) was incorporated
in 1970 and is the most representative Native education organization in
the United States. NIEA's mission is to advance comprehensive and equal
educational opportunities for American Indian, Alaska Native, and
Native Hawaiian students. NIEA supports tribal sovereignty over
education as well as strengthening traditional Native cultures and
values that enable Native learners to become contributing members of
their communities. As the most inclusive Native education organization,
NIEA membership consists of tribal leaders, educators, students,
researchers, and education stakeholders from all 50 States. From
communities in Hawaii, to tribal reservations across the continental
U.S., to villages in Alaska and urban communities in major cities, NIEA
has the most reach of any Native education organization in the country.
Tribes and Native communities have a tremendous stake in an
improved education system, because an improved system equates to better
services for Native people and students. As tribes work to increase
their footprint in education, there must be support for that increased
participation. Established through treaties, Federal law, and U.S.
Supreme Court decisions, this relationship includes a fiduciary
obligation to provide parity in access and equal resources to all
American Indian and Alaska Native students, regardless of where they
attend school. National fiscal and policy concerns should not be
addressed by decreasing funds and investment to Native students or the
programs that serve them. Rather, Native education, including those
programs and services under the Department of the Interior (DOI), is
one of the most effective and efficient investments the Federal
Government can make.
As tribes and Native communities work with Congress for parity in
access to increase their role and responsibility in administering
education, Federal support for tribal governments and Native education
institutions has continued to shrink as a percentage of the Federal
budget. Historical funding trends illustrate that the Federal
Government is abandoning its trust responsibility by decreasing Federal
funds to Native-serving programs by more than half in the last 30
years. Sequestration only exacerbated those shortfalls.
the state of native education
Partly as a result of insufficient access to resources, Native
education is in a state of emergency. Native students lag far behind
their peers on every educational indicator, from academic achievement
to high school and college graduation rates. Just over 50 percent of
Native students are graduating high school, compared to nearly 80
percent for the majority population nationally. For students attending
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, rates are even lower.
According to the latest results from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), the BIE's tribally controlled schools
(approximately 120 facilities) are among the worst performing schools
in the Nation due to an array of issues often caused by inadequate
access for tribal involvement as well as insufficient resources. Due to
the inability of elementary and secondary schools to adequately prepare
our children, only 40 percent of Native college enrollees in 2004
actually graduated college with a bachelor's degree by 2010. For Native
students to succeed in post-secondary education and careers, they must
have a strong education foundation, whether they attend public,
tribally-controlled, or direct service BIE schools.
bureau of indian education reform
For too many years, DOI made other programs priorities while Native
education programs and the BIE were afterthoughts. In addition to the
disparaging September 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Report on the BIE school system, the work of this subcommittee and
education partners has built momentum around much-needed BIE reform.
NIEA is enthusiastic about the renewed collaboration among Secretaries
Sally Jewell and Arne Duncan in the Departments of the Interior and
Education (ED) and for their support to create the American Indian
Education Study Group (Study Group). We are also excited to strengthen
our work with BIE Director Dr. Charles ``Monty'' Roessel to ensure BIE
moves in the right direction. We are already happy to see the hiring of
a coordinator within the Bureau to start work on the 2014 Johnson
O'Malley (JOM) student count, which was last officially updated in
1995.
However, much work lies ahead. The Study Group is currently behind
schedule in producing their report, so it is important to maintain
pressure for results. Further, as the Study Group works with tribal
communities this spring and summer to release a report, NIEA hopes this
subcommittee will analyze our recommendations and take concrete steps
to support the reforms required for increasing the capacity of tribes
to govern their education systems. These include (1) providing the BIE
the ability to manage its budget; (2) strengthening tribal capacity to
administer education services; and (3) providing budgetary support for
programs, such as tribal grant support costs and school construction,
so the BIE can provide safe environments for our students as well as
sufficiently support tribes as they contract education services.
fiscal year 2015 recommendations
BIE Budget Authority
For too long, bureaucratic issues among the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the BIE have decreased the ability of the BIE to meet
the educational needs of our youth. Congress and Federal agencies
should make funding for BIE a priority to increase available resources
for addressing the needed systemic changes and issues highlighted in
the September 2013 GAO Report. DOI should transfer budget authority
from the BIA to the BIE to increase efficiency and effectiveness, as
BIE officials better understand needed funding within their programs.
As a result of BIA authority over the BIE budget, the BIE is often
low in priority as compared to other programs. As a result of internal
BIA fiscal year 2014 Operating Plan reallocations, the BIA reduced JOM
Assistance Grants by $170,000 as well as cut BIE higher education
scholarships. NIEA is fully supportive of the hard work tribes and
Native communities put forth to achieve full funding for contract
support costs in fiscal year 2014. However, such achievements should
not come by forfeiting funds from critical education programs and
services.
Furthermore, while the reduced lines were under tribal priority
allocations, such reductions were not authorized by tribal leaders but
were a result of internal redistributions. While the reductions are
small as compared to the overall increase in the BIA budgets,
rescissions without appropriate consultation are unacceptable.
Providing the BIE the ability to develop its own budget would ensure
the BIA cannot reallocate funds from the BIE as it would be a separate
Bureau with its own budget authority.
Strengthen Tribal Capacity --$5 million
Tribes should be provided more opportunity to collaborate and
participate in their children's education systems. Since the late 20th
Century, Congress has worked to strengthen tribal capacity to directly
serve their citizens. The BIE should become a capacity builder to help
tribes administer education services. While an authorization under the
U.S. Department of Education for tribal capacity building in public
schools on reservations has been funded since fiscal year 2012, the
program only addresses one aspect of existing need.
The State-Tribal Education Partnership Program (STEP) in ED is a
solid start for increasing collaboration among States and tribes for
increasing the tribal role in a Native student's education. However,
additional funding of $5 million within both DOI and ED totaling $10
million is needed to ensure more tribes can participate in providing
education services via their tribal education agencies in local
tribally-controlled grant schools. Because tribes and their education
agencies understand their students' cultural and academic needs best,
this local authority would allow tribes to efficiently and effectively
reverse the negative academic outcomes currently pertaining to Native
students.
Capacity and Collaboration--$5 million
As the BIE is increasingly able to support tribes and their
education agencies, BIE reform would be strengthened by providing funds
for a competitive grant pilot that incentivizes capacity building in
tribally-controlled grant schools. This grant program would be modeled
on best practices from existing competitive grants in use within the
Department of Education. For $5 million, the BIE could participate in a
pilot to help spur urgent and abrupt systemic reform that will
substantially improve student success, close achievement gaps, improve
high school graduation rates, and prepare students for success in
college and careers.
The three-year competitive incentive-based grant, similar to
existing Race to the Top initiatives for which BIE continues to be
excluded, would provide resources for tribes to accelerate their local
reforms and align education services to tribal education priorities
that include language and culture as well as meet challenging academic
standards. Further, performance metrics for the grant would include
student attendance rates, graduation rates, college enrollment rates,
measures on educator accountability, and performance on standardized
assessments. In order to catalyze reform efforts and create a set of
high-performing, tribally-controlled grant schools, the BIE would also
provide on-going technical assistance to help build the capacity of
those schools that applied for, but did not receive, a grant.
Construction Funding--$263.4 million
Similar to previous years, NIEA is requesting increased funding for
BIE school construction and repair with an allocation to be set at
$263.4 million. That level ensures funds for new school construction,
facilities improvement and repair, and replacement school construction.
NIEA was excited to see new funding appropriated by Congress in fiscal
year 2014 and 2015 to begin work on the first phase of the Beatrice
Rafferty School located in Maine. However, it is time bring all vested
stakeholders to the table to work on a plan for providing enough
resources to actually replace dilapidated BIE schools.
DOI Secretary Sally Jewell recently stated on March 25, 2014 before
the House of Representatives' Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies that, ``[DOI] is focusing more on the
classrooms, than the buildings.'' This limited concentration is
unacceptable. As the first DOI budget under her leadership, the
administration's budget request for replacement construction continues
to be inadequate. The administration must support efforts to
drastically increase replacement funds and address the long-outdated
list of more than 60 BIE school buildings in disrepair and
unsatisfactory conditions. The Federal Government understands the need
to bring all DOD schools to a good or fair rating by 2018, yet the BIE
school system is ignored. While focusing on the classroom is to be
applauded, no child can be expected to successfully learn while the
structure around them is potentially dangerous.
Tribal Grant Support Costs--$73 million
NIEA was happy to see IHS and BIA contract support costs fully
funded under self-determination and self-governance this year. However,
Public Law 100-297 grant or Public Law 93-638 self-determination
contracted BIE schools were exempt from full funding, which will result
in budget shortfalls. Full funding for tribal grant support costs in
fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years is critical as these dollars help
tribes expand self-governance and tribal authority over education
programs by providing funds for administrative costs, such as
accounting, payroll, and other legal requirements. The BIA currently
funds only 65 percent of support costs in the 125 tribally controlled
schools and residential facilities under the BIE purview. This forces
schools to divert critical education funding in order to cover
shortfalls in operational costs, which make it unrealistic to improve
educational outcomes and bridge the achievement gap among Native and
non-Native students.
conclusion
NIEA appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony into
the record and we look forward to increasing the success of the BIE and
tribes as they work together to educate Native students. Thank you
again and if you have any questions, please contact Ahniwake Rose, NIEA
Executive Director, at [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: I am Brian Haggard,
Director of the Arkansas Water Resources Center at the University of
Arkansas. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR), in support of the Water
Resources Research Act program. The program is funded as part of the
U.S. Geological Survey's budget. I specifically want to thank you for
the subcommittee's continuing strong support for the Water Resources
Research Act.
This year is the 50th anniversary of the Act. In 1959, a Senate
select committee was formed to investigate the adequacy of the Nation's
water resources. As a result of its findings, a bill was introduced to
create a national water resources research program designed to expand
and provide more effective coordination of the Nation's water research.
The bill authorized the establishment of water resources research
institutes at land grant colleges in each State. On July 12, 1964, when
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law he said,
``The Water Resources Research Act of 1964, which I have
approved today, fills a vital need...it will create local
centers of water research. It will enlist the intellectual
power of universities and research institutes in a nationwide
effort to conserve and utilize our water resources for the
common benefit.''
The Act authorized the establishment of Water Resources Research
Institutes in each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico. Later, Institutes
were authorized in Washington DC, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands and American Samoa. The Institutes were created to
fulfill 3 main objectives:
--to develop through research new technology and more efficient
methods for resolving local, State and national water resources
problems;
--to train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job
participation in research; and
--to facilitate water research coordination and the application of
research results by means of information dissemination and
technology transfer.
Today the Water Resources Research Institutes, in partnership with
the U.S. Geological Survey, continue to fulfill the three roles
assigned by Congress in 1964 They have funded cutting-edge water
research, have conducted innovative information and technology transfer
programs, and have provided training to over 25,000 students over their
50-year history.
The Water Resources Research Act program is a State-based network
of institutes dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply)
and quality in partnership with universities, local governments and the
general public and is the only federally authorized research network
that focuses on applied water resources research, education, training
and outreach. The institutes are a direct, vital link between Federal
water interests and needs and the academic expertise located within the
States' research universities. It provides a mechanism for ensuring
State, regional and national coordination of water resources research,
the education of future water professionals, and the transfer of
results and outcomes to State and Federal water professionals. The
matching requirements of the program ensure that each State invests in
water research and training.
The Water Resources Research Act established two grant components
of the USGS Water Resources Research Institutes program, where Federal
funds cannot be used to pay indirect costs at the universities. The
first component is the base grant program which is divided up equally
among the institutes. The Act requires that each Federal dollar must be
matched by two non-Federal dollars, and this is the strictest match
requirement of any Federal research program. Each Institute uses these
funds to leverage research and/or student training through a statewide
competitive grants process. The National Institutes for Water Resources
requests the subcommittee to provide continued funding for the base
grant program, which provides grants focused on water supply and
quality, technology transfer, professional education, and outreach to
faculty at universities within each State. The base program provides
seed grants, which are used to develop future research proposals and
secure additional external funds.
The second grant component is a national competitive grants
program, supporting research on water resources problems that are
regional or national in nature. In 2012 this program received 46
applications, which underwent rigorous peer review from a national
panel. The national review panel selected a total of six projects from
Alabama, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and West Virginia,
addressing water supply and quality issues facing our Nation.
The Water Resources Research Act is what holds all of this
together. The Institutes specialize in identifying problems within
their States, developing solutions to those problems, and engaging with
the public to implement those solutions. One of the Institute program's
greatest strengths is that the research funded by each Institute is
tailored to that State's needs, based on priorities set by consultation
with an advisory panel. These funded projects are State focused but
also address water issues relevant to our Nation. The following are
several examples of research conducted and projects managed by
Institutes across the country.
My Institute, the Arkansas Water Resources Center, has focused on
how water quality is changing over time, particularly in two watersheds
where the poultry industry has been sued over elevated nutrients and
aesthetic conditions--the Illinois River Watershed and Eucha-Spavinaw
Basin. We used data collected through our monitoring program, as well
as by the U.S. Geological Survey, to show how nutrient concentrations
and loads in these critical watersheds have changed since the
implementation of nutrient management practices in municipal wastewater
treatment facilities and on the land. Our analysis clearly showed
nutrients have decreased over time, moving closer to our water quality
goals. The institutional stability of my center and its base funding
made it possible to manage long-term databases and produce results.
The Rhode Island Water Resources Center has supported cutting-edge
research on industrial pretreatment of wastewater before it discharge
to municipal facilities. This research project produced a solution to
the problem, developing a nano-technology based system capable of
removing pollutants from industrial wastewater. The system uses
grapheme oxide and carbon nanotubes which are capable of adsorbing high
amounts of pollutants, and this polymer system is reusable. The
research was applied in nature, solving a real-world problem in a
sustainable way.
The Alabama Water Resources Research Institute hosted the 2013
annual water conference, focusing on the important role of Alabama's
water resources in economic development. Over 300 participants attended
this event, including Governor Bentley as the keynote speaker. This
institute specializes in outreach activities, which has also included
the Tallapoosa Basin Conference, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
(ACF) Stakeholders Conference, municipal and legislative assistance in
water resources planning, the Auburn University campus stormwater
management plan, and co-sponsoring water policy forums throughout the
State.
The Alaska Water and Environmental Research Center at the
University of Alaska-Fairbank has been collecting and analyzing
critical hydrologic data needed for planning a transportation corridor
to the Ambler Mining District and the Umiat region north of Brooks
Range. The river flow and ice measurements are essential information in
the design bridges and environmental impact statements. This center has
established itself as an entity capable of collecting and evaluating
hydrologic data for projects in Alaska's most remote and challenging
settings.
The California Institute for Water Resources has sponsored research
on irrigation efficiency, which is critical component of water
conservation strategies as our climate continues to change. The
researchers supported by the institute are collecting data on
transpiration, local weather conditions, and soil water retention and
evaporation to identify trends that can be used to adjust irrigation
methods for specific crop needs; these researchers are also analyzing
nearly 40 years of irrigation survey data to understand changes in
irrigation methods across the State and over time. This research
quantifies the amount of water used, on which crops it was used, and
where those crops were located--the ultimate goal is to improve water
conversation and sustain crop yields.
The Maryland Water Resources Research Center has supported research
that will ultimately benefit the Maryland's two most important economic
resources, Agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay. With increasing food
markets and interest in biofuels, agriculture production is expanding
and changing along with environmental impacts such as nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment input into the bay. This research projects
developed low-cost anaerobic digesters that treat dairy manure while
producing methane as a source of renewable energy--transforming animal
waste into an environmental and economic benefit for the Chesapeake Bay
region.
The Montana Water Center at Montana State University has funded
research projects on the health of wetland ecosystems, and how
fluctuations in the amount of evapotranspiration and groundwater
available influence this important aquatic resource. Groundwater and
evapotranspiration are two unknowns in any water budget and are often
ignored in regional groundwater flow models. This research has used the
Gartside Reservoir prairie fen to model groundwater availability and
evapotranspiration and developed methods for defining aquifer
conditions affecting evapotranspiration.
The New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute played a
leadership role in developing the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer
Assessment Program, which allows the Interior Department and the U.S.
Geological Survey to cooperate with the Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas
Water Resources research Institutes, State water agencies, and other
relevant entities to characterize, map and model hydrogeology of
community groundwater supplies. This program provides essential
information and a scientific foundation for State and local officials
to address pressing water resources challenges in this border region,
such as declining water levels, deteriorating water quality, and
increasing demand.
The Oregon Institute for Water and Watersheds has focused on the
emerging problem of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). These blooms are
caused by blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that naturally occur in
surface water, but given the right environmental conditions and
nutrient supply can multiply quickly into problematic blooms. As these
algal blooms die off, toxins are released into waters posing an
environmental and human health concern. Researchers at Oregon State
University were funded by this institute to fill information gaps,
modeling the formation of these blooms and increasing our understanding
of environmental factors influencing the occurrence of these blooms in
drinking water supply reservoirs.
Agricultural subsurface drainage has increased dramatically in
South Dakota during the last several years. The South Dakota Water
Resources Institute is using satellite-based remote sensing technology
to compare, side-by-side, crop water use from fields with and without
tile drainage. Understanding this difference in water use helps
quantify crop yield responses to drainage, economic return on
investment and impacts on the hydrology within each field. The
information is being used by agricultural producers and natural
resources managers from local, State and Federal agencies alike to help
implement best management practices that maintain and improve
agricultural production while minimizing negative environmental
impacts.
For five decades the Water Resources Research Institutes have
provided significant research results and impacts to our Nation, and
proved successful at bringing new water professionals into the work
force. NIWR recommends the subcommittee provide $8,800,000 to the USGS
for the Water Resources Research Institute Program for fiscal year
2015. The water institute directors recognize the fiscal challenges
facing the Nation and Congress, but we want to support the USGS
Coalition request that Congress appropriate at least the $1.2 billion
requested for the USGS in fiscal year 2015, a level that will support
critical programs that improve the Nation's environment, health,
safety, quality of life, and future economic growth.
Thank you, on behalf of all the institute directors and the
National Institutes for Water Resources, for the opportunity to testify
and for the subcommittee's strong support of the Water Resources
Research Act program. It is greatly appreciated.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Since
1919, NPCA has been the leading independent voice in support of
enhancing, protecting and promoting America's National Park System for
people from all walks of life to learn from and enjoy--now and into the
future. On behalf of our 800,000 members and supporters from every
State in the Union, I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
regarding the Park Service budget for the upcoming fiscal year. NPCA
requests for fiscal year 2015 appropriated funding for the National
Park Service of $2,623,646,000, which is equal to the President's
appropriated request but rejecting his request to reduce National
Heritage Area Funding by $9,087,000. This includes NPCA's priorities
this year of meeting--at a minimum--the President's request for a $47
million increase in park operations, and $10 million in appropriated
funds for the Centennial Challenge.
We fully appreciate the tremendous challenge you face in setting
reasonable, responsible spending priorities for the varied Federal
agencies and programs under your subcommittee's jurisdiction when the
goal of substantially reducing the level of Federal spending has driven
so much of the political discourse and agenda. We share the hope that
the budget and appropriations cycle now underway for fiscal year 2015
might signal a return to a more orderly and reasonable process,
particularly with the landmark centennial of the National Park System
fast approaching.
Providing adequate funding is more than simply another expenditure;
it is an investment in our Nation's future with tangible returns that
are particularly significant now as we continue to recover from a long
economic downturn. The Government shutdown demonstrated the economic
importance of national parks to gateway communities. According to the
Interior Department, these communities lost $414 million in visitor
spending alone during the 16-day shutdown. Investments in the Park
Service budget support robust economic activity:
--Every dollar invested in the National Park Service yields ten
dollars in economic activity;
--National parks support nearly $27 billion in economic activity
annually and nearly a quarter million private sector jobs; and
--Of the 25 most popular travel destinations in the United States,
eight are units of the National Park System.
The budget situation for the National Park Service for the past
several years has been like a roller coaster ride, headed mostly down.
Over recent months and years, the Park Service and the national
treasures entrusted to their care have been damaged by compounded
budget cuts. So has the experience and enjoyment of the people who
visit them. The October 2013 16-day Government shutdown came on top of
an ongoing pattern of declining budgets followed by the damaging and
indiscriminate across-the-board cuts mandated by the sequester. The
budget to operate the national parks has been cut by nearly 8 percent
in today's dollars compared to 4 years ago. That is on top of many
years of chronic underfunding for park operations that have resulted in
operations shortfalls ranging from estimates of from $500 million to as
much as $800 million annually. Over the past decade, the National Park
Service construction budget has been cut by over $272 million, or 66
percent in today's dollars. This has compounded the years of
underfunding, resulting in today's nearly $12 billion backlog. That
underfunding is due to actions and inactions over many congresses, and
by both political parties.
The maintenance backlog is attributable to chronic funding
deficiencies in several categories, including operations,
transportation and construction. These deficiencies have forced park
managers to make choices between what needs to be done and what
absolutely must be done immediately to keep facilities up and running
and visitors safe. The longer needed repairs and maintenance to
facilities are put off, the more expensive and difficult they become.
The result of this long-term budget roller coaster, particularly
during the sequester but not limited to it, has been:
--parks and park facilities opening later and closing earlier or more
frequently;
--fewer park rangers and other staff protecting and maintaining
parks;
--visitor centers operating with fewer rangers or closing altogether
for lack of staff;
--compromised science and resource protection and decreased cyclical
maintenance;
--fewer backcountry patrols to ensure visitor safety and prevent
poaching and looting; and
--other impacts that compromise resources and public enjoyment and
safety.
To be sure, park managers have done the best they can to weather
the many rounds of budget reductions. There has been some level of
savings through employee attrition, but superintendents will tell you
that while operating a park with insufficient staff can be managed in
the short term, it simply can't be sustained over the long run. At some
point the consequences become evident, compromising the parks' ability
to protect resources from damages, keep visitors safe and provide
adequate visitor services. Director Jarvis recently testified before
this subcommittee that the proposed fiscal year 2015 investment in park
operations would return some seasonal rangers to our parks, but pointed
out that under the proposal only half of those lost seasonal rangers
would return. Clearly, more work is needed to bring our national parks
and the men and women who steward them back to where they once were.
The real question for fiscal year 2015 is whether progress will
occur in getting the National Park System in the shape it should to
begin its next century in a manner consistent with the pride Americans
feel for our heritage and our national treasures. fiscal year 2015 is
an opportunity for Congress to help answer that question, since it is a
critical year to begin preparing for 2016. In light of that, the
administration has proposed a multi-year centennial initiative that
builds on the one proposed by the Bush administration. Recognizing the
magnitude of the challenge posed by the backlog, the administration
proposes that legislation be enacted to begin reducing the backlog on a
mandatory basis. They also propose to renew the Centennial Challenge--a
program familiar to this subcommittee from the Bush/Kempthorne era--in
an amount identical to that proposed by the Bush administration. This
subcommittee can play a significant role in promoting such an
initiative and in educating others about why it is necessary, and we
stand ready to help in that effort. A Centennial Initiative that
attacks the backlog would produce needed construction jobs while
restoring America's treasures. And the Centennial Challenge can help
the national parks capitalize on the attention the centennial will
bring to attract donations from private and other non-Federal sources.
The fact that Presidents Bush and Obama both have supported renewing
our parks in connection with the centennial provides further evidence
of the nonpartisan appeal of the parks, and we hope that Congress will
seize upon its role in formulating a legacy that will last for the next
century.
As a down-payment on enactment of Centennial Challenge legislation,
we ask that the subcommittee appropriate at least as much as the
administration request--$10 million--if not more. This subcommittee has
noted the importance of matching funds and has drafted report language
to that effect. The Centennial Challenge program would leverage
important dollars to support signature projects at parks throughout the
country. It's a wise investment.
As for park operations, we have consistently noted to this
subcommittee NPCA's view that this account should be prioritized. The
proposed operations increase would provide funding to enhance the
visitor experience, better connect young people with their natural and
cultural heritage, and put more rangers to work addressing overdue
maintenance needs. We recognize as Director Jarvis did that the
proposed increase is insufficient to return ranger levels to where they
should be, but it is a welcome step in the right direction. There is a
direct connection between those popular rangers, the enjoyment of
visitors, and correspondingly the economies of surrounding communities
that depend on those visitors having a safe and inspiring experience.
We also support the administration's request of $192.2 million for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a critical tool for
protecting our national parks. Since it was first enacted, with a
dedicated stream of revenue in place from offshore oil and gas leasing
in Federal waters, the LWCF has realized its full $900 million
envisioned level only once in 49 years. Park Service LWCF funding has
declined from $126 million in fiscal year 2010 to less than $100
million in fiscal year 2014, a decline of more than 20 percent. We
believe in the healthy, rewarding recreational opportunities that LWCF
was intended to provide. The completion of existing national park units
by purchasing inholdings from willing sellers will often make park
administration and resource management more efficient and cost
effective, thereby freeing up money for to other needs.
We also respect the constraints that both the PILT program and
wildfire suppression needs have caused for this subcommittee's
allocation, and hope they can be dealt with so that there are more
dollars available to appropriate to our national parks and other
pressing needs. We're pleased to be a supporter--among so many other
diverse stakeholders--of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. We are
urging Congress to move this important legislation forward.
We respect the importance of enhancing this subcommittee's 302(b)
allocation so as chair of the Green Group appropriations team, I have
spearheaded community efforts to emphasize this need.
Finally, we urge an extension of the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act, which was extended last year through the end of fiscal
year 2015 in the bill that reopened the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, with the likelihood of authorizing legislation passing
both houses this year in question, we ask that you another 1 year
extension be included in this year's conference bill, to ensure that
the National Park Service retains annual fee authority at the end of
this calendar year.
Mr. Chairman, it seems as if there is always a good deal of talk on
Capitol Hill about what the American people want and what the American
people expect and deserve, and so on. Recent events have made the views
of the American people about their national parks as clear as ever.
Their love affair with the national parks spans time, region, economic
status and political persuasion. During the Government shutdown, we
heard from the American people how much they love the parks and want
them open and well-staffed. Polling we have previously shared with this
committee conducted by Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion
Research indicated that 9 out of 10 likely voters agree that funding
for our national parks should be held stable or increased. A bipartisan
majority of Americans (73 percent) believe it is important that the
parks are fully restored and ready for the national park centennial in
2016.
As that milestone 100th anniversary approaches, the national parks
will be more and more at the forefront of people's minds, and more and
more Americans will be drawn to visit a national park or park unit, as
will many others from around the world. Will Americans be proud of what
they find? Will pride in our heritage and shared experience be evident
when they visit? If the parks they visit are not in a condition worthy
of their legacy, who will they blame?
Overall, the budget for the National Park Service constitutes less
that 1/15th of one 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, and our
research shows that the average American household pays roughly as much
in taxes for their national parks as it would cost them to buy a large
coffee at Starbucks. Surely we can find a way to meet this important
Federal responsibility to restore our parks during the lead-up to the
parks 100th anniversary. Now more than ever, taking care of the
national parks should be a priority. We thank this subcommittee for its
leadership and are eager to work with you to ensure our national parks
are protected this year, and for generations to come.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Thank you Chairman Reed, Senator Murkowski, and other honorable
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written
testimony pertaining to funding for the Land and Water Conservation
Fund's (LWCF) State Assistance Program and the Urban Parks and
Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) in the fiscal year (FY) 2015
Interior Appropriations bill.
overview of funding request
As outlined below, we encourage you to renew the Federal investment
in the LWCF. However, given that the purpose of the Act is to help
preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities
to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens, we urge you to make a
greater investment in States and local communities by:
--Allocating a minimum of 40 percent of fiscal year 2015 LWCF
appropriations to the State Assistance Program;
--Continuing the innovative, pilot ``Competitive Grant Program''
began in fiscal year 2014;
--Allocating up to $25 million in funding for UPARR out of total
fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriations; and
--Ensuring that any amount allocated to either the pilot
``Competitive'' grant or UPARR program is not done at the
expense of the existing core formula grants distributed to the
States for public recreation.
about the national recreation and park association
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), is a nonprofit
organization working to advance parks, recreation and environmental
conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every
American in every community every day. Through our network of
approximately 40,000 citizen and professional members we represent park
and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special park
districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned
with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation
opportunities exist in their communities. Everything we support and do
is focused through our three pillars: Conservation; Health & Wellness
and Social Equity.
40 percent allocation of total lwcf appropriations to the state
assistance program
There is a common misconception that LWCF is merely a Federal land
acquisition program. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the
LWCF State Assistance Program provides dollar-for-dollar matching
grants to States and local communities for the construction of outdoor
recreation projects. The land purchased with LWCF State Assistance
funding remains the property of the State or local government, and the
resources developed through the LWCF remain publicly accessible in
perpetuity.
The LWCF provides numerous benefits to local communities across
America, and it does so through a well-recognized and dedicated funding
source--namely oil and gas leasing revenues. Over $6 billion a year is
provided through these leases, with a small fraction provided to the
LWCF. Unfortunately an even smaller fraction is provided to the State
Assistance Program. This is in large part due to the fact that current
law mandates that a minimum of 40 percent of the total LWCF annual
appropriations must be provided to the Federal land acquisition program
without specifying an amount for the State Assistance Program.
As a result, States and local communities have historically
received a very disproportionate share of the total LWCF
appropriations, with little more than 10 percent of total LWCF funding
going to the State Assistance Program since 1998. More recently, in
fiscal year 2012, you provided approximately $322 million for the LWCF,
with $45 million, or 13 percent, allocated to the State Assistance
program. Further, in fiscal year 2013, when final discretionary
spending was subject to ``sequestration,'' you provided $305 million
overall to the LWCF and $39.9 million to the State Assistance Program--
also 13 percent.\1\ We appreciate that you've recently recognized the
importance of the State Assistance Program and allocated a larger
percentage of total LWCF appropriations to it in fiscal year 2014--pre-
sequestration levels of $45 million, as well as the innovative $3
million ``competitive grant'' program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts reflect amounts provided through appropriations and do
not reflect sequestration reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For nearly 50 years, however, the bulk of the work to carry out
purpose of the Act has fallen on local communities to handle alone. For
the reasons outlined below, we are asking you to empower States and
local communities to do more to preserve, develop, and assure access to
outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen our Nation by allocating 40
percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State Assistance Program in
fiscal year 2015.
lwcf state assistance's return on investment and return on objective
One of the key aspects of the LWCF State Assistance Program is the
ability to create jobs. The outdoor recreation industry, as such is
supported by LWCF State Assistance, is an economic powerhouse in the
United States. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the
industry generates $646 billion in consumer spending and supports over
6 million jobs annually.\2\ Impressively, this section of the economy
continues to grow even during the ongoing economic recession, and thus
has enormous potential to immediately create new jobs. For example, the
Outdoor Industry Association reported in October 2011 that the outdoor
recreation industry grew at a rate of 5 percent annually between 2005
and 2011. Considering there are 7,800 State and over 100,000 locally
managed parks throughout the country, it is obvious that outdoor
recreation is most prevalent at the State and local level. In fact, the
National Association of State Park Directors reports that America's
State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State economies
each year.\3\ There is no doubt, that it is the LWCF State Assistance
Program that provides the places, spaces, and opportunities for outdoor
recreation which stimulates the outdoor industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Outdoor Industry Association, ``The Outdoor Recreation Economy
Report 2012''.
\3\ NASPD Annual Report, March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When viewed through the lens of the importance of the American
outdoor recreation industry, the LWCF State Assistance Program has, for
more than four decades, achieved a proven return on investment (ROI)
demonstrated by the fact that nearly $4 billion in Federal support has
leveraged over $4 billion additional dollars in matching funds. But the
benefits of this program, don't stop there, as the State Assistance
Program has not only provided a ROI, but has also done a tremendous job
of providing an outstanding return on objective for the American
taxpayer by ensuring access for all.
It is well known that not everyone has the ability to visit one of
our treasured national parks, and even those who do so are unable to on
a regular basis as national parks are often vacation destinations or
once-in-a-lifetime trips. To the average American, however, the
neighborhood park--down the street, open and accessible to the public,
and without an admission fee--is the most important public space in
their lives. Many of our country's local places, spaces, and
opportunities for outdoor recreation are provided through this program,
with more than 40,000 grant projects located in every county across
America.
The State Assistance Program is the only Federal investment tool
dedicated to ensuring that Americans have access to local public
recreation opportunities. Because the LWCF State Assistance Program
provides close-to-home recreation opportunities, millions of Americans,
young and old, are annually connected with nature and provided the
ability to be physically active and simply enjoy a life that they may
otherwise be denied.
The LWCF State Assistance Program ensures that local communities,
such as the Thurmont, Maryland and Talladega, Alabama have places where
adults and children can go to recreate and enjoy the outdoors. It is a
means by which this committee can provide investment to critically
important local parks, including: Elmore State Park in Vermont; the new
soccer field at Sisterhood Park in Anchorage, Alaska; and Lions Park in
Bismarck, North Dakota. Each of the aforementioned communities
benefited from State Assistance grant funding since 2012.
lwcf state assistance provides health and environmental benefits
In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF
State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits,
contributing to the overall health and well-being of Americans.
The National Park Service (NPS) recognizes this through its Healthy
Parks Healthy People U.S. initiative, which aims to increase public
recognition of parks and public lands (including State, local, and
regional park and trail systems) as places for the promotion of
physical, mental, and social health. The CDC reports that childhood
obesity has tripled in the last 30 years, less than 25 percent of
adults engage in recommended levels of physical activity, and that
obesity is a leading cause of chronic disease. As noted by the CDC,
increased access to parks, green space, and recreation opportunities is
essential to becoming a healthier Nation and reducing unsustainable
healthcare costs.
The LWCF State Assistance Program also significantly contributes to
protecting the environment and promoting environmental stewardship.
LWCF State Assistance projects have a historical record of contributing
to reduced and delayed stormwater runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater
recharge, stormwater pollutant reductions, reduced sewer overflow
events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island mitigation
and reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality,
increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local
level.
revitalizing urban parks and recreation through funding of uparr
While the LWCF has indeed benefited virtually every community in
the country, many of our Nation's cities and urbanized counties face
distinct challenges that require additional resources. Recognizing this
fact as well as the importance of public parks and recreation to larger
urban renewal and community development efforts, Congress established
the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) to provide
matching grants directly to localities in metropolitan areas. Over the
course of more than two decades UPARR provided $272 million for nearly
1,500 projects in 380 communities. This enabled neighborhoods across
the country to restore both outdoor and indoor recreation facilities;
support innovative recreational programming and enhance delivery of
services and programs that provided constructive alternatives to at-
risk youth.
Despite its successes, UPARR has not been funded since fiscal year
2002, yet many of the urban open space and recreation challenges still
exist today. NRPA is very pleased to see UPARR in the President's
fiscal year 2015 budget and calls on Congress to update and fund this
needed program to enable metropolitan areas to address quality of life,
health and wellness, and conservation issues as they improve their
communities and make them more attractive for families and businesses
alike. Both LWCF State Assistance and UPARR are critical to providing
Americans close to home recreation opportunities. The programs
complement each other and NRPA implores Congress to fund UPARR from
total LWCF appropriations but not at the expense of the already
underfunded State Assistance Program.
maintaining the pilot ``competitive grant'' program to the state
assistance program
The final fiscal year 2014 Interior Appropriations package included
an ``additional'' $3 million of funding for a pilot ``Competitive Grant
Program'' managed under the State Assistance Program. NRPA is pleased
that NPS has sought our input as part of their efforts to craft this
pilot initiative and is very optimistic that the first year of the
program will prove a successful means of highlighting the innovative
projects and partnerships the State Assistance Program provides across
America. We support the continuation of this pilot initiative, provided
the funds allocated are not done at the expense of the existing core
formula grants distributed to the States for public recreation.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, few programs can address
so many national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State Assistance
Program and UPARR do, with so few dollars and without negatively
impacting the Federal budget. This subcommittee and Congress have the
rare opportunity to achieve national goals without increasing spending
or adding to the deficit, and can do so by adopting three simple
recommendations: Allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF funding to
the State Assistance Program; continue the innovative ``Competitive
Grant'' pilot program established in 2014, and address the need for
improved infrastructure in urban areas by allocating a portion of the
total LWCF funding to UPARR.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA's recommendations
and your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic Preservation's
recommendations for fiscal year 2015 appropriations. My name is Thomas
J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the vice president for government relations
and policy. The National Trust is a privately-funded nonprofit
organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to save America's
historic places to enrich our future. With headquarters in Washington,
DC, 13 field offices, 27 historic sites, 746,000 members and supporters
and partner organizations in 50 States, territories, and the District
of Columbia, the National Trust works to save America's historic places
and advocates for historic preservation as a fundamental value in
programs and policies at all levels of government.
The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National
Trust recognizes there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-
effective Federal investments. However, we do not believe that
preservation, conservation and recreation programs should suffer from
disproportionate funding reductions. We look forward to working with
you, Mr. Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments to
sustain our Nation's rich heritage of cultural and historic resources
that generate lasting economic vitality for communities throughout the
Nation.
historic preservation fund
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of
funding to implement the Nation's historic preservation programs. Like
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, its dedicated revenues are
generated from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched
by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices (THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for
preservation activities such as survey, nomination of properties to the
National Register of Historic Places, public education, and project
review for undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act
and for the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC
is the most significant Federal investment in historic preservation. It
has catalyzed the rehabilitation of more than 39,600 buildings
throughout the Nation. Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the
HTC has created 2.4 million jobs and leveraged nearly $109 billion in
private investment.
The National Trust recommends at least $50 million for the SHPOs
and at least $11 million for the THPOs. Such a modest increase in
funding would recognize the continuing demand upon these agencies for
preservation services, and addresses an increase in participation among
THPOs from 131 tribes in fiscal year 2012 to potentially 156 tribes in
fiscal year 2015.
We thank the subcommittee for including $500,000 in the fiscal year
2014 Omnibus bill to launch an important new program of competitive
grants for the survey and nomination of properties associated with
communities currently underrepresented in the National Register of
Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks. Recent studies have
documented that less than 8 percent of such listings identify
culturally diverse properties. We urge the subcommittee to provide up
to $5 million to expand this important new program that promises to
identify and protect the places that tell the stories of all Americans.
We also want to call attention to the importance of the
administration's request for $6 million to provide grants to SHPOs and
THPOs to digitize legacy survey data into an online National Inventory.
This investment would improve access to historic property records and
help expedite Federal permitting of important infrastructure projects.
We encourage the subcommittee to support this program included in the
President's Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.
national park service: operation of the national park system, cultural
resources stewardship
The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for 401 units of the
National Park System ranging from the battlefields where our ancestors
fought and died to places that stir the soul like the Statue of Liberty
and Ellis Island, the gateway for millions of new Americans. Three-
quarters of our parks were created to protect our most important
historic and cultural resources. Over the past two decades, more than
35 new parks have been added to our system of national parks. Many of
these new parks preserve historic places and themes that are
underrepresented within the National Park System.
We support the President's budget proposal of $47 million above the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level for National Park Service Operations. Of
that increase, $30 million is for the Administration's Centennial
Initiative which includes $16 million for repair and rehabilitation
projects, $8 million for a new program to hire youth and veterans at
parks, $4 million to engage youth in service and conservation projects
and $2 million to support expanded volunteer opportunities at parks.
The increase would fund the staff, rangers and interpretation vital to
the public who visit and enjoy our ever-growing National Park System
including new units like Fort Monroe National Monument (VA), Harriet
Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument (MD) and Cesar E. Chavez
National Monument (CA).
Construction.--Of the nearly $12.311 billion in deferred
maintenance needed for the NPS, $4.5 billion is for the maintenance
backlog on 27,000 properties in National Park units listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. According to a report issued in
2008 by the National Academy of Public Administration, more than 40
percent of historic buildings and structures in our national parks are
in fair or poor condition. Without funding, the condition of these
properties will continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to
repair and preserve in the future. The National Park Service
Construction account has been significantly reduced over the last few
years. We support the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $138
million, a slight increase over fiscal year 2014. We also support the
President's request that this fund be used for the repair and
stabilization of important historic structures as opposed to new
construction.
We are also supportive of the President's proposed mandatory
appropriation of $200 million for the Second Century Infrastructure
Investment and $100 million for the Centennial Challenge. These
proposals would provide funds for the maintenance and rehabilitation of
significant cultural and historic resources within our national parks.
One promising new opportunity that will help the NPS and other
Federal agencies with historic preservation responsibilities address
the maintenance backlog of historic buildings is through a cooperative
agreement between NPS, the other Federal land agencies, and several
NGOs, including the Student Conservation Association and The Corps
Network. Through this agreement, college interns, trade school
students, and out of work youth and veterans would be trained in the
preservation skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks
and other Federal lands. While learning these hands-on skills,
participants will also perform cost-effective preservation work to
support historic resources.
engaging the next generation
The National Trust supports the administration's fiscal year 2015
request of $50.6 million for the Department's youth programs, a
significant increase of $13.6 million in programs over 2014 enacted
funding levels. Of these funds, $8 million is proposed to expand
opportunities for youth education and employment across NPS parks and
programs. As part of our commitment to advancing the goals of the 21st
Century Conservation Service Corps, and interest in helping the Federal
Government reduce the maintenance backlog of historic properties, the
National Trust recently launched the HOPE (Hands-On Preservation
Experience) Crew initiative where we will train youth in preservation
skills while helping protect historic sites within NPS units. The first
HOPE Crew project, in the Shenandoah National Park in collaboration
with concessionaire Delaware North Companies, is rehabilitating the
historic Skyland Stable in the Skyline Drive National Historic Landmark
District. The National Trust hopes to launch 100 HOPE Crew projects by
the NPS Centennial in 2016. Volunteer projects like this can reduce the
maintenance backlog while also providing job skills and education for
young people.
national park service: leasing historic structures in national parks
We appreciate the Committee's inclusion of report language in the
fiscal year 2014 Conference Report applaud the efforts of NPS and
private partners to successfully implement such leases and encouraging
the broader use of this authority to mitigate the maintenance backlog
of historic structures. Continued encouragement and oversight of the
Service's actions to implement policy changes that would facilitate
more leasing could catalyze even broader use of this important
authority and increase the amount of non-Federal funding to abate the
maintenance backlog.
national park service: national heritage areas
We recommend funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level or higher. The administration's repeated
proposals to reduce NHA funding, justified as ``encouraging self-
sufficiency,'' would severely impair the sustainability of the program
and the individual NHAs that Congress has established. National Park
Service Director Jon Jarvis has described National Heritage Areas as
``places where small investments pay huge dividends.'' We agree.
During these challenging economic times, every program that
receives Federal funding needs to justify its worth and deliver
substantial benefits to the American public. NHAs more than meet this
test. A recent report documents that since the program was created in
1984, the economic activity generated through NHAs supports
approximately 148,000 jobs and $1.2 billion annually in Federal taxes.
The economic benefits of NHA's are realized through tourism and
visitation, operational expenditures, and issuing grants and support.
NHAs on average leverage every Federal dollar into $5.50 of additional
public and private investment.
bureau of land management: national landscape conservation system
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 27 million
acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands, including
National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness
Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic
Rivers.
As the Nation's newest system of protected lands, the National
Conservation Lands encompass some of our country's most significant
historic and cultural resources, yet the BLM's ability to steward these
resources is undermined by insufficient funding. The National
Conservation Lands are just one-tenth of BLM managed lands but they
host one-third of all BLM's visitors. Without sufficient funding, the
BLM struggles to complete essential resource protection, such as
signing trails, inventorying and protecting cultural sites from looting
and vandalism.
We support the administration's fiscal year 2015 request of $66.534
million, a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2014 enacted, in order
to prevent critical damage to the resources found in these areas,
ensure proper management and provide for a quality visitor experience.
This funding level would enable BLM to hire essential management and
law enforcement staff, monitor and protect natural and cultural
resources, close unauthorized routes that damage fragile cultural sites
and undertake needed ecosystem and species restoration projects.
bureau of land management: cultural resources management
The BLM oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically
important collection of historic and cultural resources on our Nation's
public lands, including 10 million artifacts, 358,000 documented
cultural sites, 421 maintained historic structures and 87 properties
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The program
provides for the review of 13,000 land use proposals each year,
compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act and government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native governments. In the last decade, this program has lost 19
percent of its FTEs due to the stagnant budget, yet it is challenged
with even greater processing reviews for increased energy use,
transmission lines and public recreation. If the funding for this
program had kept pace with inflation since fiscal year 2003 it would
receive funding of $19.1 million instead of the fiscal year 2014
enacted $15.1 million. We support the administration's fiscal year 2015
request of $16 million, a modest increase of $.87 million over fiscal
year 2014 enacted levels of $15.1 million. The increase provides for
$.13 million for fixed costs and $.74 million to support efforts to
fulfill BLM's statutory requirements for the inventory and protection
of cultural resources. The increase would support 40 on-the-ground
surveys, site protection and stabilization projects, and regional
cultural resource inventory overviews that are necessary for planning
large scale infrastructure projects across broad landscapes
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
The National Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Many of the Nation's most significant historic and
cultural landscapes have been permanently protected through LWCF
investments, including Gettysburg National Military Park, Martin Luther
King Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National
Monument, and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Culturally
significant projects in the fiscal year 2015 request include Ala
Kahakai NHT (Hawaii), Rappahannock River NWR (Virginia), Agua Fria
National Monument (Arizona) and several other national trails project.
We strongly support the administration's request for Civil War land
acquisition projects and American Battlefield Protection Program
Grants.
advisory council on historic preservation
The National Trust supports the administration's funding request of
$6.204 million for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP). We suggest the subcommittee include report language
recommending the President appoint a full-time Chairman. Such a
recommendation was made by the ACHP membership at its November, 2011
meeting, as did a task force of historic preservation organizations,
including the National Trust. We believe a full-time Chairman would
enhance the effectiveness of the ACHP.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nation's
largest member-based conservation advocacy and education organization,
and our more than four million members and supporters, we thank you for
the opportunity to provide fiscal year 2015 funding recommendations for
the Department of the Interior and other agencies under the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
We understand the difficult budget choices facing Congress and the
Nation as we move forward under the constraints of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), and applaud Congress for replacing
part of sequestration in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014.
Disproportionate cuts to conservation programs are not consonant with
the priorities of most Americans. These programs protect cherished
lands and waters and conserve the natural resources that are vital to
our Nation's continued economic vitality. Recent studies estimate that
outdoor recreation and conservation account for $1.06 trillion in
overall economic activity and support 9.4 million jobs each year.
Outdoor recreation alone generates more than $49 billion in annual
Federal tax revenue.
NWF is concerned about proposed funding reductions to many of the
Federal Government's programs that protect and conserve fish and
wildlife, sustaining and restoring important ecosystems, and
maintaining clean air and water. Perhaps of even greater concern are
efforts to rewrite the Nation's landmark environmental laws through the
use of policy riders on the appropriations bill. National Wildlife
Federation urges the subcommittee to make the necessary investments in
our essential conservation and environmental programs and commitments
in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill, and to pass a bill free of
such riders.
National Wildlife Federation is overall supportive of the
President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, which we view as balancing
fiscal responsibility with continued investments in essential
conservation and environmental programs. Following, we offer
recommendations for specific budget items and programs.
i. u.s. fish and wildlife service
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation's core
program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every
State. We are extremely concerned about the impact on the Nation's
wildlife of the nearly 30 percent cut this program has suffered in
recent years. We urge Congress to honor its commitment to this effort
by maintaining funding at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $58.695
million.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation
The Fish and Wildlife Service's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
represent an important tool for leveraging Federal, State, and private
resources to achieve effective conservation outcomes and safeguard fish
and wildlife resources from climate change. We urge Congress to address
the real threats of climate change to fish and wildlife and support the
President's request of $17.7 million for this program.
National Wildlife Refuge System
The National Wildlife Refuge System is home to thousands of species
of wildlife. With over 560 refuges, this system provides outdoor
recreational and tourism opportunities for the 46.5 million Americans
who visit refuges annually. And for every $1 invested by Congress,
refuges generate over $4 in economic benefits to local communities.
NWF, along with the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
endorses the President's fiscal year 2015 funding request of $476.4
million for Operations and Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
ii. u.s. geological survey
Climate and Land Use Change
The USGS Climate and Land Use Change program provides research that
allows other land management agencies to make science-based decisions
important to resiliency and adaptation regarding climate change. We
support the President's requested funding level of $149.1 million for
Climate and Land Use, and of $35.5 million for the DOI Climate Science
Centers.
Ecosystems
The USGS Ecosystems program provides research that allows other
land management agencies to make science-based decisions important to
the conservation of our Nation's wildlife and the habitats they depend
upon. We support the President's budget request of $162 million for
this program.
iii. bureau of indian affairs
Trust Natural Resources Program
The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the
largest amount of Federal funding for tribal natural resource
management. Over the last 12 fiscal years, funding for BIA has
unacceptably lagged behind funding for other Interior agencies. Funding
these programs should be a top priority of Congress for fiscal year
2015. In addition, we fully support the fiscal year 2014 enacted level
of $184.295 million for TNR. We are particularly supportive of the
$9.948 million requested funding for tribal participation in the
Cooperative Landscape Conservation program to support tribal engagement
in climate adaptation.
iv. bureau of land management
National Landscape Conservation System
The National Landscape Conservation System comprises some 27
million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands
and waters, including National Monuments, National Conservation Areas,
Wilderness, National Scenic and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic
Rivers. These lands are some of the best places to experience the rich
history and scenic beauty of the American West. We ask Congress to
support the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $66.5 million for
the National Conservation Lands in order to prevent critical damage to
the resources found in these areas, ensure proper management, and
provide for a quality visitor experience.
Master Leasing Plan
The Master Leasing Plan concept is a cornerstone of onshore oil and
gas program reforms announced by the Department of the Interior in 2010
and represent a positive step in restoring recognition of the fish and
wildlife values on public lands. National Wildlife Federation, as part
of the Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development coalition, strongly
supports the administration's requested increase of $4.6 million to
strengthen the oil and gas leasing program within the Oil and Gas
Management budget, $1 million of which enables the agency to perform
regional planning for leasing and development through the Master
Leasing Plan concept.
v. powering our future initiative
The Powering our Future initiative provides resources for six
bureaus across DOI for renewable energy planning, leasing, and
permitting activities. The initiative presents an opportunity for the
Nation to facilitate large-scale clean energy projects without
compromising crucial wildlife interests and investments. It facilitates
efficient permitting, identification and review of wind energy areas,
and efforts to evaluate and protect the sage grouse, lesser prairie
chickens, whooping cranes, golden eagles, and Indiana bats. NWF
strongly supports the President's request of $94.8 million for fiscal
year 2015, an increase of $3 million from fiscal year 2014 enacted. In
addition, NWF supports legislative proposals, such as the Public Lands
Renewable Energy Development Act, that would both incentivize and add
certainty for renewable energy on public lands while paying back the
land by providing resources for fish, wildlife, recreational
opportunities, local communities, and States.
vi. u.s. forest service
Forest Fire Disaster Funding
In recent years, the U.S. Forest Service has been forced to
dedicate a significant amount of funds in order to pay for wildfire
suppression. NWF supports the President's efforts to address this
problem by including wildfire emergency funding processes in his fiscal
year 2015 budget that are similar to those of other natural disasters.
Currently, Federal land management agencies must shift money away from
vital agency programs in order to fund wildfire suppression costs. This
practice negatively impacts land management programs including those
that decrease long-term wildfire risk and costs and the associated loss
to wildlife, habitat and recreation. We support legislative efforts to
rectify this practice.
Urban and Community Forestry Program
The Urban and Community Forestry program improves the forests where
people live, work, and play. With urban tree canopies in decline, the
program is critical to support carbon sequestration, energy
conservation, storm water management, and air quality, while also
providing cooling benefits in urban areas. We support maintaining the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $28.04 million.
Forest Service Research and Development
The President's requested Research and Development budget for
fiscal year 2015 is $18 million lower than the fiscal year 2014 enacted
level. A reduction of this magnitude would thwart the Forest Service's
ability to effectively work on wildlife conservation and habitat risk
assessment. We support maintaining the fiscal year 2014 enacted level
of $293 million.
vii. land and water conservation fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a tool for the
Federal Government to acquire both State and Federal land that is
important to maintaining wildlife habitat as well as open space.
National Wildlife Federation strongly endorses the President's fiscal
year 2015 budget request of full funding for LWCF at $900 million, with
$550 million in mandatory funding and $350 million in discretionary
funding. We support all efforts to ensure LWCF is funded at its maximum
authorized level, including legislative efforts to provide robust and
dedicated funding outside of the budget process. Likewise, NWF supports
the President's request that $15 million goes to improving access to
public lands for sportsmen and outdoor recreationists
ix. environmental protection agency
Geographic Programs--Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives
America's Great Waters are the lifeblood of our Nation. Sustained,
consistent restoration funding is crucial for the successful
implementation of multi-year ecosystem restoration plans. As such, we
strongly support the President's requested increase in funding for the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office ($73.1 million requested, an increase of
$3 million from fiscal year 2014 enacted) and urge the subcommittee to
maintain funding for other regional efforts, including but not limited
to the Long Island Sound Program and Puget Sound Programs. We are
concerned about the significant proposed funding decrease for the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, and support maintaining the fiscal year
2014 enacted level of $300 million.
EPA National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program (NEP) works to restore and protect
nationally significant estuaries. The program focuses not just on
improving water quality, but on maintaining the integrity of the whole
system--its chemical, physical, and biological properties, as well as
its economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. NWF is glad to see
funding maintained for this program, and supports the President's
fiscal year 2015 request for $26.7 million.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Since the 1970's, CWSRF projects have helped improve the quality of
wastewater treatment in communities throughout the country. Yet the job
is far from complete and the Nation faces trillions of dollars in
funding needs to repair aging wastewater treatment systems and keep our
rivers and streams pollution free. While we greatly appreciate the
EPA's dedication to increasing green infrastructure options, we believe
now, particularly when America's infrastructure is rated at D+ by the
American Society of Civil Engineers, is not the time to cut resources
from communities. NWF strongly opposes the $430.9 million proposed cut
to this program, and urges funding at the fiscal year 2014 level of
$1.44887 billion.
Clean Water Act 319 Nonpoint Pollution Reduction Program
When Congress recognized the need for greater Federal leadership in
assisting with nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts, The Clean
Water Act was amended to establish Section 319. Continued funding for
the Nonpoint Source Management Program will provide State and local
nonpoint source remediation efforts with the funds that are crucial to
the implementation of these projects. As such we recommend that the
subcommittee increase program funding from the $164.9 million requested
by the President to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $159.2
million.
Climate & Air Pollution Reduction Programs
NWF supports EPA's priority goal of improving the country's air
quality and taking action on climate change. We support the requested
$234.7 million for addressing climate change, an increase of $45.2
million over fiscal year enacted, allowing the Agency to support a full
range of approaches for reducing carbon pollution and the risks posed
to human health and the environment from climate change.
National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) Programs
EPA's Office of Environmental Education implements highly
successful, nationwide environmental education programs. We are
grateful for the subcommittee's support of environmental education in
previous years and urge you to sustain funding for the National
Environmental Education Act (NEEA) programs at the Environmental
Protection Agency at the recent level of $9.7M.
x. everglades
America's Everglades are one of the most unique ecosystems in the
world. Protection of the remaining ecosystem and restoration of
ecological function are critical for water supply, wildlife, water
quality, recreation, tourism, and the economy of South Florida. A
recent study indicates each dollar invested in restoring the Everglades
will result in a four dollar return. Beginning in the 1980s, Congress
made a commitment to restoring the Everglades by enacting the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This subcommittee has made
substantial progress in furthering that promise in recent years--
funding construction of a 1-mile bridge along the Tamiami Trail and
authorizing the next phase of bridging. We urge Congress to continue
this investment and strongly support the President's budget request for
$62.4 million for the Everglades Comprehensive Environmental
Restoration Plan.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee: On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
(NWRA) and its membership of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) professionals, Refuge Friends organizations and concerned
citizens, thank you for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for fiscal year
2014. NWRA appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal
year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully requests the
following:
--$476.4 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine
Monuments;
--$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with
$178.3 million allocated for the FWS, including $1 million for
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR) (Maryland); $1
million for John Chafee NWR (Rhode Island); $10 million for
Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); $6.5
million for Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
(NFWR) (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts); $5
million for Cache River NWR (Arizona); $3 million for Flint
Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas); and $2 million for
Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah).
--$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$13 million for the FWS Coastal Program;
--$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction
(under the Department of the Interior (DOI));
--$20 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund;
--$16 million for the FWS construction account;
--$58.7 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$35 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$4 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$9.1 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and
$13.5 million for Wildlife Without Borders;
--$7.022 million for the FWS account in the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).
We understand our Nation's challenging fiscal climate, but cutting
funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators in local
communities would only exacerbate the already difficult situation. For
example, the NWRS averages almost $5 in economic return for every $1
appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns
nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. But budgets have not kept
pace with rising costs, and the gap between the funding needed to
maintain these programs and the funding appropriated has widened
dramatically. To begin bridging that gap, NWRA urges Congress to fund
these critical programs that leverage Federal dollars and serve as
economic drivers.
national wildlife refuge system--operations & maintenance
NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE),
a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific
organizations representing more than 16 million Americans that supports
increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs
at least $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres, yet it
is currently funded at roughly half that amount--at only $3.15 per
acre. The Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American
public, our wildlife, and 46.5 million annual visitors without
increases in maintenance and operation funds.
Budget cuts over the past 4 years have had a dramatic impact on the
Refuge System, resulting in significant declines in habitat
preservation and management, hunting, fishing, volunteerism and
scientific research. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, the
Refuge System faced widespread declines in measured performance: the
acres of forest and shrubland improved declined by 51 percent; wetland
acres restored declined by 77 percent; and riparian miles restored
declined by 19 percent. Meanwhile, the control of invasive animal
populations decreased by 46 percent and acres treated for invasive
plants decreased by 37 percent resulting in a 60 percent drop in
acreage where invasive plant control was achieved. At the Wichita
Mountains NWR in Oklahoma, two biotech positions remain vacant,
including a seasonal position to fight invasive species, compromising
years of gains made against invasive species on refuge grasslands and
leaving private lands vulnerable to the spread of invasives.
NWRA believes it is very important for the FWS to partner with
State agencies, through the State Wildlife Grant Program, and with
private landowners to keep wildlife from becoming endangered. However,
funding cuts threaten that very work. For instance, at the Imperial NWR
in Arizona, grant funding opportunities are being bypassed due to lack
of staff to develop proposals and oversee projects. The wildlife
biologist vacancy at Imperial and vacancies at other refuges along the
Colorado River prevented the refuge from applying for a Cooperative
Recovery grant to restore 830 acres of marsh habitat, primarily for the
endangered Yuma clapper rail. The refuges were unable to commit to the
planning, execution, monitoring, and reporting requirements of this
grant.
Along the Texas coast, the Aransas NWR is home to the highly
endangered whooping crane, yet every aspect of the refuge's work is
impacted by budget cuts. Prescribed burning--a vital management tool to
provide food for the cranes and treat invasive species--is down by 65
percent this year. Unable to maintain facilities to ensure public
safety and accessibility, the refuge has also curtailed visitor access,
closing 12 of the 17 public facilities, including a fishing pier,
boardwalks and photo blinds. And to top it off, the loss of visitor
services staff has resulted in a decrease in volunteer support: last
year volunteers donated 24,000 hours and occupied eight RV sites on the
refuge but now only two RV sites are occupied.
During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System's
potential to drive local economies and create jobs is of paramount
importance. Banking On Nature, a report issued by the FWS in October
2013, shows that even during the worst recession since the Great
Depression, the overall return on investment increased substantially
for the Refuge System. From 2006-2011 the Refuge System saw sales and
economic output increase 20 percent to $2.4 billion, visitation
increase 30 percent to 46.5 million, average return on investment
increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every $1 appropriated, and supported
jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000. At the Ridgefield NWR in
Washington, over $6 is returned to the local economy for every $1
appropriated and at the Wichita Mountains NWR in Oklahoma, the refuge
returns a whopping $44 for every $1 appropriated.
strategic growth
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool
for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary
funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by
Federal land agencies.
Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through
the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while
leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls.
Conservation easements are powerful tools that foster public-private
partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife,
habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale
initiatives using easements as a primary conservation tool have broad
community and State support in New England's Connecticut River
Watershed, the Flint Hills of Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters,
Montana's Crown of the Continent, and the Dakota Grasslands. These
iconic landscapes remain privately managed, generating tax income for
local communities, securing our Nation's food, and balancing resource
use and resource protection for wildlife.
In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve
intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible
for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including
many species that require very specific habitat conditions, such as
nesting grounds for sea turtle and isolated springs for endemic desert
fish. Others require multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By
acquiring critical habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the
Refuge System enhances the overall integrity of the system and
strengthens our network of habitat to give wildlife space and time to
respond to changes, whether from climate or changing land use patterns.
The Refuge Association calls on Congress to fund LWCF at $900
million per year, with $178.3 million provided in fiscal year 2015 to
the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including
the following projects and those advocated by refuge Friends:
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$1 million;
--John H. Chafee NWR (Rhode Island)--$1 million;
--Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)--$10
million;
--Cache River NWR (Arizona)--$5 million;
--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut)--$6.5 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$3 million;
--Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)--$2
million.
partnerships
With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon
private lands for their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program (Partners Program) is one of the most powerful tools for
protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships
between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America's
expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented
nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over
one million acres of wetlands, three million acres of uplands, and
11,000 miles of streams. The program has been instrumental in the
success of such iconic landscape conservation projects as the Rocky
Mountain Front and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint Hills
in Kansas, and is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse
habitat in the intermountain west.
The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
conservation, generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1
appropriated for projects. The Refuge Association and the landowner-led
Partners for Conservation request $75 million for fiscal year 2015.
Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 million worth
of conservation across the Nation.
commitment to refuge communities--refuge revenue sharing
The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber
harvests to make payments to local communities to offset property tax
revenue lost when the federally-acquired lands are removed from local
tax rolls, and relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge
Revenue Sharing program to compensate for the shortfall between
revenues and tax replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining
revenues and lack of appropriations have resulted in the Service paying
less than 50 percent of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The
negative impact on local communities is felt even more starkly in
difficult economic times and severely strains relations between the
Federal units and their local community, threatening the goodwill and
partnerships that are keystones of successful conservation. NWRA
requests $20 million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program, which, in
recognition of the President's proposal to zero out funding, is still
less than half of what is needed. NWRA also calls for a review of the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration of
conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be
consistent with other Federal land management agencies and to provide
Refuge communities with more equitable payments.
leveraging american volunteerism
Refuges are vital places for the American people to actively
connect with nature. Refuge volunteers contributed their time and
expertise, totaling 1.4 million hours last year--the equivalent of 702
full time staff--a 20 percent boost to the Refuge System workforce of
3,400 employees. But this level of volunteer service is only possible
when the System is adequately staffed to provide the necessary
volunteer training and oversight, and smaller budgets mean cuts to
volunteer opportunities. From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the
System experienced an 8.7 percent reduction in the number of
volunteers, at a time when the System needs their help the most to
greet visitors, staff refuge nature stores, maintain Refuge grounds,
provide interpretation and much more.
NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge System can meet its
responsibilities to the American people with collaboration and
sufficient funding and we urge Congress to help the FWS meet these
obligations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Native Hawaiian Education Council
Aloha Chairman Reed and members of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Interior and Environment subcommittee, Mahalo, thank
you, for allowing us an opportunity to submit this request for
appropriations.
We are seeking continued funding at pre-sequestration levels for
the Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP) that targets the Native
Hawaiian student population. The NHEP is an important part of
fulfilling the trust relationship between the United States and Native
Hawaiians, and it helps to improve the educational status of Native
Hawaiians. It is an important element in the Native community's effort
to control its education programs and policies and to achieve
educational parity. NHEP aims to close the education achievement gap
between Native Hawaiians and the general population, and also functions
to fulfill the trust relationship between the United States and Native
Hawaiians, the indigenous people of a once sovereign nation. During the
time of their own sovereignty in the kingdom of Hawai`i, Native
Hawaiians had a higher rate of literacy than citizens of the United
States. The educational achievement gap has occurred during the
intervening years since the loss of Native Hawaiian sovereignty, so
that today Native Hawaiians are among the most disadvantaged groups in
the State.
the nhep works
NHEP has been effective over the years in meeting the goals of the
program. For example, NHEA has been instrumental in preserving and
protecting the Native Hawaiian language through funding projects that
are designed to address the use of the Native Hawaiian language in
instruction, one of the priorities named in the NHEA. The number of
speakers nearly doubled in 18 years from 8,872 speakers in 1990 to
16,864 in 2008. (Source: Office of Hawaiian Affairs Data Book 2011
Tables 4.19 and 4.44)
The NHEP has funded programs that incorporate culture and
indigenous teaching practices in the classroom that lead to better
outcomes for Native Hawaiian students. An example is the improvement in
the graduation rates for Native Hawaiians and math and reading scores.
Graduation rates for Native Hawaiians between 2002 and 2010 rose from
70 percent to 72.2 percent. (Sources: Kamehameha Schools' Native
Hawaiian Education Assessment Update 2009, Fig. 9 and Hawaii Department
of Education (HI DOE) 2005-06 to 2009-10)
Similarly, math and reading scores have risen for Native Hawaiians.
The percent of Native Hawaiians scoring ``Proficient or Above'' from
2007 to 2012 rose from 27 percent to 49 percent in math and from 41
percent to 62 percent in reading. (Source: HI DOE Longitudinal Data
System)
School attendance rates in schools with student populations that
are over 50 percent Native Hawaiian have increased from 90.1 percent in
the 2000-01 school year to 91.3 percent in the 2011-12 school year.
(Source: Kamehameha Schools' draft Ka Huaka`i update, p. 58)
the need still exists
In spite of the gains that Native Hawaiians have made
educationally, the need for innovative programs to assist Native
Hawaiians to improve their academic performance still exists, since
Native Hawaiians have not yet attained parity with the rest of the
students in the State.
Timely high school graduation rates for students in the State rose
from 77 percent to 79.6 percent in the same time period that it rose
from 70 percent to 72.2 percent for Native Hawaiians. (Sources:
Kamehameha Schools' Native Hawaiian Education Assessment Update 2009,
Fig. 9 and HI DOE 2005-06 to 2009-10)
Native Hawaiians still lag behind the rest of the State in academic
performance; however the gap between the Native Hawaiians and others is
decreasing. From 2007 to 2012 the increase in the percentage of Native
Hawaiians scoring ``Proficient or Above'' in math rose 22 percentage
points, while the increase for the State during the same time period
was 21 percentage points. The increase for Native Hawaiians in reading
was even more dramatic during that time period, increasing 21
percentage points compared to the State increase of only 11 percentage
points. Unfortunately those gains were not enough to bring Native
Hawaiians to parity. In 2012 Native Hawaiians were still 10 points
behind the State in the percentage scoring ``Proficient or Above'' in
math and 9 points behind in the percentage scoring ``Proficient or
Above'' in reading.
PERCENT SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 2012 Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Math:
Native Hawaiians........... 27% 49% 22
State totals............... 38% 59% 21
----------------------------------------
Difference............... -11 -10
Reading:
Native Hawaiians........... 41% 62% 21
State totals............... 60% 71% 11
----------------------------------------
Difference............... -19 -9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Hawaii DOE Longitudinal Data System.
In the area of Native Hawaiian language immersion, although the
gains have been tremendous, the nearly 17,000 speakers in 2008 only
represent 6 percent of the approximately 290,000 Native Hawaiians in
Hawai`i (2010 U.S. Census).
appropriations request
The pre-sequestration appropriations level for the NHEP was $34
million. Sequestration reduced the amount by $2 million to $32 million,
which is the amount entered into the President's budget. For such a
small program as the NHEP, the $2 million reduction makes a significant
negative impact on the program. We would like to continue to make gains
in the educational achievement of Native Hawaiians, and request the
pre-sequestration level of $34 million so that we don't lose the
momentum of improvement.
NHEP funds programs to help improve the educational attainment of
Native Hawaiians in ways that are linguistically and culturally aligned
to the needs of our native students and communities in Hawai`i.
Improving education, particularly for the most depressed groups,
eventually leads to cost savings over time through decreased
incarceration, poor health, and public assistance. (Barnett, W. S., and
Ackerman, D. J. 2006. Costs, benefits, and the long-term effects of
early care and education programs: Cautions and recommendations for
community developers. Journal of the Community Development Society,
37(2), 86-100.) Academic achievement is also correlated with positive
economic outcomes. (Belfield, C. 2008, June. The economic investments
of early education in Hawaii. Issue Brief. Flushing, NY: Queen's
College, City University of New York.)
Please help us sustain the NHEP to its pre-sequestration level in
order to continue the educational gains that have taken this program
years to accomplish.
______
Prepared Statement of the Native Village of Barrow
The Native Village of Barrow makes the following recommendations
with regard to the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget:
--Fully fund Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs (CSC) at
$251 million as requested by the administration and place CSC
funding on a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, basis.
--Support the administration's request for a $5 million increase for
social services (total of $40.8 million) and for a $5 million
increase for the Indian Child Welfare Act (for a total of $15.4
million)--called the Tiwahe Initiative.
--Support increased funding for tribal courts.
--Support increased flexibility for the Housing Improvement Program
and oppose the administration's proposed funding cut.
--Increase the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) resources for
Information Technology for tribes.
About the Native Village of Barrow.--The Native Village of Barrow,
the longest standing local government in Barrow, is a federally
recognized tribe incorporated in 1940 under the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934 as amended for Alaska Natives in 1936 by the United States
Congress. We work to meet a variety of tribal members needs including
adult basic, secondary, and higher education; realty; wildlife;
housing; Indian reservation roads; social services and child
protection; environmental protection; and economic development. We
provide these services through a Self-Governance funding agreement with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various grants, and pull-tab gaming.
The Village of Barrow is situated within the North Slope Borough at
the northern most tip of Alaska, 340 miles north of the Arctic Circle
and only a few miles southwest of Point Barrow where the Beaufort and
Chuckchi Seas join. We have a polar climate, dry and cold, with
temperatures below freezing from early October through late May. The
sun stays below the horizon from November 18 or 19 through January 22
or 23, and on the winter solstice there is twilight for only 3 hours.
Contract Support Costs.--We thank Congress, and particularly the
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for your
leadership in making it clear to the BIA and the Indian Health Service
(IHS) that fully funding contract support costs (CSC) is a legal duty
and for providing what we estimate is full funding for fiscal year
2014. Congress has asked tribes and tribal organizations, the BIA, IHS,
the Office of Management and Budget and the relevant congressional
committees to work together to come up with a long term solution to
meet the legal requirements for contract support costs and to also
streamline the CSC determination process. We join with others in Indian
Country in feeling that the next logical step is for Congress to put
CSC funding on a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, basis.
Social Services and Tribal Courts Funding.--The Native Village of
Barrow's court has jurisdiction over an array of child welfare and
juvenile wellness matters. Our social services office services to a
population of 3,400 with only a handful of staff. We support the
administration's request of an increase of $5 million in the BIA budget
for more social workers and for an additional $5 million for tribal
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) programs. Together the BIA has termed
this the Tiwahe (the Lakota work for family) Initiative. While these
funds do not represent direct funding for tribal courts, the work of
social workers and improved implementation of the ICWA would have
positive implications for the work of our and other tribal courts.
Of the children in Alaska, 17.3 percent are American Indian/Alaska
Native, but they constitute 51.1 percent of children in foster care in
the State (Summer A., Woods S., and Donovan, J (2013). Technical
assistance bulletin: disproportionality rates for children of color in
foster care. Reno, Nevada: National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges.) The Native Village of Barrow Social Services Department
has partnerships with a number of entities including Barrow Tribal
Court, Arctic Women in Crisis, and the State of Alaska, among others
and we need to continue building these collaborative efforts. We have
Memorandum of Understanding with the State regarding the Indian Child
Welfare Act.
For tribal courts specifically, the administration proposes level
funding in the BIA budget ($23.3 million). Given the impact of the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA)
and the recommendations of the TLOA Commission, a significant increase
over $23 million is certainly in order. In addition there may well be
an amendment enacted to the VAWA that will authorize extended domestic
violence jurisdiction to tribes in Alaska for which we will definitely
need additional resources.
Housing Improvement Program (HIP).--The administration proposes
only $8 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' HIP program, about
the same as the fiscal year 2014 enacted level but 36 percent below the
fiscal year 2013 pre-sequestration level of $12.5 million. The Native
Village of Barrow does not receive HIP funds, finding the requirements
for things including surveys prohibitively expensive when one compares
it to the small HIP grants. The BIA states in its fiscal year 2015
Budget Justification that they want to ``recommend a redesign of the
Program'' in 2014 and point especially to the inclusion in the program
of young families, of tribes expanding eligibility criteria, and re-
establishing a down payment assistance category (pp IA-HS-8-9). This is
quite ambitious for a program that the administration last year tried
to zero out, but we encourage that in redesigning the program that the
cost of compliance with eligibility criteria not outstrip the funding
it might provide.
Information Technology.--It is almost impossible to identify in the
BIA budget what is available for tribes in the area of information
technology, but it is something for which we need additional
assistance. Under Tribal Government Oversight $8.2 million is requested
which, among other things, provides technical assistance to nearly
3,200 self-determination contracts (pp. IA-TG-6-7). There is also
funding in the BIA budget request for $546,000 for Interior Department
Information Technology Transformation through the Department's Working
Capital Fund ((IA-ES-13), but we are not aware that these are funds
that directly assist tribes. We ask that the Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee inquire the sources and amounts of funds for information
technology assistance to tribes.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nature Conservancy
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
for fiscal year 2015 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an
international, non-profit conservation organization working around the
world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and
people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all
life depends.
As we enter the fiscal year 2015 budget cycle and another year of a
challenging fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to recognize
the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to thank
this subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2014 funding levels for
Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service conservation programs.
Our budget recommendations this year reflect a balanced approach with
funding levels consistent with the President's budget request or, in
rare instances such as wildland fire or funding for the States, reflect
specific program needs. Of particular note, we wish to work with this
subcommittee and the authorizing committees on identifying permanent
funding solutions for wildfire funding, the Land and Water Conservation
Fund and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. The Conservancy is
concerned about the increasing impacts of wildfire suppression funding
on Interior funding levels and urge the subcommittee to adopt the
bipartisan and widely supported Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875;
H.R. 3992). This process of funding suppression for the Department of
the Interior and the USDA Forest Service will create budgetary
stability and accountability while liberating critically needed
appropriations funds within the Interior allocation.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The fiscal year 2015
President's budget proposes the establishment of a dedicated source of
long-term funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the
proposal, the President's budget includes $350 million for LWCF
activities through ``current authority'' or discretionary
appropriations and then an additional $550 million in ``permanent
authority'' for LWCF funding. The budget then proposes to reach the
$900 million funding level in fiscal year 2015 through this blend of
current and permanent funding. The Conservancy supports this phased
shift to mandatory funding for the LWCF Program. However, consistent
with last year and as noted above, we believe the administration must
work closely with the relevant appropriations and authorizing
committees to move this proposal forward. Additionally, the Conservancy
supports the ongoing emphasis in the budget on both ``core'' projects
and ``collaborative'' LWCF projects. Projects in the Longleaf Pine
region will benefit greatly from this collaborative emphasis, along
with projects in the California Southwest Desert, Upper Rio Grande, the
High Divide and National Trails. Our ``core'' and ``collaborative''
priorities this year include the Nez Pearce National Historic Trail/
Henrys Lake ACEC (Idaho), Francis Marion National Forest (South
Carolina), Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire/Vermont/Connecticut/
Massachusetts), and the working ranches of Florida's Everglades
Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area, North Dakota and South Dakota's
Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area, Montana's Rocky Mountain Front
Conservation Area and Kansas's Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area.
Forest Legacy.--We support a minimum of $53 million for the Forest
Legacy Program in current discretionary funding and the $47 million in
permanent funding (with our aforementioned caveats) with a focus on 4
projects--Hall Mountain (Idaho), Carter Mountain (Tennessee), Clear
Creek Conservation Project (Montana) and Lake Alexander (Minnesota).
Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports a funding level of at
least $50 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund (CESCF), and also requests the subcommittee give consideration to
the additional fiscal year 2015 President's budget request of $50
million in permanent funding per our earlier request for negotiations
to occur between the administration and relevant congressional
committees on a path forward for this funding.
Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.--The Conservancy supports
the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request of $5.05 million for
USBR and $1.39 million for FWS for the Colorado River Basin recovery
programs, including endangered species funding for the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, recovery funds for the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, and fish hatchery needs
associated with the recovery plans.
Wildlife Planning.--The Conservancy supports the Western Governors'
Association's (WGA) request for the subcommittee to consider issuing a
recommendation to land management agencies within its jurisdiction to
utilize State fish and wildlife data and analyses to inform the land
use, land planning and related natural resource decisions of those
agencies. As an example of strong State-led data systems, WGA has
partnered in recent years with State wildlife agencies and the Federal
Government to develop statewide GIS mapping tools to identify crucial
wildlife habitat and migratory corridors. These geospatial mapping
tools, which provide access to credible, broad-scale scientific data--
compiled and analyzed by the States--are designed to reduce conflicts
and surprises while ensuring wildlife values are better incorporated
into land use planning, particularly for large-scale linear projects.
WGA launched its West-wide GIS mapping tool called CHAT (Crucial
Habitat Assessment Tool) in December 2013. CHAT is a non-regulatory
decision-support system that knits together State wildlife data and
analysis on a regional landscape level using a common framework. Our
Arizona TNC Chapter has been very integrated in the development and
enhancement of the Arizona data system (HabiMap)--a decision support
system--which is the basis for our work on mitigation, habitat
assessments and land planning in the State.
Invasive Species.--The Conservancy supports the President's fiscal
year 2015 Budget request of $138.9 million for the FWS' Fisheries and
Aquatic Resource Conservation program, including $4.4 million to
address the invasion of Asian carp in the Great Lakes and priority
watersheds, including the Missouri, Ohio and Upper Mississippi River.
State Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy requests the fiscal year
2014 funding level--$58.695 million--for this program. Strong Federal
investments are essential to ensure strategic actions are undertaken by
State and Federal agencies and the conservation community to conserve
wildlife populations and their habitats. We are concerned about the
impact of the fiscal year 2015 proposed cut on State fish and wildlife
agencies nationally and request these funds be restored to the fiscal
year 2014 level.
Wildlife Conservation Programs.--The variety of wildlife
conservation programs conducted by FWS continue a long and successful
tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the United States
and internationally. We urge the subcommittee to fund the President's
request for such established and successful programs as the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCA), Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund (NMBCA), and the FWS Coastal Program. We support the
President's request for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the FWS
Migratory Bird Management Program. For the latter, we are particularly
supportive of FWS' efforts at developing updated eagle permitting
regulations which will both support the development of renewable energy
in our country and contribute to sustainable and growing populations of
these iconic North American species. We support the President's fiscal
year 2015 request for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and
the requested increase in funding for Cooperative Landscape
Conservation ($17.7 million) and Adaptive Science ($15.1 m). The latter
will help support the Department of the Interior's (DOI) overall
commitment to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and will contribute
to collaborative problem solving for some of our Nation's most
challenging issues. We also request strong funding this year for the
National Fish Habitat Initiative.
International Programs.--The international conservation programs
appropriated annually within the Department of Interior are relatively
small but are effective and widely respected. They encompass the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service's (FWS) Multinational Species Conservation
Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional and global programs,
the U.S. National Park Service International Program, and the U.S.
Forest Service International Program (USFS-IP). We urge that these
programs receive in fiscal year 2015, at a minimum, level funding with
fiscal year 2014.
Climate Change.--The Conservancy appreciates the President's
commitment to respond to the global climate challenge, and this
subcommittee's sustained leadership in supporting cooperative, science-
based programs to respond to the global climate challenge and to help
ensure resilient land and seascapes.
National Wildlife Refuge System.--The Conservancy supports the
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition's request,
consistent with the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget, of $476.4
million for the Refuge System's Operations and Maintenance accounts.
Found in every U.S. State and territory, national wildlife refuges
conserve a diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and
economically vital ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands,
deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. This represents the funding
necessary to maintain management capabilities for the Refuge System.
USFS & DOI Wildland Fire Management.--The President's fiscal year
2015 budget proposes language similar to the Wildfire Disaster Funding
Act (WDFA--S. 1875; H.R. 3992) which would fund a portion of the USDA
Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire
suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The
enactment of WDFA would not only significantly reduce the need for the
USFS and DOI to transfer but also provide the subcommittee with added
flexibility to allocate funding for activities that reduce fire risk
and long-term suppression costs. The Conservancy supports adopting this
language and funding suppression in fiscal year 2015 accordingly. The
Conservancy appreciates Congress' emphasis on proactive hazardous fuels
reduction and community preparedness along with a commitment to safe
and cost-effective wildfire response strategies. In light of this
approach and with the enactment of WDFA, the Conservancy recommends
investing in Hazardous Fuels at levels of $479 million and $178 million
for USFS and DOI, respectively, and repeating the subcommittee's fiscal
year 2012 instructions for allocating funds to priority landscapes in
both the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and wildland settings. We also
recommend the USFS State Fire Assistance program be funded at $86
million.
USFS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.--The Conservancy
recommends increasing funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program to $60 million for the existing 23 and new
projects. This important program works to restore large forest
landscapes, provide jobs that sustain rural economies, reduce the risk
of damaging wildfire, improve wildlife habitat and decommission unused,
damaging roads. The Conservancy also recommends supporting the
Landscape Scale Restoration proposal funded at $24 million.
Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR).--The Conservancy appreciates
the subcommittee support of the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot
and continue to follow its implementation with the outcome expectation
of increased restoration. The Conservancy believes it is premature to
nationalize the IRR pilot, but supports continuation of the pilot for a
fourth year.
USFS Forest Health & Research.--The Forest Health program is a
critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate
dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. Further,
this program leads Federal efforts to counter forest pests which have
become widespread, including gypsy moth, hemlock woolly adelgid, white
pine blister rust, thousand cankers disease, oak wilt, and many others.
The Conservancy recommends funding the Federal and cooperative Forest
Health programs at a combined level of $111 million. The Forest and
Rangeland Research program provides the scientific basis for policies
that improve the health and quality of urban and rural communities, by
providing protection from fire, detecting and managing forest pests and
the pathways, improving water and air quality, among many other
benefits. For Forest & Rangeland Research, the Conservancy requests the
fiscal year 2012 level of $304 million.
Sage Grouse Conservation.--The Conservancy supports the President's
fiscal year 2015 budget request of $15 million for the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) focus on sage grouse conservation. Greater sage-
grouse populations have experienced a precipitous decline across the
West in recent years due to a number of impacts and a well-aligned
comprehensive effort is needed across public and private lands to
reverse its decline.
BLM Landscape Approaches to Land Management and Renewable Energy
Development.--The Conservancy supports the administration's recommended
fiscal year 2015 funding for BLM's initiatives to implement landscape
approaches to land management which include Rapid Ecoregional
Assessments, Resource Management Planning and the Planning 2.0
initiative, Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination with LCCs, and
the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy. Many BLM
programs contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including:
National Landscape Conservation System--($34 million request, $2.1
million increase over fiscal year 2014); Resource Management Planning
program ($42 million request, $5 million increase over fiscal year
2014); Wildlife and Fisheries management (65.2 million request); and
Threatened & Endangered species management ($21.6 million request).
Additionally, the Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM's
renewable energy development program at $29.1 million which includes
implementation of the Western Solar Energy Program. Collectively, these
efforts will help BLM manage its lands efficiently and effectively for
energy development, species and habitat conservation, recreation, and
other uses to maximize the public benefit from these lands.
Environmental Protection Agency.--EPA's ``geographic'' programs
including the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound
and Mississippi River programs make a significant contribution to
protecting habitat and water quality in the large landscapes where they
work. The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to continue funding for
these programs at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level at a minimum.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Nation
April 1, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Stanley M. Pollack, Assistant Attorney General,
Water Rights Unit, Navajo Nation Department of Justice.
______
Prepared Statement of the New England Forest Policy Group
Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we are
grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of the
New England Forest Policy Group and the 85 conservation, forestry, and
recreation interests listed below.
We respectfully request an increase in overall funding for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund to the Authorized level of $900 million,
including $100 million for the Forest Legacy Program, $574.883 million
for the Federal LWCF, $100.117 million for the State Grants Program,
and $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Fund in the fiscal
year 2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. We also
respectfully request a minimum of $5 million for the Community Forest
and Open Space Conservation Program, $34.145 million for the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act, $58.7 million for the State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants Program, $10 million for the Recreational Trails
Conservation Assistance Program, $31 million for Urban & Community
Forestry, $48 million for the Cooperative Forest Health Program, $29
million for Forest Stewardship, and $15 million for Woody Biomass
Utilization Grants.
These levels are based upon the administration's proposed fiscal
year 2015 budget or level funding from fiscal year 2014, whichever
amount is larger. In a few select cases they reflect the priority needs
of New England to grow an underfunded program--most notably the
Community Forest Program--to a level that will begin supporting the
demonstrated need. The suite of conservation and forestry programs in
this testimony has proven to provide great benefits to the communities
of New England that depend upon our region's forests and to the Nation
as a whole. Anything less than the requested funding will impact the
effectiveness of the programs, particularly given that many of these
programs have already experienced notable funding declines over the
past 5 years.
The New England Forest Policy Group is an informal collaborative of
diverse forestry, recreation, and conservation organizations and
businesses united by our efforts to conserve and utilize the forested
landscapes that characterize our region. New England's forests are the
backbone of our forest products and recreation economies, and provide
other services of incalculable value including water and biodiversity
protection, climate mitigation, and flood resilience. As the most
forested region in the country, New England's economy is strongly
dependent on the health and integrity of its forests. Communities
across the region depend on our wooded landscapes for their health and
well being, as do the 60 million people within a days drive. New
England's forests are 85 percent privately owned, mostly in relatively
small parcels, and landowners are facing profound challenges from
rising land prices, escalating development pressures, and other threats
that have the potential to significantly diminish this irreplaceable
landscape.
We strongly believe that programs vital to our region's future must
be sustained, including forest conservation and stewardship,
recreational planning, and utilization of our forests in new and
innovative ways. New England has compelling need for the programs in
front of your subcommittee.
As the subcommittee crafts its Interior & Related Agencies
Appropriations bill, there are several key points we respectfully
request you to consider:
1. Overall Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
at $900 million.--Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical
for the conservation of the natural legacy of New England and the
country. All six New England States will receive funding for critically
important LWCF projects if the requested level of $900 million is
provided in fiscal year 2015. If this amount is not supported, many
opportunities will be lost.
2. New England Needs for Federal Land Acquisition under LWCF.--In
fiscal year 2015, less than half of New England's proposed projects are
found in the highest priority ``Discretionary'' sections, which means
that more than half of New England's fiscal year 2015 LWCF projects are
not likely to receive funding unless close to full funding is
appropriated.
a. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--Collaborative
Landscape Planning for National Trails at $25 million total
($11.2 million Discretionary & $13.8 million Mandatory),
including $3.76 million for the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail in New Hampshire & Vermont and $0.25 million for the New
England National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts.--The proposed
fiscal year 2015 LWCF funds are necessary for conserving and
expanding two iconic trail corridors in New England--the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the New England National
Scenic Trail. New England's outdoor recreation economy is worth
approximately $43 billion/year and supports more than 330,000
jobs, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. In
addition, our region's trails provide healthy recreation for
the people who live here and necessary urban respite for more
than 60 million people overall.
b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWCF Acquisitions--The
Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge at $5 Million
($2 million Discretionary & $3 million Mandatory).--Securing
protection of these ecologically rich watersheds and habitat
corridors is a top regional priority. The Conte refuge
encompasses the Connecticut River watershed--a critical four-
State habitat corridor and a treasure trove of ecological
diversity, recreation, and economic opportunity.
c. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions--Acadia National
Park at $0.76 million (Mandatory).--This project will secure an
inholding that provides high priority access and protection to
the paddling gem, Round Pond, on the west side of Mount Desert
Island.
3. US Forest Service Programs of Special Importance to New
England--USFS Forest Legacy and USFS Community Forest Program.--These
two programs in the Interior Appropriations bill are particularly
important to New England given our region's high percentage of private
forestland ownership and the intense development pressures on these
lands.
a. USFS Forest Legacy needs full $100 million Appropriation
to meet New England's needs.--Forest Legacy has protected more
than 1 million acres of forestland in New England since its
establishment in the 1990 Farm Bill--a remarkable and vital
accomplishment. Originally created to help address needs in New
England and New York, this highly successful program has
expanded to 53 States and territories without expanding the
available funding. $100 million would provide a solid start
toward rebalancing available funds to the number of States now
in the program and the rising number of applications and
pressing conservation need.
New England has an outstanding group of Forest Legacy
Projects in the Proposed fiscal year 2015 budget, including 2
of the top 10 projects nationally and 4 of the top 20 projects
in the national rankings. However, the Program must receive the
full $100 million requested to ensure that all of New England's
projects are retained. New England's full fiscal year 2015
interests include:
--$4.56 million in ``Discretionary'' Forest Legacy funding for
Dowsville Headwaters in Vermont; Gulf Hagas Whitecap in
Maine; and partial funding for Whip-Poor-Will Woods in
Connecticut.
--$11.955 million in less secure ``Mandatory'' Forest Legacy
funding for Whip-Poor-Will Woods in Connecticut (project
funding is divided between Mandatory and Discretionary
lists); Groton Forest Legacy Initiative in Vermont; Big Six
Forest in Maine; Connecticut to Quabbin Reservoir in
Massachusetts; Windham Region Working Forest in Vermont;
and Oliverian Valley in New Hampshire.
b. USFS Community Forest Program needs a minimum of $5
million.--The Community Forest Program is a 50-50 matching
grant program to help local governments, tribes, and non-profit
organizations expand the region's proud tradition of locally
owned and managed lands, such as town forests. The program has
drawn strong interest nationally--in its first grant round in
fiscal year 2012, the program drew 49 applications from across
the country seeking $14.53 million. This was far beyond the
available funding of $3.5 million, which included funding
pooled from fiscal year 2010, 2011, and 2012 appropriations.
Funding the Community Forest Program at the $5 million level
will much better match demand. Although this program is
somewhat small on a national budgetary scale, it is critical to
New England's community character and economic vitality.
4. North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) needs
administration's full request of $34.145 million.--The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's premier wetland conservation program for habitat
protection and restoration, NAWCA, is vitally important for our region.
New England's remarkable marshes and coastal and estuarine habitats
support the region's commercial and sport fisheries and myriad wildlife
species. These lands are also important to protecting coastal
communities--a priority with the memory of events like Hurricane Irene
and Superstorm Sandy still fresh. This funding is vital to support New
England projects that conserve critically important wetland areas and
improve flood resiliency.
5. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) at $58.7
million.--This important U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program
provides Federal grant funds for developing and implementing programs
that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted
or fished, and provides core funding for research, habitat restoration,
and monitoring under the State Wildlife Action Plans. $58.7 million
will keep funding level and ensure that States are not forced to make
deep cuts into this critical work. Keeping species off the Endangered
Species list helps landowners and is critical to the work of State Fish
& Wildlife Agencies and to the 36 species on the eastern list.
6. Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) at $10
million.--RTCA partners to protect 700 miles of rivers, create 1,300
miles of trails, and conserve over 60,500 acres of open space annually.
RTCA allows the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) to support private
conservation organizations as well as local and State governments,
usually in coalition, to foster important recreation, river protection,
and land conservation efforts without the permanently adding lands and
trails to Federal ownership.
7. Cooperative Forestry Program (including Urban & Community
Forestry at $31 million, Cooperative Forest Health at $48 million,
Forest Stewardship at $29 million).--These programs fund landowner
services provided by State Foresters and Cooperative Extension
Foresters. The proposed funding levels reflect the critical needs for
the Nation's private forestlands as recommended by the National
Association of State Foresters. Levels lower than these will result in
curtailing of vital services that help family forest landowners
sustainably manage and protest their land--of real concern in a New
England landscape that is predominantly in private family ownership.
The programs provide key educational services to landowners and
communities, and help ensure that our forested landscape remains
healthy, resilient, and economically viable.
8. Woody Biomass Utilization Grants Program at $15 million.--This
program (which now includes the Community Wood Energy Program) will
help communities use their wood resources for renewable energy. It
funds grants to develop community wood-to-energy plans and acquire or
upgrade wood-based energy systems. This program is ripe to benefit our
forest-based communities.
9. Urban Park and Recreation Fund (UPARR) at $25 million (funded by
LWCF's Mandatory Section).--UPARR provides matching grants and
technical assistance to urban communities. It helps provide Federal
assistance for rehabilitation of critically needed recreation
facilities and recreation planning. This program is essential to
support healthy living and vibrant urban communities.
In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing
leadership on Federal land conservation matters and for the opportunity
to provide this testimony. Signatory organizations represented by this
testimony:
Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust (New Hampshire)
American Rivers
Androscoggin River Watershed Council
Appalachian Mountain Club
Aspetuck Land Trust (Connecticut)
Audubon Connecticut
Audubon Society of Rhode Island
Audubon Vermont
Back Forty Forestry, LLC
Bear-Paw Regional Greenways (New Hampshire)
Brookfield Open Space Legacy (Connecticut)
Cold Hollow to Canada (Vermont)
Columbia Land Conservancy (New York)
Connecticut Fund for the Environment/Save the Sound
Connecticut Land Conservation Council
Connecticut River Watershed Council
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
Connecticut Ornithological Association
Conservation Collaboratives, LLC
The Conservation Fund
Conservation Law Foundation
Damariscotta River Association (Maine)
East Quabbin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Essex County Greenbelt Association (Massachusetts)
Fairfield County Regional Conservation Partnership (Connecticut)
Forest*Care (Vermont)
Forest Society of Maine
Forestland Group, LLC
Franklin Land Trust (Massachusetts)
Friends of the Rachel Carson NWR (Maine)
Friends of the Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut)
Friends of Pondicherry (New Hampshire)
Greater Lovell Land Trust (Maine)
Green Mountain Club (Vermont)
Highstead
Housatonic Valley Association (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York)
Kennebec Estuary Land Trust (Maine)
Litchfield Hills Greenprint Collaborative (Connecticut)
Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (Connecticut)
Lyme Timber Company
Mahoosuc Land Trust (ME)
Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust
Maine Coast Heritage Trust
Mass Audubon
Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition
Massachusetts Woodlands Institute
Meadowsend Timberlands, Ltd (New Hampshire)
Mill River Greenway Initiative (Massachusetts)
Monson Conservation Commission (Massachusetts)
Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust (Massachusetts)
Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea Conservation Initiative (ME)
Natural Resources Council of Maine
The Nature Conservancy
New England FLOW
New England Forestry Foundation
New England Mountain Bike Association
New England Wild Flower Society
New Hampshire Audubon
New York Biomass Energy Alliance
North Woods Resource Group, Inc. (Vermont)
Northern Forest Center
Northern Forest Canoe Trail
Northern Rhode Island Conservation District
Northland Forest Products, Inc.
Rangely Lakes Heritage Trust (Maine)
Open Space Institute
Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership (Q2C)
Redding Conservation Commission (Connecticut)
Rensselaer Plateau Alliance (New York)
RI Woodland Partnership
Ridegefield Conservation Commission (Connecticut)
Sheepscot Wellspring Land Alliance (Maine)
Shelburne Trails Club (New Hampshire)
Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
Sudbury Valley Trustees (Massachusetts)
Trust for Public Land
Trustees of Reservations (Massachusetts)
Vermont Land Trust
Vermont Renewable Fuels
Vermont River Conservancy
Vermont Woodlands Association
Whipstock Hill Preservation Society (Vermont)
Wildlands Trust (Massachusetts)
Wonalancet Preservation Association (New Hampshire)
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony from the Nez Perce Tribe to this
subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the spending of the United
States regarding the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in relation to the needs of
tribal nations for fiscal year 2015.
As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of
work and provides a multitude of services to the tribal membership as
well as the community at large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic
with a satellite office, a tribal police force, a social services
department, a comprehensive natural resource program that does work in
forestry, wildlife management, land services and land management,
habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management, water quality
and sewer service, and one of the largest fisheries departments of any
tribe in the Nation working on recovery of listed species under the
Endangered Species Act. The Nez Perce Tribe conducts its extensive
governmental functions and obligations through a comprehensive
administrative framework, which is necessary for a sovereign nation
that oversees and protects the treaty rights of the Nez Perce People in
addition to providing the day to day governmental services to its
members and the surrounding communities. The Nez Perce Tribe has long
been a proponent of self determination for tribes and believes its
primary obligation is to protect the treaty-reserved rights of the Nez
Perce Tribe and its members. All of the work of the tribe is guided by
this principle. As a result, the tribe works extensively with many
Federal agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their work
with, for and through tribes is of vital importance. This work cannot
be accomplished unless the United States continues to affirm and follow
through on its trust responsibility and properly fund programs.
indian health services
The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates a healthcare clinic on the
Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health. The main clinic facility is
located in Lapwai, Idaho and a satellite facility of the main clinic is
located 65 miles away in Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provided
service to 3,820 patients last year. These 3,820 patients represented
47,673 visits which does not include pharmacy and laboratory visits but
only medical provider visits. Our expenditure total for fiscal year
2013 was $13,489,355. Our Purchased/Referred Care costs for outpatient
services for fiscal year 2013 was $4,320,830.
Although the Nez Perce Tribe supports the proposed $200 million
increase in funding over the fiscal year 2014 levels proposed by the
President, it is important to note that this increase still lags far
behind where funding should be to offset the growth in the programs and
medical inflation and in reality funding should be higher. Also, the
$50 million dollar increase in funding proposed for purchased and
referred care is vital, but it too falls well short of the true need in
Indian Country as is illustrated by the spending needs of just the Nez
Perce clinic. Finally, the tribe fully supports the $617 million that
has been proposed by the President to be allocated for Contract Support
Costs. Requesting full funding of these obligations is an important and
is appreciated.
bureau of indian affairs
The tribe supports the funding levels for contract support costs
proposed in the President's budget of $251 million dollars as well as
the increased funding overall for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The
tribe also supports the Presidential budget request to include a
Carcieri fix to address legal issues that have arisen related to the
transfer of land into trust. This Supreme Court decision has led to
dozens of court challenges that now brings into question the status of
trust land of all tribal governments, regardless of when they were
federally recognized. This uncertainty will only stifle and impede
economic development in Indian Country. A legislative amendment to
restore the sovereign status of these lands to the state they were
prior to this court decision is needed now.
The tribe supports the $12 million dollar commitment in the
President's budget to address child and family welfare in Indian
Country and job training issues. This Tiwahe initiative is important as
it recognizes the significant gap in culturally sensitive social
service programs and the high unemployment due to lack of adequate job
training that plagues reservation communities. Continued study and
development of solutions to these issues is important to help address
the systemic problems faced in this area.
In relation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Safety and
Justice budget, the tribe advocates for at least the $351.9 million
dollars in funding proposed in the President's budget. The Nez Perce
Reservation covers 1200 square miles and covers five counties and has a
mixture of tribal and non-tribal residents. The tribe provides a full
service law and justice program, beginning with a fully trained and
staffed police force, tribal court, prosecutor and related
administrative functions. Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe contributes
over $718,000 per year to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the
tribe's law enforcement, $195,000 for judicial services, $339,000 for
prosecutorial services, $92,000 for public defender services and
$300,000 for prisoner boarding. This funding comes from tribal taxes on
things such as tobacco levied by the tribe and tribal gaming revenues.
The funding for these programs needs to be increased to account for the
shortfalls in funding the tribe has to absorb to continue the operation
of these vital services on the reservation.
In relation to education, the tribe requests $42 million for
Johnson O'Malley Funding, $5 million for tribal education departments
and $88.2 million for tribal colleges such as the Northwest Indian
College that operates a satellite campus on the Nez Perce Reservation.
It should also be noted that scholarship funding provided by the BIA
has remained static for the past decade while the cost of attending
college has risen faster than can be accounted for by simple inflation.
The tribe is currently working to set up an educational endowment to
supplement the BIA education funds but the BIA funds need to be
increased.
The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for its work related
to endangered species and protection of the tribe's treaty resources
including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used
to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to other
sensitive species. The BIA Endangered Species Program should be
restored at $3 million dollars as it provides tribes with the technical
and financial assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands
but funding of this program has declined significantly over the last 8
years. Also, the BIA Natural Resource Tribal Priority Allocations
should be increased to $10 million as this funding has remained flat
for years at just under $5 million. This expenditure will help increase
tribal land and management capabilities.
In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
fund is critical as it supports the exercise of off-reservation hunting
and fishing for tribes like the Nez Perce and it should be funded at
$49.5 million dollars. The BIA single-line dollars do provide the
foundation for core program administration and treaty rights protection
activities, such as harvest monitoring and conservation enforcement.
And of course, these efforts are central to the tribe's fisheries
management responsibilities as established in the treaties and further
delineated in litigation regarding implementation of hunting and
fishing treaty rights. It is important to understand that this funding
is not for equipment but is used for job creation and this funding has
stayed static.
The Nez Perce Tribe utilizes the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund
and it should be funded at $110 million dollars. The Nez Perce funding
received under this budget is used to rear 300,000 local stock coho
smolts at Dworshak and Kooskia hatcheries in the Clearwater River
Basin. We also truck an additional 550,000 coho smolts from a lower
Columbia River hatchery (Eagle Creek Hatchery) up to the Clearwater for
release. Based on passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag information,
15,000 coho adults from our Clearwater releases crossed Bonneville Dam
in 2011 where they provided a fishery for tribal and non-tribal
fisheries on the Columbia River. Over 5,000 swam on to cross Lower
Granite Dam where they continued to provide a fishery, provide
broodstock for the hatchery program and spawners in the wild. Continued
appropriations for this fund will allow this successful work to
continue.
The tribe also supports funding for the BIA Wildlife and Parks
Tribal Priority Allocations of $3 million dollars and $6 million
dollars as these funds allow for important work to be done on fish
recovery through hatchery operation and maintenance. As stated earlier,
the tribe has invested a large amount of its personnel and resources in
the restoration and recovery of this important resource through its
fisheries programs. The State of Idaho directly benefits from this work
as well through its sports fisheries. These programs have been
successful but more work needs to be done. The Tribal Management and
Development Program also needs increased funding. The tribe recommends
$20 Million for base and programmatic funding. This program is critical
for fish and wildlife management of the tribe.
fish and wildlife service, forest service cultural protection
The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service. First, the Tribal Wildlife
Grants program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a
cost effective expenditure for the Government. This small pot of money
has resulted in huge returns from the tribe's perspective. Since 2005,
we have received four such grants that have allowed us to work on such
diverse issues as gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, and
rare plant conservation. Continued funding for the Tribal Wildlife
Grant program will allow recipient tribes to build capacity and
maintain involvement in key conservation issues. It should be noted
that this competitive grant does not simply dole out funds for projects
but awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. As mentioned
above, the tribe has received four grants under this program totaling
$800,000 based on the quality of our research work. Funding for these
grants was reduced in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. The tribe
strongly urges this committee to increase this funding to $8 million as
it provides a large return in work for a small investment. It is also
one of the few sources of funds tribes can tap into for wildlife
research.
The tribe also supports increased funding for the work of the
Forest Service in the protection of treaty reserved resources of
tribes. There should be $31.2 million dollars allocated for BIA Tribal
Forestry Priority Allocations and $23.3 million for BIA forestry
projects. The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed areas
are rich in natural resources and encompass eleven different national
forests. The tribe works closely with each forest administration to
properly manage its resources on behalf of the Tribe. These range from
protecting and properly managing the products of the forest to managing
the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep and
wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the Forest Service can
meet these trust obligations and continue to work with tribes such as
the Nez Perce on a government-to-government basis. Finally, there
should be $15 million dollars allocated for the Tribal Historic
Preservation Office Program and $4 million dollars for repatriation to
help ensure tribal remains and cultural properties are protected to the
greatest extent possible.
environmental protection agency
The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Air Rules for Reservations
program (FARR) and receives funding from the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants Program and Tribal General Assistance Grants. The $31
million dollar increase in the President's budget for these grants is
important and is supported by the tribe. The FARR program monitors air
quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez Perce
Reservation. The tribe is located in Region 10 of the EPA and this
increase in funding is needed for tribes to meet their air quality
needs and operate programs under the delegation of the EPA.
In addition to the air quality program, the Nez Perce Tribe is
working with other Idaho tribes on studying of fish consumption rates
which is important in protecting the health of tribal members. Funding
for this work is important. The tribe is also currently in facilitated
discussions with the State of Idaho that are being funded through
grants from the EPA. The facilitated discussions involve the tribe
adopting water quality standards to improve the water quality on the
Nez Perce Reservation. The tribe also relies heavily on contract
support dollars for our water resource programs such as storage tank
remediation and watershed restoration.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee. As you can see, the Nez Perce Tribe does a tremendous
amount of work in a variety of areas. It is important that the United
States continue to fund this work and uphold and honor its trust
obligations to tribes.
______
Prepared Statement of Northern Water--The Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District
April 8, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Wilkinson,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
and the Environmental Protection Agency fiscal year 2015
appropriations. My name is Lorraine Loomis and I am the Vice-Chair of
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is
comprised of the 20 tribes that are party to the United States v.
Washington \1\ (U.S. v. Washington). I am providing written testimony
for the record in support of funding to meet the many natural resources
management responsibilities required of the tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of fiscal year 2015 appropriations requests
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
--Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
Management;
--Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife;
--Provide $4.844 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty;
--Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking;
--Provide $6.582 million for Fish Hatchery Maintenance;
--Provide $3.35 million for Fish Hatchery Operations;
--Provide $246.0 million for Contract Support;
--Provide $9.948 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation; and
--Provide $725,000 for Watershed Restoration.
Environmental Protection Agency:
--Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program; and
--Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound.
In February 2014 the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington
celebrated the 40th anniversary of U.S. v. Washington (Boldt decision).
The decision reaffirmed tribal treaty-reserved rights to half of the
harvestable salmon returning to the State and was later expanded to
include shellfish and some marine fish species. This landmark ruling is
one of the greatest civil rights decisions in the history of the United
States. Moreover, the ruling established the tribes as co-managers and
brought responsible salmon management to Washington by requiring that
salmon be managed river-by-river and that harvest limits be clearly
defined.
Today, however, we find that the resource has diminished to the
point that the tribes are catching fewer fish with a 50 percent share
then they were at the time of the Boldt decision when they were
catching less than 5 percent of the harvest. The treaty-reserved rights
are at grave risk today as the resources they are dependent on are
disappearing. Wild salmon and their habitat continue to decline despite
massive reductions in harvest and a significant investment in habitat
restoration. For this reason the western Washington treaty tribes
brought to the Federal Government our Treaty Rights at Risk (TRAR)
initiative asking that the Federal Government meet their obligations to
the tribes and their treaties by taking charge of salmon recovery. We
requested that the Federal Government implement their fiduciary duties
by better protecting the tribes' treaty-reserved resources. The Federal
Government has a non-discretionary obligation to provide adequate
funding to the tribes to allow them to protect and preserve these
treaty rights. Salmon are critical to the tribal cultures, traditions
and their economies and by fulfilling these Federal obligations by
addressing our TRAR--we will recover the salmon populations.
We are generally pleased with the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request, which includes and builds on many of the subcommittee's
actions from the past few years. It continues funding for science and
technology, including research and analysis for sustainable management
of our natural resources and climate adaptation. On behalf of our 20
member tribes, I ask you to consider our requests for the BIA and the
EPA that are further described below.
justification of requests
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity
Tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar
treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than
$49.5 million for Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary
for essential tribal treaty rights management. We continue to support
the President's emphasis to fund science and technology activities
related to climate issues. This will provide our tribes the capability
to identify, respond and adapt to the impacts of our changing climate.
It will also support scientific research, monitoring and analysis that
are essential to the management of natural resources. It is important
that tribes be provided the maximum flexibility to develop specific
science-based activities to meet their particular needs. We support a
proportionate allocation of these funds that is consistent with and
proposed in the fiscal year 2014 budget. A summary of the four accounts
of interest to us within RPI are further identified below.
Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
Management.--We respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of
$8.854 million over the President's request of $8.562 million. The
increase in fiscal year 2014 restored funding back to the fiscal year
2010 level and was very much appreciated. However, we once again ask
Congress to address the remaining identified needs of the NWIFC and our
member tribes. Funding for this program allows for continued treaty
harvest management, population assessment, habitat protection and data
gathering for finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife and other
natural resource management needs. Funds provide the necessary capacity
for the treaty tribes to co-manage the resources with the State of
Washington and to meet court required mandates.
Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
Wildlife.--We respectfully request $3.082 million, an increase of
$337,000 over the President's request of $2.745 million. Funding for
this program is provided to improve forest practices on State and
private lands while providing protection for fish, wildlife and water
quality. This will provide the necessary funding for tribal TFW
programs to fully participate in the TFW process.
Provide $4.844 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.--
We respectfully request $4.844 million, an increase of $549,000 over
the President's request of $4.295 million. The Pacific Salmon Treaty
(PST) Act of 1985 charges the United States Section of the Pacific
Salmon Commission with the responsibility for implementation of the
PST, a bilateral treaty with Canada. Tribes assist in meeting the
Federal Government's obligations in implementing the treaty by
participating in cooperative research and data gathering activities.
This will provide sufficient funding to ensure that the tribes can
continue to participate effectively in the bi-lateral PST process.
Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.--We respectfully
request $2.4 million, an increase of $1.328 million over the
President's request of $1.072 million. Funding for this program was
mandated in 2003 by Congress that required all salmon released from
federally funded hatcheries be marked so they could be identified for
conservation purposes. This allows tribes to mark salmon at tribal
hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically monitor
salmon populations and watersheds in western Washington. This amount is
required to fully implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted
at these marked fish.
Fish, Wildlife and Parks Subactivity
Provide $6.582 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.--We
support the President's request of $6.582 million. Tribal fish
hatcheries in western Washington are part of the largest fish hatchery
system in the world. These hatcheries provide fish that significantly
contribute to both non-Indian recreational and commercial harvest, as
well as for tribal fisheries. Funding for this program is provided to
tribes nationwide based on the ranking of annual maintenance project
proposals. Today, hatcheries also play a large role in recovering
pacific salmon, many of which are listed under the Endangered Species
Act. A comprehensive needs assessment study was conducted in fiscal
year 2006 by the BIA at the request of Congress which identified a
level of need of over $48.0 million in necessary hatchery maintenance
and rehabilitation costs.
Provide $3.35 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Operations.--We
respectfully request $3.35 million, an increase of $1.575 million over
the President's request of $1.775 million. This increase reflects the
needs of the western Washington treaty tribes. Funding for this program
is provided to tribal hatcheries to support the rearing and releasing
of salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and non-Indian fisheries.
Hatcheries are a necessary part of fisheries management because of the
lack of wild salmon production due to habitat degradation. They
continue to play a vital role in supporting tribal fisheries and are
now essential for maintaining the treaty right to harvest fish. Without
hatcheries tribes would have very few fisheries and their treaty rights
would be rendered meaningless.
Other Subactivities and Accounts
Provide $246.0 million for BIA Contract Support.--We support the
President's request of $246.0 million. Funding for this function is
provided to tribal organizations to ensure they have the capacity to
manage Federal programs under self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts. These funds are critical as they directly support
our governmental functions, which allow us to fully exercise our right
to self-govern. The amount requested is expected to fully fund the
estimated need in fiscal year 2015.
Provide $9.948 million for BIA Cooperative Landscape
Conservation.--We support the President's request of $9.948 million.
Funding for this program will help provide the tribal capacity needed
to participate and provide scientific input on climate change issues.
This will also allow tribes to provide their perspective on climate
change adaptation in the form of traditional ecological knowledge
necessary to protect their treaty rights.
Provide $725,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.--We respectfully
request $725,000, an increase of about $475,000 over the fiscal year
2014 operating plan. Funding for this program is contained in the
Forestry Subactivity--Forestry Projects--Watershed Restoration account
and supports our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment
Program. This allows us to continue to provide environmental data
management, analysis, and reporting support. It also supports the on-
going efforts to develop information sharing and exchange tools and
would continue to support our tribes' ability to adequately participate
in watershed resource assessments and salmon recovery work.
Environmental Protection Agency
Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program.--We
support the President's request of $96.4 million. This funding has
built essential tribal capacities and remains critical to the tribes'
ability to sustain their important water quality programs. Funding for
this program continues to provide the capacity for tribal environmental
protection programs nationwide. This allows tribes to address their
most fundamental needs such as inadequate drinking water and basic
sanitation.
Provide $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound.--We respectfully request
$50.0 million, an increase of $25.0 million over the President's
request of $25.0 million. The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides
essential funding that will help protect, restore and enhance Puget
Sound, an estuary of national significance. Funding for this program
will allow the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work,
implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues that affect
our treaty rights. It allows the tribes to participate in implementing
the Puget Sound Action Agenda and to also implement a wide range of
projects aimed at improving the health of Puget Sound by 2020.
conclusion
We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces. We
respectfully urge you to continue to support our efforts to protect and
restore our great natural heritage that in turn will provide for
thriving communities and economies. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the
fiscal year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
--Appropriate an additional $372,371 to staff and operate the newly
opened Norton Sound Regional Hospital; the IHS is not provided
the full agreed-upon amount.
--Direct the IHS to fully fund the Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases
in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act and allocate an additional $8.5 million to VBC
leases.
--Increase funding for injury prevention programs.
--Shield the IHS from sequestration in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.
--Place contract support costs on a mandatory funding basis.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
--Support utilizing Medicare-like rates in the Purchased/Referred
Care Program.
The Norton Sound Health Corporation is the only regional health
system serving northwestern Alaska. It is on the edge of the Bering
Sea, just miles from the Russian border. We are not connected by road
with any part of the State and are 500 air miles from Anchorage--about
the distance from Washington, DC, to Portland, Maine. Our service area
encompasses 44,000 square miles, approximately the size of Indiana. We
are proud that our system includes a tribally owned regional hospital
which is operated pursuant to an Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreement, and 15 village-based
clinics.\1\ The logistics and costs associated with travel and
transportation are a daily challenge, to say the least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We serve the communities of: Brevig Mission, Council, Diomede,
Elim, Gambell, Golovin, King Island, Koyuk, Mary's Igloo, Nome, St.
Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, Solomon, Stebbins, Teller,
Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Funding Needed To Staff New Hospital Facility.--NSHC
gained beneficial occupancy of its new replacement hospital and
ambulatory care center facility in Nome in June 2012, the construction
of which was funded by the Recovery Act. The IHS and NSHC have
successfully worked as government-to-government partners to construct
and furnish the new facility. However, the IHS is providing us nearly
$400,000 less for our staffing package in fiscal year 2014 than was
agreed to.
The replacement facility is almost three times the size of the
former hospital and will allow for increased patient visits in the
primary and acute care areas, including chronic disease prevention and
management, and allow us to provide enhanced trauma and emergency
services.
Now that the new facility is open, IHS has only to finish funding
the expanded staffing needs for operation of the replacement hospital.
The IHS has notified us that our fiscal year 2014 staffing package
funding will be $8,410,000. This is not the entire amount agreed to.
The IHS is not providing the entire amount of funding for the 351 full
time equivalents (FTEs) in the signed, validated Resource Requirements
Methodology (RRM). Rather, the funding provided is for 348 FTEs, a
difference of 3 FTEs or $372,371 annually. That is a significant amount
of funding over time--$3.7 million in 10 years plus contract support
costs.
Our new hospital is located in a medically underserved area and has
one of the highest Health Professions Shortage Area scores in the
Nation. NSHC has been greatly limited in its ability to recruit and
hire medical professionals, instead having to focus primarily on hiring
core operational staff. To fully realize the potential of the new
replacement hospital, and to ensure that we can safely provide adequate
and expanded healthcare services to the people in our region, we need
the full amount agreed to by the IHS.
Assistance Needed To End Chronic Underfunding Of Village Built
Clinics.--The NSHC healthcare system includes 15 Village Built Clinics
(VBCs). The VBCs are essential for maintaining the IHS Community Health
Aide Program (CHAP) in Alaska, which provides the only local source of
healthcare for many Alaska Native people in rural areas. The CHAP
program is mandated by Congress as the instrument for providing basic
health services in remote Alaska Native villages. The CHAP program
cannot operate without the use of clinic facilities.
The IHS has for many years consistently under-funded the leases of
VBCs even though the IHS has had available appropriations to fully fund
the leases. Lease rental amounts for the VBCs have failed to keep pace
with costs--the majority of the leases for VBCs have not increased
since 1989. The IHS has instead shifted its statutory responsibilities
onto the villages and NSHC, which does not have adequate financial
resources to maintain and upgrade the VBCs for CHAP staff. As a result,
many of the VBCs are unsafe or have had to be closed, leaving some
villages in Alaska without a local healthcare facility.
As indicated in our joint testimony with other Alaska healthcare
providers to Congress in 2012, NSHC and many other tribal organizations
in Alaska have discussed this issue with the IHS on several occasions,
and have proposed solutions that the IHS continues to ignore. IHS
continues to assert that it provides for VBC leases all of the funds
that Congress has appropriated for the program. In our view, the
amounts historically traceable to the VBC leases are not capped by
statute and are not the only funds available for that program. The
Indian Health Facilities appropriation is a lump sum appropriation that
can be used for construction, repair, maintenance, improvements and
equipment, and includes a sub-activity for maintenance and improvement
of IHS facilities. The VBCs are IHS facilities acquired by lease in
lieu of construction and should thus be eligible for maintenance and
improvement funding. The IHS can also access other IHS discretionary
funds to fully fund its VBC obligations.
For the fiscal year 2015, we urge that an additional $8.5 million
be appropriated to more fully fund VBC leases. We also ask that
Congress direct the IHS to use existing fiscal year 2014 appropriations
to fully fund the VBC leases in accordance with Sec. 804 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act.
Injury Prevention.--Injury prevention efforts are particularly
important to the Norton Sound region; our extreme climate and the
dangers of the Bering Sea result in an exceptionally high number of
injuries, many of them severe. The National Center for Health
Statistics reports that unintentional injury is the third leading cause
of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives, preceded by heart
disease and cancer. The goal of the NSHC injury prevention program is
to reduce unintentional injuries throughout the region. The success of
the program truly depends on the partnerships formed to share resources
and extent our reach. We work to provide safety education and resources
in the areas of transportation (bike helmet safety, pedestrian safety,
all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety, etc.) and home environmental safety
(promote the use of smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, gun locks,
elder fall prevention, etc.).
A positive development was the move in September 2013 of our Injury
Prevention Program and Safety shop to our new hospital which has
resulted in an increased sale and use of safety items--for instance, we
sold at the Safety Shop three times as many ice cleats this year as the
previous year. Within the last 6 months, the Safety Shop also sold 4
float coats, 6 snowmobile float coats, 4 snowmobile float bibs, 11 ATV
helmets, 6 S.O.S. Survival kits and 22 visibility products. The Coast
Guard donated 300 float coats to the region (the ``Wear It Alaska''
initiative) which has saved lives.
There is not an injury prevention line item in the IHS budget,
although the IHS makes multi-year injury prevention grants to a limited
number of tribes. We are in year 4 of a 5-year injury prevention grant;
we took a 5 percent sequestration on our $80,000 grant and are not
guaranteed fifth year funding. We request that Congress increase
funding for IHS programs that incorporate injury prevention and direct
the agency to increase its injury prevention resources for tribes and
tribal organizations.
Protect the IHS From Sequestration.--The Office of Management and
Budget determined that the IHS's appropriation is fully sequestrable,
which resulted in a $220 million cut in funding to the IHS for fiscal
year 2013--roughly 5 percent of the IHS's overall budget. IHS lost
funding for programs like hospitals and health clinics services,
contract health services, dental services, mental health and alcohol
and substance abuse. Programs and projects necessary for maintenance
and improvement of health facilities felt these same impacts. These
negative effects were then passed down to every ISDEAA contractor,
including NSHC. NSHC is already significantly underfunded, resulting in
further cuts to the availability of health services we were able to
provide to our patients, resulting in real consequences for individuals
who have to forego needed care. We are grateful that Congress enacted
legislation that has averted a sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and
likely will do the same for fiscal year 2015. But beginning fiscal year
2016 the possibility of a sequestration will hang over IHS
appropriations again.
We fail to understand why the responsibility for healthcare for
Alaska Native and American Indian people was taken less seriously than
the Nation's promises to provide health to our veterans. The Veterans
Health Administration (VA) was made fully exempt from the sequester for
all programs administered by the VA. Also exempt are State Medicaid
grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except for a 2 percent
reduction for administration of the program. We thus strongly urge the
subcommittee to support amendment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act to fully exempt the IHS from any future
sequestration, just as the VA and other health programs are exempt.
Contract Support Costs.--We thank Congress, and particularly the
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for making it
clear to the IHS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that fully
funding contract support costs (CSC) is a legal duty and for providing
what we expect is full funding for fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year
2015 IHS request of $617 million for CSC is also a reasonable estimate
of what will be full funding. The next logical step is for Congress to
fund the CSC funding for the IHS and the BIA funding on a mandatory,
rather than a discretionary, basis.
IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.--We support legislation
that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The
goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate
advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and
thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-
term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations
for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is
for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to
authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich.
Medicare-like Rates.--The administration proposed in its budget
justification that tribes the IHS, and urban Indian organizations
utilizing the Purchased/Referred Care program be charged Medicare-like
rates for non-hospital services, thus stretching the funding for that
program. A Government Accountability Office report in 2013 concluded
that IHS and tribal facilities would save millions of dollars and be
able to increase care if the Medicare-like rate cap was imposed on non-
hospital providers and supplies through the Purchase/Referred Care
program. This revenue-neutral proposal would require legislation and
would make a very positive difference in the amount of healthcare
services that could be provided. We appreciate the $18 million proposed
increase in Purchased/Referred Care budget, but that is but a small
slice of how much that program needs to be increased.
Thank you for your consideration of our request that adequate
fiscal year 2015 IHS staffing funding be made available for the NSHC
replacement hospital. We are very excited about the possibilities this
facility brings for improved healthcare for the people of northwestern
Alaska. We also appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of our
other requests.
______
Prepared Statement of OPERA America The National Opera Center
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, OPERA
America is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf
of OPERA America, its board of directors and its 2,000 organizational
and individual members. We strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations to
designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the
Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2015. This testimony and the funding
examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of
Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant
cultural community throughout the country.
Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
are being established in communities that have never before had access
to live performances. OPERA America's membership includes 129
professional company members representing 41 States. Over half of these
companies were established after 1970 and over 40 percent were
established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout North
America over the last 40 years.
In the 2011-2012 season, OPERA America members were involved with
45 world premieres. Since 1900, 880 new operatic works have been
produced by professional opera companies in North America. Of that, 414
new operatic works have been produced since 2000. The growth in number
and quality of American opera corresponds directly to the investment of
the NEA's earlier investment in the New American Works program of the
former Opera-Music Theater Program.
Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and
exciting ways to bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and
community centers, frequently with new and innovative works that
reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they serve. Strong
partnerships with local schools, too, extend the civic reach of opera
companies as they introduce children to another multi-media art form
and discover promising young talent.
the nea is a great investment in the economic growth of every community
Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased
by over $20 million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants
in 2013, totaling more than $112 million in appropriated funds, and
reaching more than 38 million people who attended live arts events
through NEA-supported programs. These grants help nurture the growth
and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and artists
in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance
our Nation's diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in
the Nation's cultural life results in both new and classic works of
art, reaching the residents of all 50 States and in every congressional
district.
The return of the Federal Government's small investment in the arts
is striking. In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the
Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA
developed an ``Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account'' which
calculated the arts and culture sector's contributions to the gross
domestic product (GDP) at 3.2 percent (or $504 billion) of current-
dollar GDP in 2011. Additionally, the nonprofit arts industry generates
$135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supporting 4.13 million
full-time equivalent jobs in the arts and related industries.
On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State,
local, and private sources, generating roughly $600 million in matching
support. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits,
not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make
possible. Even in the face of cutbacks in the recent years, the NEA
continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country.
The return on investments is not only found in dollar matches. The
average city and county reports that nonprofit arts and culture
organizations had 5,215 volunteers who donated 201,719 hours. These
volunteer hours have a value of approximately $4.5 million--a
demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities.
nea grants at work
Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts
organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide
opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond
to artistic works. NEA funding has also made the art form more widely
available in all States, including isolated rural areas and inner
cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and
socioeconomic lines.
NEA grants are awarded to opera organizations through its core
programs: Art Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/
State Partnerships. In fiscal year 2013, the NEA awarded 84 grants to
the opera field through grants for arts projects categories, totaling
$2,837,000.
The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on
opera programs from the NEA's 2013 Art Works Program:
anchorage opera company--$12,500; anchorage, alaska
To support ``Soldier Songs,'' a chamber opera by composer David T.
Little. The work explores the plight of soldiers who face the challenge
of reintegrating into ``normal'' life after having returned home from
war. Told from the point of view of a single character during various
stages of life, the work seeks to blur the tradition of linear
narrative in opera. Accompanying the production will be several
educational activities, including evening dress rehearsals, and teacher
study guides that link the opera to the subjects of math, science,
reading, and language arts. Pre-performance lecture-demonstrations will
provide admission-free adult lectures by the creative team.
lyric opera of kansas city--$20,000; kansas city, missouri
To support STAGES summer opera camp for youth. The program will
feature training in design and technical aspects of performing arts
production and will provide students with a significant hands-on
experience to help prepare them for potential careers in the performing
arts.
nashville opera association--$12,500; nashville, tennessee
To support an audio recording of a revised edition of ``Romulus
Hunt,'' a one-act opera by composer Carly Simon. Originally
commissioned in 1993 by the Metropolitan Opera and the Kennedy Center,
the semi-autobiographical dramatic work deals with operatic thems of
love and betrayal as presented through the tribulations of a loving
family fractured by divorce. Performances will occur at the Noah Liff
Opera Center and recording will occur at Ocean Way Studios.
opera parallele--$15,000; san francisco, california
To support the American premier of ``Anya 17,'' a recently
commissioned opera by composer Adam Gorb and librettist Ben Kaye. The
opera portrays human trafficking as experienced by the central
character, Anya. The plot unfolds through a series of short, fast-paced
flashbacks that detail how Anya is deceived into traveling abroad and
sold as a prostitute.
opera theatre of st. louis--$90,000; st. louis, missouri
To support the commission, development, and premier of ``Shalimar
the Clown'' by composer Jack Perla and librettist/playwright Rajiv
Joseph. Based on the novel by Salman Rushdie, the story takes place in
the disputed region of Kashmir and focuses on the love story of a young
Hindu woman, Boonyi, a dancer, and a Muslim man, Shalimar, an acrobat.
The story is one of love, revenge, cultural clashes, and war.
More than half of OPERA America's member companies were established
after 1970 (corresponding to the establishment of the NEA) and over 40
percent were established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera
throughout in the last 40 years. In the 2010 and 2011 calendar years,
OPERA America's members were involved with 35 world premieres an. 369
new operatic works have been produced in North America since 2000.
Over 6.5 million people attended a live performance at one OPERA
America's member companies during the 2011-2012 season, including
educational and outreach programs and festivals. During this same
season, member opera companies presented 3,133 mainstage, festival,
educational, and other productions--almost 3 times and many productions
as the previous season. The collective expenses of member opera
companies totaled $1.16 billion--almost double last year's expenses.
Total government support, including city, county, State, and Federal,
amounted to $37.5 million, representing approximately 3.8 percent of
total operating income.
Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending
Federal tax dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered
from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget
further decreased by $22 million since 2010, leaving its programs
seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and
increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year
2015.
On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
fiscal year 2015 budget for the u.s. environmental protection agency's
clean water state revolving fund loan program
The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about
continued reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is
requesting that appropriations for this program be increased to at
least $2 billion in fiscal year 2015. The CWSRF is an effective loan
program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while
benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy. OWRC
is also concerned about various efforts by EPA to increase regulatory
authority over water resources planning and urges the Senate to take
action and prevent further jurisdictional overreach. EPA's actions to
increase its jurisdiction are counterproductive to collaborative
planning and detract from the positive solutions achieved through the
CWSRF program.
OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
suppliers that deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated land
in Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management
systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and
hydropower production.
fiscal year 2015 appropriations
We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources. The
CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that should have
funding increased because it creates jobs while benefitting the
environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. Oregon
is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded projects
provide much needed construction and professional services jobs.
Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise investment that allows local
communities to leverage their limited resources and address critical
infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet.
Nationally, there are large and growing critical water
infrastructure needs. In EPA's most recent needs surveys, The Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report to Congress and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fourth Report to Congress,
the estimated funding need for drinking water infrastructure totaled
$335 billion (in 2007 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs
totaled $298 billion (in 2008 dollars). Appropriations for water
infrastructure, specifically CWSRF, should not be declining but
remaining strong in order to meet these critical needs.
In 2012 appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately
$2.384 billion and declined to $1.448 billion in fiscal year 2014. The
President's fiscal year 2015 budget proposes only $1.018 billion for
the CWRSF program; a $430 million reduction from fiscal year 2014
enacted levels. We are concerned as we see this negative downward trend
continuing.
OWRC is supportive of the President's Climate Action Plan and
related efforts to support actions that help address, mitigate, and
adapt to severe weather events, like drought, that are related to
climate change. We are, however; concerned about where the $2 million
would come from and do not want any ``realigning'' to result in reduced
funding for other important water infrastructure programs like CWSRF.
There has not been an increase in funding for CWSRF since 2009;
meanwhile, both infrastructure needs and the costs to address those
needs continue to grow each year. Continued funding reductions has led
to delaying repairs or upgrades which in turn increase the potential
for catastrophic failure and is counterproductive to the
administration's desire to encourage asset management and sustainable
water infrastructure. To the extent practicable, funding for climate
change should be incorporated into existing programs with proven
successes like the CWSRF.
We also continue to be highly supportive of the administration's
desire to expand ``green infrastructure'' and are appreciative of the
20 percent green infrastructure target for fiscal year 2015. In fact,
irrigation districts and other water suppliers in Oregon are on the
forefront of ``green infrastructure'' through innovative piping
projects that provide multiple environmental benefits, which is
discussed in greater detail below. However, continually reducing the
amount of funds available for these worthwhile projects is
counterproductive to the administration's desire and has created
increased uncertainty for potential borrowers about whether adequate
funding will be available in future years. CWSRF is often an integral
part of an overall package of State, Federal and local funding that
necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan funds will be
available for planned water infrastructure projects. Reductions in the
CWSRF could lead to loss of grant funding and delay or derail
beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been developing for
years.
Additionally, OWRC is pleased to see that EPA will continue
``strategic partnerships'' with the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS) and other Federal agencies to improve
water quality and address nonpoint source pollution. Oregon had four
priority watersheds eligible for funding through the National Water
Quality Initiative in 2013 and anticipates that additional watersheds
will be included in the future. As Oregon is a delegated State, OWRC
also feels strongly that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) is best situated to develop and implement activities to improve
these and other impaired waterways in the State. DEQ and its
administration of the CWSRF has been an extremely valuable tool in
Oregon for improving water quality and efficiently addressing
infrastructure challenges that are otherwise cost-prohibitive.
cwsrf local success and needs
Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the
CWSRF over the last several years and many more will apply if funds are
available. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need
to pipe currently open canals, thereby improving water quality by
eliminating run-off into the canals and increasing water availability
for fish and irrigators by reducing water loss from the delivery
system. Four irrigation districts received over $11 million funding in
Oregon from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funding through the CWSRF for projects which created valuable jobs
while improving water quality. These four projects were essential to
DEQ not only meeting but exceeding the minimum requirement that 20
percent of the total ARRA funding for the CWSRF be used for ``green''
projects. Those districts' applications had been on DEQ's list of
eligible projects for many years and would probably still be on that
list had the ARRA funding not been made available. We provide that
comment not to complain, but to emphasize the need for additional
funding for this program.
What is being proposed for fiscal year 2015 is far short of what is
needed to address critical water infrastructure needs in Oregon and
across the Nation. This will lead to fewer water infrastructure
projects, and therefore a reduction in improvements to water quality.
The DEQ's most recent ``Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #1--State
fiscal year 2014,'' lists 18 projects in need of a total of $45,265,547
in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization grant funding that has been
historically available to DEQ has not yet been awarded for fiscal year
2014; however, based on previous years it is doubtful that the fiscal
year 2014 funding will be adequate to address and complete these much
needed projects. Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of
availability of funds, no irrigation districts submitted applications
for funding in 2014, but we are hopeful that with an increase in money
available, more of our member districts will apply for funding to
complete projects that will not only benefit the environment and the
patrons served by the water delivery system, but also benefit the
economy.
the importance and success of local watershed planning
Oregon's success in watershed planning illustrates that planning
efforts work best when diverse interests develop and implement plans at
the local watershed level with support from State government. Oregon
has recently revised their CWSRF rules; thus making conservation easier
and its benefits to be better achieved in the State. That is why OWRC
is very concerned about EPA's recent efforts to revise Clean Water Act
Guidance without appropriate public process or legislative oversight.
The proposed changes would greatly broaden EPA authority and
illustrates an apparent desire to dictate watershed planning methods
for the Nation using a top-down regulatory approach from a desk in
Washington DC. This regulatory overreach will lead to uncertainty for
landowners and water users, increased litigation and destroy
collaborative efforts (including CWSRF projects) already underway in
Oregon and across the Nation.
As the national model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need
a new Federal agency or Executive Branch office to oversee conservation
and restoration efforts. Planning activities are conducted through
local watershed councils, volunteer-driven organizations that work with
local, State and Federal agencies, economic and environmental
interests, agricultural, industrial and municipal water users, local
landowners, tribes, and other members of the community. There are over
60 individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply
engaged in watershed planning and restoration activities. Watershed
planning in Oregon formally began in 1995 with the development of the
Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide
strategy developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish
species. This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board
that funds and promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ``help
create and maintain healthy watersheds and natural habitats that
support thriving communities and strong economies'' in 1999.
conclusion
In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon's
DEQ to make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and
improve water quality but also help incentivize innovative water
management solutions that benefit local communities, agricultural
economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach creates and
promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water
resources challenges. Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys
cooperation, creates mistrust and has a very negative effect on jobs
and local economies. We respectfully request the appropriation of at
least $2 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2015.
______
Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association
May 22, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: On behalf of the Outdoor Industry
Association, and our more than 1,300 member companies, I write to urge
you to support adequate and sustainable funding for the recreation and
preservation programs of the Department of the Interior, the U.S.
Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. This year we
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the Wilderness Act and are approaching the National Park Service
Centennial in 2016. Now, more than ever, is the time to prepare our
public lands and waters for the next century by investing in these very
places that provide clean air and water, American jobs, attract
international tourists, unite communities and make America a healthier,
more prosperous place to raise a family and start a business.
The strength of our national economy is directly linked to the
treasures that are our parks, forests, waterways, wildlife refuges,
recreational trails and similar recreation assets. These public lands
and waters are deeply popular with American families nationwide.
Moreover, they represent a foundational infrastructure for recreation,
just as important as highways are to the transportation industry or
fiber optic lines are to the telecommunications industry. Diverse,
accessible, and affordable places for every American to get outdoors
and enjoy healthy lifestyles are crucial to the health and well being
of the American people and our economy.
Rather than compounding our deficit problems, our national outdoor
recreation system produces exceptional economic value and jobs in
communities across the country. Our public lands and waters drive a
recreational economy that spawns $646 billion in direct consumer
spending, supports more than 6 million sustainable American jobs, and
generates more than $80 billion in Federal, State and local tax
revenue. At the local level, resources invested in recreational trail
infrastructure, river access and other open spaces have an impressive
and sustainable return for local economies, especially those in rural
areas. For every $1 spent on the national parks, local communities see
a $10 return. We saw the reverse of this investment during last year's
Government shutdown, when gateway communities lost upwards of $76
million each day as nearby public lands were closed.
More than ever Americans are prioritizing the outdoors, with half
of our population, 140 million people, recreating outside each year.
Americans spend more on outdoor recreation than on pharmaceuticals,
gasoline and motor vehicles and in 2013 outdoor product sales were up
10.3 percent. In fact, outdoor product sales grew more than 7 percent
in both 2011 and 2012 while other industries were suffering from the
recession. We need Congress to support the growing outdoor economy and
the people and communities who rely on it.
In real terms, Federal spending on natural resources and recreation
programs has declined over the last 20 years. This program area
comprised less than 1 percent of the total Federal budget for fiscal
year 2013. Natural resources, recreation, bicycling, and community
development programs are, at best, paltry contributors to the Federal
deficit yet they have been disproportionately targeted for cuts in the
past. We believe this should be avoided as Congress begins
consideration of the fiscal year 2015 Federal appropriations. These
programs need to be recognized as shining examples of economic growth
engines and the type of sound investment that the Federal Government
should pursue.
To do this we ask Congress to fulfill the promise and obligation of
the LWCF fund and to recognize the importance and value of the
investments in the natural resources, recreation, conservation, and
preservation programs found in the budgets for the Department of the
Interior, the Forest Service, and the EPA. We urge Congress to prepare
the National Parks System for its second century by funding backlogged
maintenance and considering opportunities for public/private
partnerships, and to fund any amount above 70 percent of the
anticipated cost of wildfire suppression from an emergency fund outside
of the land management agencies' budgets.
Please provide adequate funding for the our Nation's public lands
and waters as outlined below:
--Department of the Interior--$11.9 billion
--National Park Service Centennial
--$40 million increase--fiscal year 2015 appropriations
--$400 million in permanent funding each year for the next 3 years,
-- $100 million--Centennial Challenge
-- $200 million--National Park Service facilities improvements
-- $100 million--Centennial Land Management Investment Fund
--Land and Water Conservation Fund (Total)--$900 million
--Agriculture--National Forest System (USFS)--$5.4 billion
--EPA--Protecting America's Waters--$3.4 billion
Investments in green spaces and outdoor recreation infrastructure
create healthy and productive communities that offer lasting, good jobs
and draw businesses and entrepreneurs. There is no doubt that people
use green spaces when they're available, well maintained and close at
hand. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that access to parks,
trails, and other places to play has significant economic and health
benefits.
Outdoor recreation and the outdoor industry are a core economic
sector in America, driven by innovation and technology. Sustainable,
American jobs exist across the value chain--suppliers, manufacturers,
retailers, sales representatives. Moreover, outdoor recreation is an
industry that America dominates worldwide. The world looks to America
as the leader in the protection of our public lands and waters and
looks to American brands for innovative outdoor products, gear, apparel
and footwear.
A healthy and diverse outdoor recreation economy promotes economic
activity and jobs in every community--large & small, urban & rural--
across America. Outdoor recreation and the places that Americans get
outside-- parks, trails, rivers and open space--are critical economic
drivers and essential to a high quality of life. Cutting funding that
supports those quality places directly and adversely impacts not just
the outdoor industry, but a diversity of other industries and myriad
associated businesses that chose their location, in large part, on
accessible, healthy public lands and watersheds and outdoor spaces to
be enjoyed by their workforce. Conversely, investing in these quality
lands and waters promises significant economic growth for both the
outdoor industry and the many associated businesses that choose to
locate near public lands and outdoor spaces in order to improve the
quality of life experience for their employees.
Please promote a strong economy and happy, healthy families and
communities by investing in our Nation's parks, trails, rivers and open
spaces.
Respectfully,
Kirk Bailey,
Vice President--Government Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee: We, the undersigned members of the Outdoors Alliance for
Kids (OAK), thank you for your past support of programs to connect
children and youth with the outdoors, and we urge you to sustain
funding for fiscal year 2015 programs at the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Forest Service that
increase engagement in the outdoors through outdoor education,
community health and wellness, and environmental stewardship programs
that engage children, youth and young veterans in the outdoors. We also
urge you to maintain sufficient funding for agencies to adequately
manage our public lands and waters.
OAK is a national strategic partnership of businesses and
organizations representing more than 30 million individuals from
diverse sectors of the economy with the common interest in expanding
the number and quality of opportunities for children, youth, and
families to connect with the outdoors. OAK supports public policies and
investments that expand outdoor education opportunities, promote
community health and wellness, and engage more youth in environmental
stewardship. A list of OAK's organizational members can be found here.
We understand that we are in difficult fiscal times, but balancing
the budget at the expense of programs and initiatives that ensure
children and youth have opportunities to learn, get physically active,
and increase their volunteerism in the outdoors will be a detriment to
our great Nation. Environmental education provides critical tools for a
21st century workforce by giving students the skills to understand
complex environmental systems and issues, and prepares students to
compete globally and address environmental challenges and opportunities
that impact our economy, health, and national security. Community
health and wellness are critical investments for the local economy as
well. The prevention of chronic diseases can save lives, as well as
promote the physical and mental wellbeing of all Americans.
Environmental stewardship can provide opportunities for young people to
not only spend more time outdoors, but also to obtain basic job skills
as the youth unemployment rates skyrocket. In addition to contributing
to our Nation's robust outdoor recreation economy, youth volunteer and
work programs help address a backlog of maintenance needs piling up on
our public lands, address record youth unemployment, and prepare a
diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural resource
employees.
These areas are vital to the success of the U.S. in the global
economy, and to our ability to create a 21st century workforce that is
healthy, skilled, and prepared to be the next generation of leaders.
The outdoor industry alone provides 6.1 million jobs and $646 billion
in direct consumer spending each year. Outdoor recreation, such as that
enjoyed in national, State, and local parks, provides millions of
America's children, youth, and families with an opportunity to hike,
bike, swim, paddle or simply commune with nature. The outdoor
recreation economy generates $39.9 billion in Federal revenue and
another $39.7 billion in State and local revenue annually.
OAK supports funding and initiatives to increase outdoor education,
promote community health and wellness and provide young people with
jobs, training, and service and volunteer opportunities that connect
them to the outdoors and recreation. We urge the subcommittee to
restore funding to allow land management agencies to adequately manage
our public lands and waters and to provide robust funding for the
following programs that get youth outdoors:
--Department of the Interior.--OAK supports the Department of the
Interior's goal of providing 40,000 work and training
opportunities over fiscal years 2014 and 2015. To this end, we
urge you to support the administration's budget request of
$50.6 million for youth programs in the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau
of Reclamation. A key component of the Department's efforts
will be partnering with youth organizations through the 21st
Century Conservation Service Corps (21CSC). The opportunities
provided by 21CSC will encourage youth to assume responsibility
for the stewardship and preservation of America's great
outdoors, teach them basic job skills at a time when youth
unemployment is near record levels and young people are missing
out on critical early job experiences, and improve public
health by helping young people develop and maintain active
lifestyles. In addition, we urge you to fund the National Park
Service Centennial Challenge, to support thousands of veterans,
youth, and others to work to upgrade the National Park System
for its 100th anniversary in 2016.
We also urge you to sustain funding for the operational accounts
of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau
of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest
Service, all of which could fund partnerships with Conservation
Corps.
--Environmental Protection Agency.--OAK urges the subcommittee to
sustain funding for the National Environmental Education Act
(NEEA) programs at the Environmental Protection Agency at the
recent level of $9.7 million. This program implements highly
successful, nationwide environmental education programs. These
programs support life-long environmental education and
stewardship through several highly-leveraged, but under-
resourced programs, including the National Environmental
Education Training Program to provide professional development
for teachers, the National Environmental Education Foundation
to leverage public/private partnerships, and an environmental
education grant program to support local environmental
education providers.
We thank you in advance for your support for these critical
programs and look forward to working with you and your staff in the
coming year.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following 39 members
of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids:
Alliance for Childhood
American Canoe Association
American Hiking Society
American Society of Landscape Architects
American Youthworks
Appalachian Mountain Club
Association of Outdoor Recreation and Education
Children & Nature Network
Choose Outdoors
Conservation Legacy
GirlTrek
Hudson River Sloop Clearwater
International Mountain Bicycling Association
IslandWood
Izaak Walton League of America
Kids4Trees
National Interscholastic Cycling Association
National Military Family Association
National Outdoor Leadership School
National Park Trust
National Parks Conservation Association
National Recreation and Park Association
National Wildlife Federation
NatureBridge
North American Association for Environmental Education
O'Neill Sea Odyssey
Outdoor Afro
Outdoor Outreach
Outdoors Empowered Network
Public Lands Service Coalition
Sierra Club
The Corps Network
The Outdoor Foundation
The Wilderness Society
Trout Unlimited
Trust for Public Land
Wilderness Inquiry
Winter Wildlands Alliance
YMCA of the USA
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am McCoy
Oatman the Alternate Tribal Commissioner for U.S. Section of the
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual
budget for implementation of the treaty. The integrated budget details
program needs and costs for tribal, Federal, and State agencies
involved in the treaty. The tribal participation in the Pacific Salmon
Treaty process is funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget.
In order meet the increased obligations under the 2009-2018
Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement the 25 affected tribes
identified costs at $4,800,000 for tribal research projects and
participation in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process,
an increase of $520,000 over fiscal year 2014 enacted level.
The funding for tribal participation in the U.S./Canada Salmon
Treaty is a line item in the BIA's budget under the Rights
Protection Implementation, Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring
Programs Area.
Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
identified needs as follows:
USFWS participation in the treaty process is identified at a
base level of $417,000. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission's Regional Mark Center receives support from the
USFWS to provide data services to the PSC process. Those costs
are identified at $315,000. This funding level represents an
increase of $75,000 over fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for
the Mark Center to make up for losses from other programs and
allow the Mark Center to maintain the same level of service to
the U.S. Section.
This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports
critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet
Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program
recommendations are integrated with those of the State and Federal
agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the most
efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
A copy of the integrated U.S. Section Budget Justification will be
made available to the subcommittee. The budget summary justifies the
support needed to carry out necessary functions in implementing the
treaty. Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon
Commission comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce.
Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S.
to meet its treaty obligations. All of the funds are needed for
critical data collection and research activities directly related to
the implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving
Federal, State, and tribal fishery agencies and the Department of
Fisheries in Canada. The commitment of the United States is matched by
the commitment of the Government of Canada.
The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission is recommending
an adjustment to support the work carried out by the 24 treaty tribes'
that participate in the implementation of the treaty. Programs carried
out by the tribes are closely coordinated with those of the States and
Federal agencies. Tribal programs are essential for the United States
to meet its international obligations. Tribal programs have taken on
additional management responsibilities due to funding issues with State
agencies. All participating agencies need to be adequately supported to
achieve a comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the Treaty.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are necessary so the
U.S. can maintain the critical database to implement the treaty. The
work of the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and
updating a coastwide computerized information management system for
salmon harvest and catch effort data as required by the treaty. This
work has become even more important to monitor the success of
management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon
populations. Canada has a counterpart database. The database will
continue to be housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
salmon interceptions. After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific
Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
Canadian trollers off of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
Washington coastal Coho salmon and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In the
Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish from both
countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The
Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon
populations. In 2008, the U.S. and Canada successfully concluded
lengthy negotiations to improve this management, including the
adjustments to the coastwide abundance-based management regime for
Chinook salmon and a framework for abundance based management for
southern Coho populations. The agreement is intended to last through
2018. The U.S. and Canada completed a revised Fraser River sockeye and
pink chapter in 2013.
Before the treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both
countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country,
to the detriment of the resource. At the time the treaty was signed,
Chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state as a result of
overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the
spawning rivers. Under the treaty, both countries committed to rebuild
the depressed runs of Chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal
in 1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest
management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement
habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the
States, tribes, and other stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to
address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered
Species Act. The 2008 Chinook agreement continues these commitments.
The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in
rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations.
Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of
the commercial harvest of salmon subject to the treaty, managed at
productive levels under the treaty, supports the infrastructure of many
coastal and inland communities. The value of the recreational
fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value
of these fish to the 24 treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho
goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious
lives of Indian people. A significant monetary investment is focused on
salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations
under the Endangered Species Act. Given the resources, we can continue
to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that
help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks,
especially if we are allowed to work towards the true intent of the
treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared resource.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
consideration by your subcommittee. I want to thank the Committee for
the support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel
free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section to answer any
questions you or subcommittee members may have regarding the U.S.
Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past 20
years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost Share
funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered by the
National Park Service. We also appreciate your increased allocation of
funds to support the trails administered and managed by the Forest
Service and for the trails in the Bureau of Land Management's National
Landscape Conservation System. To continue the progress that you have
fostered, the Partnership requests that you provide annual operations
funding for each of the 30 national scenic and historic trails for
fiscal year 2015 through these appropriations:
--National Park Service.--$16.21 million for administration of 23
trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
by the Washington office. Construction.--$380,000 for the Ice
Age Trail, $240,000 for the Appalachian Trail, and $200,000 for
the Pacific Crest Trail.
--USDA Forest Service.--$7.896 million to administer 6 trails and
$1.2 million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the
National Park Service (NPS) or the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). $1 million for Iditarod Trail construction.
--Bureau of Land Management.--$1.53 million to administer three
trails and for coordination of the National Trails program and
$7.14 million to portions of 13 trails administered by the Park
Service or the Forest Service and for operating five National
Historic Trail interpretive centers. Construction.--$300,000
for the Pacific Crest Trail.
--We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park
Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct
one-third ($1,500,000) for national scenic and historic trails
or create a separate $1.5 million National Trails System
Challenge Cost Share Program.
--We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management's
Challenge Cost Share Program and allocate it for the national
scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
We ask that you appropriate $57,695,000 from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund for the acquisition of 53 tracts along seven national
scenic and eight national historic trails described in the National
Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal and allocate
this funding to the:
--Bureau of Land Management: $15,246,000 million;
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,829,000 million;
--U.S. Forest Service: $15,271,000 million; and
--National Park Service: $25,002,600 million.
national park service
The $16.21 million we request for Park Service operations includes
increases for some of the trails to continue the progress and new
initiatives made possible by the additional funding Congress provided
several years ago. Funding for the new Star Spangled Banner and
Washington-Rochambeau Trails and $400,000 for the Park Service to
implement planning for the New England Trail is included.
We request an increase of $626,000 to expand Park Service efforts
to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa
Fe Trail, to develop geographic information system (GIS) mapping, and
to fund public educational outreach programs of the Santa Fe Trail
Association. An increase of $780,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable
the Park Service to work with the Trail of Tears Association to develop
a GIS to map the trail's historical and cultural heritage sites to
protect them and to develop interpretation of them for visitors. We
request an increase of $346,000 to $866,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail
to enable the Park Service to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala
Kahakai Trail Association, and other community organizations to care
for resources on the land and with the University of Hawaii to conduct
archaeological and cultural landscape studies along this trail.
We request an increase of $193,000 to $1,708,000 for the
Appalachian Trail to expand the highly successful ``Trail to Every
Classroom'' program of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The
$1,483,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country Trail will
enable the Park Service to provide greater support for the regional GIS
mapping, trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers
led by the North Country Trail Association. The $1,389,000 we request
for the Ice Age Trail includes a $535,000 increase to build partner and
citizen capacity for protecting the natural and cultural resources on
the Trail and Ice Age Trail lands and to provide NPS with a property
manager for NPS-owned lands.
Construction.--We request that you appropriate $380,000 for the Ice
Age Trail, $240,000 for the Appalachian Trail, and $200,000 for the
Pacific Crest Trail for trail construction projects.
Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. We
request that you robustly fund the Park Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge Cost Share programs
and appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to the
Park Service for fiscal year 2015 as a wise investment of public money
that will generate public benefits many times greater than its sum. We
ask you to continue to direct one-third of the $4.5 million for the
national scenic and historic trails to continue the steady progress
toward making these trails fully available for public enjoyment. We
suggest, as an alternative to this approach, that you create a separate
National Trails System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million
funding.
usda--forest service
We ask you to appropriate $7.896 million as a separate budgetary
item specifically for the Arizona, Continental Divide, Florida, Pacific
Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce
National Historic Trail within the over-all appropriation for Capital
Improvements and Maintenance for Trails. Recognizing the on-the-ground
management responsibility the Forest Service has for 1024 miles of the
Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North Country Trail, and
sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de Tierra Adentro and de
Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Old
Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of Tears and
Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $1.2 million specifically
for these trails.
The Partnership's request of $7.896 million includes $1.5 million
to enable the Forest Service and Florida Trail Association to continue
trail maintenance, to control invasive species, do ecosystem
restoration, and otherwise manage 4,625 acres of new Florida Trail
land. The $7.896 million request also includes $2 million for the
Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1
million for the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for the Nez Perce
Trail, and $570,000 for the Arizona Trail. Some of the additional funds
requested will enable the Forest Service to develop Comprehensive
Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $1
million of additional funding for construction of sections of the
Iditarod Trail.
bureau of land management
Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the
National Landscape Conservation System and protect its resources, we
request that you appropriate $68.809 million in base funding for the
System. We ask that you appropriate as new permanent base funding
$250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination, $700,000 for
the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
Trail, $350,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for the
Bureau of Land Management to manage 4,645 miles of 13 other national
scenic and historic trails. For trail maintenance we request $300,000
for the Pacific Crest Trail and $50,000 for the Nez Perce Trail; and
request $3,140,000 to operate five historic trails interpretive
centers.
We ask you to provide $5 million for the Bureau's Challenge Cost
Share (CCS) program and to direct $500,000 for National Trails System
projects as you have done with the Park Service's CCS program.
To promote greater management transparency and accountability for
the National Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation
System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports
for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal year 2014 and to direct the
Bureau to include unit-level allocations within major sub-activities
for each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild and scenic
rivers--as the Bureau has done for the national monuments, wilderness,
and conservation areas--within a new activity account for the National
Landscape Conservation System in fiscal year 2015. The Bureau's lack of
a unified budget account for National Trails prevents the agency from
efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and taking advantage of
cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and volunteer contributions for
every activity related to these national resources.
land and water conservation fund
The Partnership strongly supports the President's Budget proposal
to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized
$900 million, with $350 million from discretionary sources and $550
million in mandatory funds for the component programs funded under
LWCF. Within this amount we request that you appropriate $57,695,000
for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning
proposal to acquire 53 tracts along 15 national scenic and historic
trails detailed here:
Bureau of Land Management: $15,246,000 million--7 tracts--15,859 acres
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Montana).--$11,704,000 for
trail, landscape, habitat and recreation protection along the Upper
Missouri River frontage, including key campsites from Lewis and Clark's
historic expedition and breathtaking views along Missouri River.
Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Idaho).--$3,000,000 for trail
and resource conservation at one of the last remaining working ranches
at Henry's Lake.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon, California).--$542,000
for trail and resource protection within the Cascade Siskiyou National
Monument.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,829,000 million--14 tracts--4,634
acres
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia).--
$2,000,000 to protect the trail's historical resources in an area that
would encourage public recreation and interpretation.
Iditarod National Historic Trail (Alaska).--$90,000 for protection
of 120 acres within the Innoko Wilderness Area in the Innoko National
Wildlife Refuge and 1.6 miles of the Iditarod Trail.
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Washington).--$270,000 to
allow 13 listed salmon and steelhead stocks to reverse their downward
population trend in the Columbia watershed.
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (Tennessee).--$2,969,000 for
seven tracts along the Mississippi river that will protect migration
corridors within the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuges.
California National Historic Trail (Idaho).--$2,500,000 to protect
the largest breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes as well as
providing a haven for other waterfowl from a current farming threat.
U.S. Forest Service: $15,271,000 million--10 tracts--7,701 acres
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (North Carolina).--$3,906,500 to
protect high priority, high elevation viewshed along the Appalachian
Trail that connects with North Carolina land purchased to the south to
provide an extensive natural heritage area.
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana).--$255,000 to
achieve uninterrupted trail corridor enabling animal migration and
human recreation.
Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (Tennessee).--$585,000 to
preserve one of the few remaining segments of Trail of Tears in its
original condition along the Unicoi Turnpike.
Old Spanish National Historic Trail (New Mexico).--$2,570,000 to
finalize the protection of a 5-mile-long segment of the Old Spanish
Trail as it enters Carson National Forest.
Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (Washington).--$2,800,000
to conserve grizzly bear and Canadian lynx habitat while filling in a
2.5 mile gap of the Pacific Northwest Trail along Big Sheep Creek.
Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Montana).--$1,050,000 to
complete the consolidation of lands on Bloody Dick and Selway Creeks in
the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Washington).--
$4,104,000 for trail, resource, and watershed protection near the
headwaters of the Trinity River and through populous King County to
increase public recreation.
National Park Service Budget Request $25,002,600 million--22 tracts--
5,349 acres
Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii).--$3,900,000 for trail
and resource conservation in the Great Crack.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (New Hampshire).--$4,260,000 to
extinguish the threat of imminent development and to create a block of
2,000 acres of conservation land that protects an Appalachian Trail
viewshed.
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Colorado).--$308,000 to
remove motorized use of 0.5 miles of the Continental Divide Trail and
to restore 1 acre of habitat currently occupied by an access road and
buildings in the scenic Rocky Mountain National Park.
Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin).--$3,700,000 to provide
an urban access point to the Ice Age Trail in the city of St. Croix,
and to enhance the geologic diversity of the trail by completing a
continuous 4-mile segment through Wisconsin's Driftless Area.
New England National Scenic Trail (Massachusetts).--$120,000 to
significantly improve hiker safety and scenic viewshed by keeping
hikers off 2.5 miles of busy road, and to contribute to the protection
of a contiguous open space corridor extending from Erving State Forest
to the east and Rattlesnake Mountain and Northfield Mountain and Mount
Grace to the west.
Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia).--
$6,000,000 to permanently protect and open for public education and
archaeological research a nationally significant American Indian site.
North Country National Scenic Trail (Michigan).--$1,061,300 to
protect a corridor along Tyler Creek that connects existing protected
land and gets four miles of the North Country Trail off dangerous
roads.
private sector support for the national trails system
Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private
financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater
than equal match of funds.
The private trail organizations' commitment to the success of these
trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress' support for the
trails has grown. In 2013 the trail organizations fostered 1,144,407
hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $25,337,171 to help
sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
raised private sector contributions of $11,151,247 for the trails.
______
Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we
thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the
Performing Arts Alliance (PAA). We urge the subcommittee to designate a
budget of $155 million to the NEA for fiscal year 2015. PAA member
organizations include:
Alternate ROOTS
American Composers Forum
Association of Performing Arts Presenters
Chamber Music America
Chorus America
Dance/USA
Fractured Atlas
League of American Orchestras
National Alliance for Musical Theatre
National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures
National Performance Network
Network of Ensemble Theaters
New Music USA
OPERA America
Theatre Communications Group
PAA is a national network of more than 33,000 organizational and
individual members comprising the professional, nonprofit performing
arts and presenting fields.
We submit this testimony to highlight the importance of the Federal
investment in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural
community. The National Endowment for the Arts holds a significant
Federal leadership role for the arts and culture in America. Its grants
are investments in education, artistic development, the continuation
and preservation of our country's artistic heritage, and the overall
quality of life for American citizens. There are many reasons why we
are asking you to support the agency:
--NEA grants support a range of educational and community engagement
projects;
--NEA funds spread across the country and expand arts access;
--Federal funding for the arts leverages private funding; and
--Rural and underserved communities--as well as underserved
populations--benefit from arts programs supported by NEA funds.
We share with you the following examples of constituents of PAA
members who have received NEA grants in fiscal year 2014. Their work is
a sample of the numerous ways in which the Endowment's support widens
citizen access to the cultural, educational, social, and economic
benefits of the arts in American communities.
NEA grants support a range of educational projects
American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri--a member of
Association of Performing Arts Presenters and Chamber Music America--
received Art Works support for its 2014 18th and Vine Jazz Festival.
The Museum partners with the Metropolitan Community College-Penn Valley
for this annual festival which brings jazz music training, workshops,
and performance opportunities to local middle and high school and
college student. During the festival, budding musicians hone their
musical skills under the tutelage of world renowned jazz artists and
learn about the history of this rich American art form from some of the
history makers themselves.
Arts education also includes training in behind-the-scenes,
technical aspects of the performing arts. OPERA America member Lyric
Opera of Kansas City (Missouri) will operate its STAGES summer youth
opera camp this year with support from an Art Works grant. STAGES
provides youth with significant hands-on experience in design,
lighting, and stagecraft, introducing them to the possibilities of a
career in the field. Our Nation's performing arts organizations put
people to work, and education programs like this offer youth--
tomorrow's workforce--opportunities to learn the many trades within our
sector.
Chorus America member Boston's Children's Chorus received an Art
Works grant for its Premier Choir and Young Men's Ensemble, which
provides rigorous, professional training for high school youth in music
theory and choral performance, as well as performance opportunities.
Another Chorus America member supported by the NEA is Young People's
Chorus of New York City, an award-winning organization which offers
music education and choral performance to children of all cultural and
economic backgrounds, helping them reach their potential through
artistic excellence.
NEA grants preserve and continue our country's artistic heritage
Performing arts organizations play a great role in preserving our
Nation's artistic heritage. Other Minds in San Francisco--a member of
Chamber Music America--is doing this with support from an Art Works
grant for its New Music Preservation Project. The organization is
converting archival live recordings of performances, interviews, and
conversations with innovative composers and artists of 20th-century
American music into digital media. The recordings will be available
worldwide via www.radiOM.org. Fractured Atlas and Dance/USA member
Lucky Plush Productions in Riverside, Illinois received Art Works
support for the creation and presentation of The Queue, a new dance
theater work exploring the physical comedy forms of the early 20th-
century slapstick and Vaudeville. These are just a few examples of how
the NEA's support helps today's audiences connect to art forms and
artists of previous times.
NEA grants also invest in the artistic heritages of the many
cultures within American communities. Grants support projects that
create opportunities for learning and dialogue while sustaining rich
traditions. Relaampago del Cielo, Inc. in Santa Ana, California--a
member of National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures--received
Art Works support for its preservation of traditional Mexican
performing arts through youth classes in music, folklore, and dance. It
shares these traditions with the greater community via outreach
presentations and educational activities. League of American Orchestras
member South Dakota Symphony in Sioux Falls received Art Works support
for its Lakota Music Project, an initiative developed with the United
Sioux Tribes of South Dakota. The project's goal is to build bridges
between Native Americans and non-Native Americans. It honors Native
American musical traditions and aims to advance cultural understanding
and create an environment of openness and collaboration through the
music.
NEA funds benefit every congressional district, expanding arts access
to all people in all communities--both urban and rural
Chamber Music America member Community MusicWorks in Providence,
Rhode Island exists to create a cohesive urban community through music
education and performance that transforms the lives of children,
families, and musicians. Art Works funding supports their programs that
reach students and families in Providence's underserved South Side
neighborhoods. MusicWorks creates access to classical music training
and encourages appreciation for the art form among program
participants. Its weekly music lessons are accompanied by work around
social justice issues, mentorship programs, and opportunities for
students to create and present music programs that are relevant to
their own community.
People of all physical abilities will be able to experience
inventive contemporary dance due to NEA support given to San Francisco-
based AXIS Dance Company--a member of Dance/USA. AXIS received Art
Works funding to support its Dance Access and Dance Access/Kids!
educational and outreach dance programs as the company tours. These
programs offer ``physically-integrated'' dance classes for youth and
adults with and without disabilities, and with NEA support, AXIS will
be able to offer these classes to many around the country.
Perseverance Theatre--a member of Theatre Communications Group--
creates professional theatre by and for Alaskans, such as the world
premiere of Rush at Everlasting by Alaskan playwright Arlitia Jones.
Production of this play was supported by an Art Works grant. It was
also supported by the Alaska State Arts Council--a member of
Association of Performing Arts Presenters (APAP)--a recipient of an
fiscal year 2014 NEA State Partnerships grant. Approximately 40 percent
of the NEA's budget is directed towards States via State partnerships
such as this one which extend the NEA's Federal reach and impact,
translating national leadership into local benefit. Rush at Everlasting
will be presented in both Juneau and Anchorage.
With a similar mission, APAP member Lied Performing Arts Center in
Lincoln, Nebraska is presenting a tour of singer/songwriter Susan
Werner celebrating the lives and challenges of rural Nebraskan farmers.
In partnership with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln's Institute of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, the tour will also include an oral
history project documenting Nebraska's agricultural heritage.
The NEA supports arts organizations bringing awareness to important
social issues
The arts can create community dialogue around important social
issues such as care for older Americans and gang violence. The Sojourn
Theatre in Portland, Oregon--a member of the Network of Ensemble
Theaters (NET)--will present its The Islands of Milwaukee free
performance series this year with Art Works support. The performances
will occur in public spaces and explore social connectedness among
older adults throughout Milwaukee neighborhoods. The theatre company
will collaborate with older adults in urban and suburban Milwaukee that
are living alone, engaging them in the creation of the performances.
Project partners include the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the
Milwaukee Department on Aging, and Interfaith Older Adult Programs.
With the support of a Challenge America Fast-Track grant, NET
member Su Teatro in Denver, CO will present this season PLACAS by Paul
S. Flores. Featuring actor and playwright Ric Salinas, PLACAS is a new
multimedia play about the impact of gangs on an El Salvadoran family,
portraying tattoo removal as a metaphor for healing and transformation.
In addition to public performances, Salinas and Flores will lead
workshops intended to serve former and current gang members,
collaborating with Denver's Gang Rescue and Support Project (GRASP).
NEA grants support artistic excellence and works that engage new
audiences
Arts organizations around the country are energizing audiences by
refreshing classic works and presenting fresh, new productions and
artists in their communities. This is bringing new and diverse
participants out to experience the arts. Trinity Repertory Company in
Providence, Rhode Island--a member of the National Association for
Musical Theatre and Theatre Communications Group--is doing this with
its new production of Oliver!, Lionel Bart's musical based on Charles
Dickens' Oliver Twist. The company is re-visioning the show with a new
adaptation of the book and score and with a set design that extends the
scenery into the audience's space, heightening their engagement.
National Performance Network member Sandglass Theatre in Putney,
Vermont is bringing ``world-class, cutting-edge, socially engaged
puppetry and theatre'' to southern Vermont audiences with Art Works
support for its Arts and Issues 2014 presenting series. This series
includes Voices of Community and New Visions events and productions:
Community activities present a diverse roster of artists for
residencies and community discussions on all aspects of diversity.
Visions activities cross-pollinate puppetry with other performing arts
genres and invite the audience into the artists' discovery processes
while purposefully creating intercultural and intergenerational
dialogue.
Opera Theatre of Saint Louis--a member of OPERA America--will
present this season 27 by American composer Ricky Ian Gordon and
librettist Royce Vavrek. Supported by an Art Works grant, 27 will
feature acclaimed mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe as the visionary
American writer and art collector Gertrude Stein. This will be the
company's 24th premiere in 39 seasons; last season's premiere,
Champion, was also supported by the NEA. This production was attended
at 98 percent capacity across its run and also attracted an audience
that was markedly younger and more diverse than the traditional opera-
goers.
NEA funding helps organizations present exceptional work to their
audiences. Nashville Ballet--a member of Dance/USA--received Art Works
funding to present Jiri Kyliaan's Petite Mort. The Ballet had the
pleasure of introducing Nashville to Kyliaan's work which had never
before been presented in the city. The entire program, which included
Balanchine's Serenade and a world premiere choreographed by Artistic
Director Paul Vasterling to Ben Folds' recent piano concerto, was
enthusiastically received by audiences and critics alike, due also to
the level of excellence at which the dancers performed. Ticket sales
reflected this enthusiasm, and also reflected that there were 600 new
households attending the performances.
Federal dollars invested in the National Endowment for the Arts
realize significant returns both measurable and intangible. The
artistic programming of the arts organizations supported by the NEA
give vitality to their communities. They allow communities to:
appreciate our Nation's culture and heritage, unite to dialogue about
and collaborate on social issues, and experience meaningful educational
opportunities.
We, the members of the Performing Arts Alliance, urge you to
designate no less than $155 million to the NEA in fiscal year 2015.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the members of Preservation Action, I
appreciate the opportunity to present written testimony in support of
the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2015 $2.6 billion budget for
the National Park Service (NPS) and its historic preservation programs.
As the Nation continues to rebuild our economy, historic preservation
is a partner and part of the solution in creating economic vitality. We
ask Congress to continue its investment as envisioned in the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and protect our historic and cultural
resources by providing the appropriations for critical historic
preservation programs.
Preservation Action is a national membership organization that
represents preservationists from many sectors across the U.S. and its
territories. Creating a national landscape of policies that protect our
cultural heritage is fundamental to all we do. Historic preservation
has provided lasting economic benefits in communities throughout the
Nation. Studies show that historic districts maintain higher property
valuesand a greater sense of community. Our mission is to make historic
preservation a more widely recognized national policy. We do this
through energized and engaged grassroots advocacy that connects to all
levels of government.
As urban renewal swept across our country, unnecessarily destroying
historic structures, Preservation Action was at the forefront of
America's preservation movement working to protect historic places. For
40 years, Preservation Action has advocated for historic preservation
policy including two of the most important tools--the Federal
Rehabilitation Tax Credit and the Historic Preservation Fund.
Our Nation's cultural resources and natural resources are
important. And, as we look to the 50th anniversary of the Historic
Preservation Act and the National Park Centennial, it is a critical
time to support investments in our Nation's rich heritage so that it
remains for generations to come.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provided the
direction and tools to protect our historic resources. ``The spirit and
direction of the Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic
heritage; the historical and cultural foundation of the Nation should
be preserve as a living part of our community life and development in
order to give a sense of orientation to the American people . . . the
preservation of the irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so
that its vital legacy of cultural, economic, aesthetic, inspirations,
economic, and energy benefits will be maintained and enriched for
future generations of Americans.''
The members of Preservation Action believe in that vision provided
by Congress nearly 50 years ago. And, we encourage Congress to provide
funding for historic preservation to fully realize the importance of
our natural and cultural assets and provide the funding and leadership
to realize the full vision of the Historic Preservation Act.
historic preservation programs
The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of
funding to implement the Nation's historic preservation programs.
Preservation Action supports funding for State and Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices in the Interior Department fiscal year 2015 budget
at the following levels:
--$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices;
--$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices;
--$6 million for survey, inventory and digitization of records;
--$5 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented
populations; and
--$10 million for rehabilitation of historic properties competitive
grant program.
The NPS distributes HPF funding to State Historic Preservation
Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
States also match HPF dollars at a 40 percent minimum.
SHPOs and THPOs administer much of the HPF program on behalf of the
Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. SHPOs locate and record historic resources; nominate to
the National Register of Historic Places; provide funds for
preservation activities; comment on Federal rehabilitation tax credit
projects; review all Federal projects for historic preservation impact;
and provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, State and local
governments and the private sector. THPOs carry out many of those
functions on their tribal lands. THPOs are key in implementing tribal
and Federal preservation laws on tribal lands, including federally-
mandated archaeological clearances and evaluation and management of
tribal historic properties.
The Certified Local Government (CLG) Program is another way the NPS
and SHPOs support preservation in communities. Local, State, and
Federal governments work together in the Federal Preservation Program
to help communities save their irreplaceable historic character. SHPOs
award at least 10 percent of their HPF allocation to CLG's. The grants
fund a variety of projects including: surveys, National Register
nominations, rehabilitation work, design guidelines, educational
programs, training, structural assessments, and feasibility studies.
CLGs receive technical assistance and training through the partnership.
preservation in economic development
The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC), administered by SHPOs
and the NPS, is the most significant Federal investment in historic
preservation. Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has
been a catalyst for development with the rehabilitation of nearly
39,000 buildings throughout the Nation. And, the HTC has created 2.4
million jobs and leveraged nearly $109 billion in private investment.
From the Mill No. 1 project in Baltimore, Maryland, Elm Terrace in
Portland, Maine, to the Boyle Hotel redevelopment in east Los Angeles,
historic preservation is helping communities rebound and recapture
their economic vitality as well as provide creative uses for old
buildings and stimulate job growth.
Because of the success of the program, Preservation Action and its
national members urge Congress to realize the benefits of this program
to economic development and to ensure its continuance.
preserving america's rich and diverse cultural heritage
In addition to our support for SHPO and THPO operating funding,
Preservation Action fully endorses the Interior Department's program
for competitive grants for the survey, outreach and pre-nomination
activities of properties in underrepresented communities to the
National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic
Landmarks Program. It is important for our historic record to reflect
the full spectrum of America's heritage--and this program would correct
the underrepresentation. Studies report that fewer than 5 percent of
listings in the National Register of Historic Places and National
Historic Landmarks identify culturally diverse properties. While the
current funding level of $500,000 is a step in addressing this
underrepresentation, it does not go far enough to tell the rich story
of America's diverse heritage. Therefore, we ask the subcommittee to
consider increasing the amount to $5 million.
We also support an additional $10 million to the HPF for a
competitive grant program to support State and local level
rehabilitation projects. Rehabilitation of historic structures has
proven a success in driving neighborhood pride and redevelopment.
digitization of america's heritage
Preservation Action believes that providing the public with access
to accurate information on our historic resources is important to
maintaining the record of America's heritage. Having easy access to
digital records will help expedite Federal permitting, project review,
and improve accessibility. Therefore, Preservation Action also supports
the administration's request for $6 million for legacy data
digitization.
national heritage areas
The National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are community driven heritage
conservation placeswhere natural, cultural and historic resources
combine to form a cohesive, nationally important stories of America's
diverse heritage. Currently, there are 49 National Heritage Areas
designated by Congress. The Federal support for NHAs has been
instrumental in spurring the grassroots efforts that reflect the unique
resources, significance and values of each community. On average, for
every dollar of Federal investment, NHAs bring $5.50 in public and
private investment.
NHA programs have demonstrated their ability to both support
economic benefits in their communities through tourism dollars and tell
underrepresented stories across the Nation. Preservation Action is
concerned that the reduction of Federal funding proposed in the fiscal
year 2015 budget for the heritage areas program impairs the
sustainability of the program. Funding of $18 million--the amount
appropriated in fiscal year 2014--is the minimum needed to continue the
cost effective impacts of the NHA program.
conclusion
Preservation Action has been a proud partner with a cross-section
of Federal agencies and the NPS in protecting America's cultural and
natural resources and in engaging the public in maintaining these
valuable assets. We value the work of the employees across the NPS who
protect our cultural and natural resources, engage communities,
businesses and governments in heritage sites, education, and tourism,
and the many offices that work in collaboration of historic
preservation efforts and communications. Importantly, as we review
Federal historic preservation policies and their impacts in
communities, we value the partnership of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation as well as the instrumental work SHPOs and THPOs
conduct in preserving America's cultural heritage.
Thank you for including the voices of the preservation community as
you consider the Department of Interior's fiscal year 2015 budget.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM)
April 4, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Chris Olson,
Vice President, PNM Generation.
______
Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
essential resources for the Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is a
national alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations
across the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine
habitat. Our member organizations include: American Littoral Society,
Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save
the Sound--a program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment,
Conservation Law Foundation, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina
Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The Bay--San Francisco, Save the
Bay--Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have over
250,000 members nationwide.
As you craft your fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries
encourages you to provide the funding levels below within the
Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for core programs
which greatly support coastal community economies:
--$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program.--Interior: USFWS: Resource
Management: Habitat Conservation: Coastal Program
--$27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program.--USEPA: Water:
Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways
These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize
America's coastal communities by improving habitat and local water
quality. Healthy coastlines protect communities from flood damage and
extreme weather, improve commercial fisheries, protect vital
infrastructure, and support tourism and recreational opportunities.
usfws coastal program
The Coastal Program (CP) is a voluntary, incentive-based program
that provides technical and financial assistance to coastal communities
and landowners to protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat on
public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems, including
the Great Lakes. The Coastal Program works with other Federal, State,
local, and non-governmental partners and private landowners to deliver
strategic habitat protection and restoration for the benefit of Federal
trust species, including threatened and endangered species, migratory
birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, certain marine mammals, and species
of international concern.
Since 1985, the Coastal Program has:
--Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, tribal, State and local
agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, and
private landowners.
--Restored 300,616 acres of wetland; 135,033 acres of upland; and
2,160 miles of stream habitat.
--Protected more than 2 million acres of coastal habitat.
--Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation
partners.
Support for the management and stewardship of our coastal
ecosystems that bridge land and sea has never been more important due
to the accelerating pace of environmental change now occurring. While
environmental degradation of estuaries has continued in recent years,
the Coastal Program has been a key program aimed at on-the-ground
habitat restoration. Despite the program's relatively small cost, it is
having a huge impact on-the-ground. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal
Program staff shows that the program leverages $8 non-Federal dollars
for every Federal dollar spent. This makes the Coastal Program one of
the most cost-effective habitat restoration programs within the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Restore America's Estuaries has enjoyed a collaborative
relationship with the Coastal Program for many years. The nature and
scope of our partnership spans the national and local levels as we work
with CP headquarters on long-term issues, and locally the program works
with our member groups through regional CP staff to conduct on-the-
ground habitat restoration.
As an example of a true partnership, the Coastal Program worked
with RAE member Save The Bay--San Francisco as well as the San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge to restore salt marsh on Bair
Island. This project is helping to provide critical habitat for a
variety of species, including the endangered California clapper rail
and the salt marsh harvest mouse, and a number of birds that traverse
the area on their journey across the Pacific.
On the East Coast, the Coastal Program assisted RAE member
Chesapeake Bay Foundation to choose and prepare a site to plant redhead
grass near the Magothy River in Maryland. This is a good example of the
invaluable technical assistance that the Coastal Program is able to
provide to a non-governmental organization, which can then better
restore habitat for numerous migratory bird and inter-jurisdictional
fish species.
In the Gulf, the Coastal Program worked side-by-side with RAE
member Galveston Bay Foundation to construct geotextile tube offshore
breakwaters on Snake Island Cove. This effort has led to the protection
of 200 acres of estuarine marsh from erosion and the creation of a 65-
acre calm shallow water area conducive to seagrass restoration.
The Coastal Program is also essential in efforts to restore fish
passage of anadromous fish populations and restore riverine habitat.
RAE member Conservation Law Foundation worked with the Coastal Program
and other regional partners to support the removal of dams along the
Penobscot River, as well as install fishways to restore native Atlantic
salmon.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support and
funding for the USFWS Coastal Program. This program delivers habitat
protection and restoration in priority coastal areas on both public and
private lands through partnerships with other Service programs, Federal
agencies, State and local agencies, tribal governments and native
corporations, non-governmental organizations, universities,
corporations, and private landowners.
The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs
necessary to deliver habitat conservation projects including
environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers, surveyors,
assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs also generate
indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels, restaurants,
stores, and gas stations. The Program estimates that the average
project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40 businesses--this represents
major local economic returns on the Federal investment.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million for fiscal year
2015.
usepa national estuary program
The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of
voluntary community-based programs that safeguards the health of
important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a
consensus building process to identify goals, objectives, and actions
that reflect local environmental and economic priorities.
Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf,
and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as
estuaries of national significance. Each NEP focuses its work within a
particular place or boundary, called a study area, which includes the
estuary and surrounding watershed.
Each National Estuary Program demonstrates real environmental
results through on-the-ground habitat restoration and protection. Their
efforts reflect local environmental and economic priorities and involve
the community as equal partners throughout the decisionmaking process.
Collectively, NEPs have restored and protected more than 1.5 million
acres of land since 2000.
Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
National Estuary Program and ask that you provide $27.2 million for
USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount
for fiscal year 2015, no less than $600,000 should be directed to each
of the 28 NEPs in the field.
conclusion
Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
These programs help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which
results in major benefits:
--Economic Growth and Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration creates
between 17 and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested
depending on the type of restoration. That is more than twice
as many jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction
industries combined. The restored area supports increased
tourism and valuable ecosystem services.
--Huge Leverage.--From 2005 to 2012, Federal investment in the USFWS
Coastal Program leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 8
to 1. The NEPs leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 15
to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these are rates of
return we cannot afford to ignore.
--Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands can help knock down storm
waves and reduce devastating storm surges before they reach the
people and property along the shore.
Thank you and we greatly appreciate you taking our requests into
consideration as you move forward in the fiscal year 2015
appropriations process. We stand ready to work with you and your staff
to ensure the health of our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2015
Interior, Environment and Related agencies appropriations.
Congratulations to Chairman Calvert as the new Chairman and to
Congressman David Valadao, the newest member on this subcommittee. I am
George L. Thurman, Principal Chief of the Great Sac and Fox Nation,
home of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile athletes of modern sports
who earned Olympic gold medals for the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon.
On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity to
present our requests for the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
A fundamental goal for Indian Country governmental services is
parity with similarly situated governments or services. Although tribes
have made some progress in addressing terribly inadequate public
services that many Americans routinely take for granted, they are still
experiencing what the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights called ``A Quiet
Crisis'' of unmet Federal funding needs. Full funding of Contract
Supports Costs (CSC) is a step in the right direction for tribes to be
paid the costs of performing services under contract with the Federal
Government enjoyed by non-tribal Federal contractors. It is not fair
that the Federal Government's legal obligation to pay CSC requires
reducing tribal funds to meet the Federal trust obligation to tribal
nations.
In fiscal year 2013 tribal programs incurred cuts totaling over
$500 million under the sequestration. We were not able to recover the
sequestered funding under the Murray/Ryan budget deal and the BIA and
IHS Spending Plans further disappointed our expectations for budget
equity during these fiscally strained times. We strongly urge Congress
to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013 and exempt
tribal funds from future sequestration. It threatens the trust
responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not major
contributors to the deficit.
i. tribal specific request
$4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations of the Sac and Fox Nation
Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)--Bureau of Indian Affairs--Public
Safety and Justice--Office of Justice Services--Detention/Corrections
Account.
ii. national requests--bureau of indian affairs
1. Public Safety and Justice--Law and Order--Detention/
Corrections:
a. Increase the 2015 Request ($192.9 million) by $4.95
million for Detention/Corrections to fund the SFNJDC.
b. Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order
Act of 2010.
2. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
Funding.
3. +$19.3 million over fiscal year 2014 for Tribal Priority
Allocations Account.
4. $4 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund Contract
Support Costs (CSC).
5. $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley education assistance grants to
support a new student count in 2015 and provides funding for the
projected increase in the number of students eligible for grants.
6. Office of Self-Governance (OSG)--Provide increased funding to
the OSG to fully staff the office for the increase in the number of
tribes entering Self-Governance.
iii. national requests--indian health service
1. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
Services.
2. Support IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).
3. +$30 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund
Contract Support Costs (CSC).
4. +$50 million over 2015 request for Purchased and Referred Care.
5. Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance
(OTSG) to fulfill legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106-
260 which increased the responsibilities of OTSG.
the sac and fox nation juvenile detention center (sfnjdc)--bureau of
indian affairs--public safety and justice--office of justice services--
detention/corrections account
In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)
opened its doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically
designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives, as well as the first
juvenile facility developed under Public Law 100-472, the Self-
Governance Demonstration Project Act.
At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a commitment to
fully fund the SFNJDC operations; however this commitment was never
fulfilled. Even though the Nation continues to receive and use Federal
dollars to address the issue of juvenile delinquency and detention for
tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern Oklahoma Region, it
has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility at its
fullest potential. Full funding to the facility by the Bureau would
relieve financial burdens on area tribes to pay for detention services
elsewhere and keep tribal youths close to home.
Full funding would allow the Nation to provide full operations
including (but not limited to):
--Juvenile detention services to the 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas
and Texas;
--Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a
facility like the SFNJDC;
--Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such
as: On-site Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living,
Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and
Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and
Learning;
--Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed;
and
--Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of
staff turnover which will allow for continuity in operations
and service delivery.
Most recently at the fiscal year 2016 Regional Budget Formulation
Session, these tribes continue to support and endorse full funding for
operation of the SFNJDC and included it as a priority in their ``Top 10
Budget Increases'' for the fiscal year 2016 BIA budget.
The current funding level represents only approximately 10 percent
of what is needed to fully fund the Juvenile Detention Center.
Additional funding in the amount of $4,950,000, over what Sac and Fox
already receives in base funding ($508,000), would fully fund the
facility at a level to address the need of juvenile delinquency in the
tri-State area and create opportunities for employment for more tribal
members.
The SFNJDC is a 50,000+ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed
(expandable to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides
basic detention services to all residents utilizing a classification
system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium
and minimal security. Our facility was designed to provide programs
including behavioral management, alcohol and substance abuse, spiritual
and cultural growth and learning, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health
and fitness, horticulture, nutrition, life skills, vocational technical
training, counseling, educational programs and a Transitional Living
Center.
Through a partnership with the local high school, students are
afforded an education at the public school level, including a
graduation ceremony and issuance of a certificate upon successfully
achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the Sac and Fox Nation
has an on-site justice center providing law enforcement and tribal
court services and the Nation also operates an on-site health clinic
which provides outstanding medical services that include contract
service capabilities for optometry, dental and other health-related
services.
The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base
funding have mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the
programs our facility was built to offer. Our current funding levels
only allow us to provide an alcohol and substance abuse program, some
health and fitness activities and a basic education program. We have
lost our programs for vocational training, horticulture, life skills,
arts and crafts, on-site counseling and transitional living. The
passage of the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the Sac
and Fox Nation because we saw this as an opportunity for the Federal
Government to finally step up to its pledge to fully-fund the SFNJDC
and honor its treaty and trust obligations to our people. However, the
lack of funding is also impeding the implementation of TLOA!
In 1996, the SFNJDC was built as a model facility in Indian
Country. And nearly 20 years later there is still a need for such a
facility to help our youth return to their traditional healing and
spiritual ways. As a Self-Governance Tribe we operate our tribal
government on the premise that we are the best provider of the services
and know which services are most needed in our communities. We saw the
increasing need in the 1990's for a facility like the SFNJDC and we
acted on our instincts to help our youth by giving them a place to turn
their lives around and the access to programs, services and holistic
care they needed to recover and heal. Sadly, the number of Native
American youth, and juveniles overall requiring detention has not
decreased. The Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center was built
with the same ideals that the Tribal Law and Order Act Long Term Plan
to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems espouses today. The SFNJDC
has the facility, staffing, ability, commitment and capacity to provide
superior detention and rehabilitation services to Native American
youth, as well as any youth in the tri-State area in need of our
services. We do not understand the Federal Government's desire to fund
the construction of more detention facilities while our beds remain
empty.
With access to full funding for operations, the SFNJDC will have
the stability to fulfill the mission the tribal leaders envisioned to
help our youth once again find their way and recover from the ills that
resulted in them coming to the Facility. With adequate funding we
believe it is possible to thrive and benefit the lives of juveniles who
enter our Center and are desperately in need of our help to develop and
assist them to have a more healthy and productive future.
Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on the fiscal
year 2015 budgets.
______
Prepared Statement of the San Juan Water Commission
April 1, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
L. Randy Kirkpatrick,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seattle Indian Health Board
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee, my name is Ralph Forquera.
I am the Executive Director for the Seattle Indian Health Board in
Seattle, Washington. I also direct our Urban Indian Health Institute. I
am an enrolled member of the Juanenno Band of California Mission
Indians, a State-recognized Indian tribe. My tribe was one of 43 tribes
and bands of California Indians terminated in 1958 through the
California Rancheria Termination Act (Public Law 85-671).
The Indian Health Service has requested an inflationary increase
for urban Indian health of $646,000. This figure represents a 1.58
percent increase over the fiscal year 2014 enacted appropriation, far
below medical inflation in the Nation. I ask the subcommittee to
consider an increase of at least $5 million to address the growing
urban Indian population needs.
Urban American Indians now represent more than 7 out of 10
Americans self-identifying as having heritage in an American Indian or
Alaska Native tribe, according to the 2010 United States Census. The
permanent reauthorization of the 1976 Indian Health Care Improvement
Act in the Affordable Care Act, claims, in its declaration of policy,
an obligation to aid urban Indians. Subtitle IV of the Act (Previously
title V) spells out a discrete authority to assist local, non-profit,
Indian-governed organizations in enhancing access and assuring health
improvements to meet the national goal of health parity for Indian
people.
The movement of Indian people to American cities has been steady
since first documented with the 1970 census. Analysis using the
American Community Survey for the period 2006-2009 finds that more than
1 in 4 urban Indians have incomes at or below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty level. This description likely undercounts the number
of urban Indians in poverty, since the collection method for this
national survey does not reach a sizeable portion of the urban Indian
population, particularly those living in unstable households that are a
common problem among poorer urban Indians. There is currently no
specific assessment of urban American Indians and Alaska Natives. Our
understanding is derived from Federal and State regularly scheduled
data collection strategies and agency reporting standards that often do
not specify Indian identity in their collection processes to document
conditions and outcomes among the general population.
The Indian Health Service itself has not focused attention on a
reporting mechanism explicit for addressing urban specific health
concerns. Instead, the IHS has tried to include our work in their
tribally-based reporting standards that, in my view, misrepresent the
health disparities among urban Indians. This lack of information that
could paint a more accurate portrayal of the health and social
conditions that influence the health status of urban Indians leads to
inappropriate and misguided policies that disrupt our ability to
effectively serve our communities.
But regardless of the limitations of the data sources, evidence
grows that health disparities are extensive for urban Indians and that
factors that contribute to poor health generally affect urban Indians
across the Nation. For example, evidence of low academic achievement,
high unemployment, high rates of mobility among the population, and a
general over-representation in social metrics known to contribute to
poor health are consistently found upon analysis. The fact that this
evidence can be identified in work not explicit to urban Indians
reinforces the fact that these social factors are crucial in
perpetuating health disparities among urban Indians.
In the past several years, a growing awareness of how social
factors influence health has drawn attention from policy makers,
elected officials, and the general public. Key factors like low
educational attainment and substandard or inadequate housing,
particularly in cities indicate that urban Indians are often listed as
living with conditions that adversely influence health. This reality
places urban Indians at greater risk for health problems and early and
unnecessary death and disability.
The Affordable Care Act calls for data to identify and track
changes in the health status of groups like urban Indians. But to
collect and analyze this information, funding is needed to build the
infrastructure and support the personnel needed to gather data and
perform the necessary analysis. Our Institute has discussed building
this capacity with Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) and
other Federal agencies but funding has not been forthcoming. Therefore,
as noted, we do our best to find ways to use national and State data
collection strategies and apply scientifically-sound methodologies to
understand health conditions for urban Indians. While these methods are
limiting, the preponderance of findings reinforce the disparities we
see daily at my organization.
The question is frequently asked whether Indians living in cities
retain eligibility for Indian health benefits. Legal analysis shows
that Indians leaving reservations do not lose the right to the benefits
and protections granted Indians by the Congress, but that the extent of
these Indian-specific programs and services is subject to the level of
funding devoted to them by the Congress. Over the decades, in spite of
the dramatic shift in the Indian and Native population's living
arrangements, resources to help urban Indians have fallen farther and
farther behind.
There are some who have argued that only enrolled members of
federally-recognized Indian tribes and those living on Indian
reservations are eligible for Federal assistance. Currently, this
policy is being applied to the Affordable Care Act as it affects the
marketplace aspect of reform. This claim misinterprets the nature of
the Indian trust relationship.
Back in 2005, I prepared a paper I would be happy to share with the
subcommittee illustrating the historical and legislative history of aid
for urban Indians in response to a question from the Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs. This response became the foundation for the Congress
to increase urban Indian health funding by $7 million in 2008. However,
other problems subsequent have since disrupted this appreciation for
the need for greater financial aid for urban Indians and the current
funding allocated for urban Indian health now represents only 0.92
percent of the overall Indian Health Service budget.
When the line item for urban Indian health was first established in
1979, about 1.48 percent of that year's IHS appropriation was directed
for urban Indians. Over the decades, the percentage devoted for urban
Indians has fluctuated around the 1 percent threshold until 2009, when
the allocation dropped below 1 percent.
A further review of the IHS budget process finds that the agency
has seldom requested additional funds for urban Indians. At best, the
agency has sought inflationary increases that are generally far less
than healthcare inflation has run over the decades including for fiscal
year 2015. As each year passes, the inability to meet just the
inflationary challenges has forced reductions in services. Since the
agency responsible for advocating for the health of Indian people fails
to request funding to aid urban Indians, it should not be a surprise
that the agency is not actively seeking solutions and support for our
work.
As an example, the recent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act requires that the IHS create a conferring policy
similar to the tribal consultation policy to assure that the guidance
of the urban contractors is given when considering policy or
programmatic change. It is now more than 4 years after the law was
enacted and a conferring policy has not been approved, leaving those of
us who operate Urban Indian Health Organizations without a formal means
of communicating our ideas or sharing our concerns with the Indian
Health Service. In larger tribal consultation sessions, we are mostly
overshadowed by the tribal leadership present. Essentially, the voices
of the majority of Indian people are not reflected in Indian policy
today.
It should also be noted that the urban Indian health program
defined in subtitle IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a
discrete authority intended to improve access to healthcare for Indians
living in cities. This role was expanded in 1987 as increased evidence
arose that the acceptability of healthcare service was critically
important to many urban Indians that carry the ill effects of past
failed Federal actions toward Indians as a core belief. Given the
continuing lack of attention toward urban Indians, this reality is
still an important characteristic of the work we do on their behalf.
Few today remember the forced sterilization of Indian women during
the 1970s or the sense of abandonment that accompanied the termination
of tribes in the 1950s. Many today experience denial of help from IHS
and tribal facilities that only treat members of federally recognized
tribes. Others feel thwarted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that does
not recognize displaced Indians. My tribe, for example, has had its
petition for re-acknowledgment rejected on several occasions by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, leaving members without benefits and
protections granted those that have been restored to Federal
recognition in the past several decades. These continuing actions
reflect the reality that urban Indians are not seen as equals to those
who were fortunate not to experience termination or who continue to
reside on reservation lands. This treatment helps to foster the sense
of second-class citizenry for urban Indians within Indian Country. Some
tribes under self-governance compacts have recognized the
discriminatory nature of these actions and, when financially feasible,
offer some help.
It should also be noted that the lack of attention to the health
and welfare of urban Indians is best illustrated by both the lack of
funding, but also a lack of recognition and understanding of this
portion of Indian Country. Little effort has been made by the Indian
Health Service or others to describe the health status of urban Indians
or to find ways to aid those urban communities with sizable Indian
populations but lacking an urban Indian health organization. In fact,
there are fewer urban Indian health organizations today than there were
in the mid-1980s.
When the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was passed in 1976, the
House Report accompanying the passage of the bill made the bold claim
that ``The most basic human rights must be the right to enjoy decent
health. Certainly, any effort to fulfill Federal responsibilities to
the Indian people must begin with the provision of health services. In
fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon which rest all other
Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. Without a proper health
status, the Indian people will be unable to fully avail themselves of
the many economic, educational, and social programs already directed to
them or which this Congress and future Congresses will provide them.''
H.R. Report No. 94-1026, pt. I at 13 (1976) as reprinted in 1976
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2652, 2653. It is clear that this proclamation has not
been fulfilled for urban Indians.
The inequity in funding for urban Indian health is an artifact of
history. The reality of funding inadequacy reinforces the
administrative policy of limiting both the work and the scarce
resources to the more limited aspect of Indian Country--members of
federally recognized tribes and those living on or near Indian
reservations. However, Congress has the authority to allocate
additional funds to assist urban Indians if they so choose.
As mentioned earlier, another hat I wear is as the Director for the
Urban Indian Health Institute. I founded the Institute in July of 2000
to find ways to document and study health disparities among urban
Indians to help build a case for needed resources. In 2004, the
Institute published the first large scale national report, illustrating
the severity of health problems faced by urban Indians. These findings
were reinforced when an independent Urban Indian Health Commission
funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, made similar claims in
its 2007 report. (find reports at www.uihi.org). Additional reports and
studies including several published in peer-reviewed professional
journals verify the disparity in health experienced by urban Indians,
but these findings have not successfully translated to the provision of
the essential resources needed.
We recognize and respect the fact that Indians living on
reservations who are enrolled in a federally-recognized Indian tribe
have needs deserving of congressional support. But just caring for
reservation Indians is insufficient in addressing the broad trust
obligation that the Nation bears towards its indigenous citizens,
especially since more than 7 out of 10 Indian and Native people now
live in cities.
After spending more than three decades working to improve the
health of urban Indians, I recognize that we face daunting challenges.
Expectations that the Affordable Care Act will improve conditions for
urban Indians fail to take into account the historic maltreatment and
broken promises experienced by Indian people that large scale programs
like the ACA will not correct. In this regard, it is my hope that this
subcommittee will recognize and renew its commitment to assure that all
Indian people, regardless of their place of residence or their standing
as being federally-recognized, achieve the House's proclamation of the
importance of good health in Indian affairs.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Tribe
summary
The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is located on Willapa Bay in southwestern
Washington. Our tribe was formed in 1866 incorporating members of Lower
Chehalis, Shoalwater Bay and Chinookan people. As a small but strong
tribe, we strive to keep our language, culture and economic health
active and viable. While very connected to our past, Shoalwater Bay
tribal members work to expand our influence and increase awareness of
our tribal culture while improving our health and way of life. We
request that the subcommittee provide the following items in the fiscal
year 2015 appropriations cycle.
--Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending.
--Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians.
--Fund the IHS budget with advanced appropriations.
mandatory funding for contract support costs
We are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund
contract support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge
Congress to support that goal. We also acknowledge that the
administration's request is a direct response to Congress' actions with
regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical
caps on CSC funding and rejected the administration's proposal--put
forward without consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to
individually cap contract support cost recovery at the contractor
level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that
allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our
members. If contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our
programs and services are directly impacted because we are forced to
divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses
instead. We therefore appreciate Congress' support in fiscal year 2014
and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
remains subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though
tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
with tribes on a permanent solution.
In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ``Entitlement'' as
``A legal obligation of the Federal Government to make payments to a
person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar
entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the
budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.''
Further, ``Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through
those programs' eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules.''
\1\ CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget
authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation
acts--as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is
not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States.
Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA--to end Federal domination
of Indian programs and allow for meaningful control by Indian tribes
over their own destinies in the face of Federal bureaucratic
resistance--will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that
allow the statute to function are considered ``discretionary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://
www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint
Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
basis.
reauthorize the special diabetes program
While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment
(Public Law 113-93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
$150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
at increased funding levels.
fund the ihs through advanced appropriations
An important goal for Shoalwater Bay--and for all of Indian
Country--is the reliable, advance appropriation of the IHS budget 1
year in advance. The goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare
providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of Federal
appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties
of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Under advance
appropriations funding is provided in the initial year for 2 years and
thereafter for 1 year, but it is a year in advance. Because the funding
does not count against the subcommittee's funding cap or the Budget
Resolution score until the year in which it is to be obligated, that
initial second year of funding does not have a negative effect on the
subcommittee or Budget Resolution. Congress provides advance
appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and
the request is for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS.
Bilsl that would authorize IHS advance appropriations have been
introduced--H.R. 3229 by Representative Don Young and S. 1570 by
Senators Murkowski and Begich. We request that you support the effort
to authorize and to appropriate funding for Indian Health Service
advance appropriations.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We
are happy to respond to questions or provide any additional information
you may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA)
Request:
--$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs).
--$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices
(THPOs).
--$500,000 for grants for survey and National Register/National
Landmark nominations for underrepresented populations.
These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S.
Department of the Interior's National Park Service Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470h).
about sha and its members
SHA is the largest organization in the world dedicated to the
archaeological study of the modern world and the third largest
anthropological organization in the United States. It promotes
scholarly research and knowledge concerning historical archaeology, and
is specifically concerned with the identification, excavation,
interpretation, and conservation of sites and materials on land and
underwater. SHA and its more than 2,300 members strongly support the
protection of cultural and historical resources and sites around the
Nation.
funding shpos and thpos is critically important to protecting u.s.
archaeology
In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage,
enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470, et
seq.) (NHPA), which established historic preservation as a Federal
Government priority. Historic preservation recognizes that what was
common and ordinary in the past is often rare and precious today, and
what is common and ordinary today may be extraordinary in the future.
Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the
Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation opted to partner with the States and use SHPOs and THPOs
to, among other tasks, review all Federal projects for their impact on
historic properties. In order for the review process to work smoothly
and for historical archaeological sites to be protected, SHPOs and
THPOs must have adequate funding. Proper financial support for their
work allows SHPOs and THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely
basis, moving projects forward in an efficient manner and protecting
irreplaceable cultural and historical resources and sites.
conclusion
SHA would like to thank you, Chairman Reed, and all the Members of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies for the opportunity to submit testimony.
SHA would also like to thank the subcommittee for its commitment to
historic preservation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000
professionals working across all segments of the forestry profession,
promotes science-based, sustainable management and stewardship of the
Nation's public and private forests. SAF appreciates this opportunity
to submit written public testimony on fiscal year 2015 appropriations
because proper funding for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the
Department of Interior (DOI) is vital to conserving and improving the
health and productivity of our Nation's forests.
Society as a whole relies on the 751 million acres of forests in
the United States to provide clean and abundant air and water,
recreational opportunities, forest products, wildlife habitat, and
scenic beauty. As our reliance continues to grow, pressures on forests
from wildfires, drought, insects, disease, and invasive species have
risen to unprecedented levels. Land management agencies must manage
these mounting threats while still providing for multiple uses and
important ecosystem services. Maintaining this balance demands that
Federal land managers identify innovative ways to maximize the rate of
return when considering investments to improve the health of America's
forests.
The following highlights SAF's top priorities in the fiscal year
2015 budget process. These priorities impact a range of programs within
USFS and DOI. Recognizing fiscal constraints, these requests will
assist forest managers in sustaining our Nation's forests and providing
a multitude of benefits for generations to come.
saf top priorities
1. Adoption of a new approach to wildfire suppression funding that
features flexible spending caps for emergency wildfire suppression
costs in addition to funding USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs at a
level that is sufficient to conduct fuels reduction projects to reduce
wildfire risks on Federal, State, and private lands.
2. Increased funding levels for USFS Research and Development
(R&D) to no less than $231 million and no less than $72 million for the
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program (FIA).
3. Funding the Forest Health Management Program (FHP) as a
consolidated USFS State and Private Forestry budget line item at no
less than $111 million.
4. Continued support for the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (CFLRP) at no less than $40 million.
5. Removal of the Bureau of Land Management Forest Ecosystem
Health and Recovery Fund sunset provision set to go into effect at the
end of fiscal year 2015.
SAF represents forestry and natural resources professionals working
on public and private forests across America. SAF members are eager to
work with Federal agencies and Congress to identify reasonable
solutions to facilitate increasing the pace of management on Federal
lands.
Since 1910, forest area in the U.S. has been relatively stable,
with a slight increase in the last two decades.\1\ The current volume
of annual timber growth is 32 percent higher than the volume of annual
removals, but SAF is concerned that 90 percent of the timber harvested
in the Nation came from private forestlands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. U.S. Forest Resource Facts
and Historical Trends. Available online at http://fia.fs.fed.us/
library/brochures/docs/Forest%20Facts%201952-2007%20English
%20rev072411.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
\2\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/
research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010_
SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAF is pleased that the administration recognizes the need for
management of Federal lands, and set a harvest target of three billion
board feet for fiscal year 2015. With 65 to 82 million acres in the
National Forest System (NFS) in need of restoration and total U.S.
timber harvests at the lowest levels since the 1960s, SAF encourages
USFS to seize this opportunity to implement more projects on Federal
lands.\3\ USFS can work with rural communities to get these projects
started now without adding the potential for complications and
confusion that could arise with the expansion of the Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR) line item beyond the pilot phase. SAF
members are convinced that this volume target can be reached using
existing mechanisms and infrastructure. The increased volume output
will help to satisfy increased demand for construction and wood
products while also improving the health and resilience of our Nation's
forests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on
Sustainable Forests--2010. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/
research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010_
SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
saf budget recommendations
Simply appropriating dollars for Federal land management agencies
is not enough. Successful implementation of USFS and DOI programs is
predicated on finding an alternative to how fire suppression activities
are managed and funded. In the span of only 2 years--fiscal year 2012
and 2013--USFS and DOI were forced to transfer more than $1 billion
that Congress had appropriated to other priority programs to fund fire
suppression. Changing the fire funding structure and committing to fund
the Hazardous Fuels Programs at USFS and DOI will prevent future
transfers and assist the agencies in achieving important land
management objectives.
SAF encourages the subcommittee to avoid transfers in fiscal year
2015 by including language similar to the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster
Funding Act, introduced in the House and Senate (H.R. 3992 & S. 1875)
in the fiscal year 2015 House Appropriations Bill.
A balanced approach to averting threats posed by fire is
imperative. The Hazardous Fuels line items in the USFS and DOI budgets
are integral to restoring forest health and resilience and reducing the
costs of wildfire suppression. SAF members appreciate this
subcommittee's consistent support for wildfire management and encourage
the subcommittee to allocate funds to address fire risks inside and
outside the wildland urban interface. Directing funds to treat areas
outside of the wildland urban interface will reduce the costs
associated with suppression and, in certain instances, the intensity of
wildfires after outbreak. SAF supports consolidating hazardous fuels
funding in the USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs with $479 million
allocated for USFS and $178 million allocated for DOI.
Investments in forestry research are investments in the future
health and sustainability of the Nation's forests. USFS R&D conducts
essential research on disturbances, forest ecosystems, species and
forest resilience, treatment methods for controlling forest insects,
diseases, and invasive species, renewable energy development and woody
biomass conversion technology, and forest products and technology. SAF
is concerned that the forestry research capacity in the U.S. continues
to decline, threatening U.S. competitiveness and the ability of forest
managers to meet tomorrow's challenges with current science and
technical information. SAF supports a funding level of $231 million for
USFS R&D with particular emphasis on prioritizing research efforts and
transferring knowledge to forestry professionals working in the field.
USFS R&D Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the
backbone of U.S. forestry, providing the only national census of
forests across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS (partnering with State
forestry agencies and the private sector) collects and analyzes forest
data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and management,
fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. The
data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for:
identifying trends in forest ownership; assessing fish and wildlife
habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and disease risk; predicting the
spread of invasive species; determining capital investment in existing
forest products facilities and selecting locations for new forest
product facilities; and identifying and responding to priorities
identified in State Forest Action Plans. FIA data also evaluates forest
disturbance risks, such as wildfire, insects and disease, and spread of
invasive species. SAF members urge this subcommittee to reverse the
spending cuts to FIA and requests funding in fiscal year 2015 at a
level of at least $72 million.
USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF) allocations support
sustainable forestry on public and private lands. SAF strongly supports
funding S&PF programs to work in cooperation with the States to provide
assistance to private landowners who own more than 50 percent of the
forestland in the United States. The consolidated S&PF Forest Health
Management programs (FHP) manage forest health through direct action on
the NFS lands and provide assistance to other Federal agencies, State
and local agencies, and private landowners to prevent and mitigate
insect and disease outbreaks as well as the spread of invasive species.
SAF recommends funding FHP at the fiscal year 2012 enacted funding
levels of $111 million to continue monitoring and responding to forest
health concerns.
SAF remains committed to the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (CFLRP). CFLRP encourages collaborative, science-
based ecosystem restoration on priority forest landscapes.\4\ In 4
years, the 23 selected projects have reduced hazardous fuels, generated
timber receipts, and provided a boost to rural economies.\5\ To ensure
CFLRP's continued success, SAF supports a $40 million dollar funding
level and consideration of additional funds for the program if
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program. U.S. Forest Service Web site. Accessible online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml; last accessed April
2015.
\5\ U.S. Forest Service 2014. Fiscal year 2015 President's Budget
Justification. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/
2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf; last accessed April 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing, SAF would like to highlight an issue of concern. SAF
members were delighted with the return of the Bureau of Land Management
Public Domain Forestry Program (PD) to fiscal year 2012 funding levels
as a part of the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. However, SAF members
are troubled by the pending loss of the Forest Ecosystem Health and
Recovery Fund, commonly referred to as the 5900 account. This fund
allows PD and BLM Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands (O&C) to
use a portion of the receipts from sales of timber and wood products on
BLM lands not returned to the neighboring counties to fund management
activities. This permanent operating fund created in the Appropriations
Act of 1993 expires at the end of fiscal year 2015.
After fiscal year 2015, all receipts generated from these sales
currently used to continue management and restoration activities on PD
and O&C lands will be returned to the Federal treasury. This loss of
revenue will leave few dollars in the tight PD budget for planning,
preparing, implementing, and monitoring forest ecosystem restoration
activities. SAF recognizes that permanent operating fund accounts
should be periodically evaluated for continued relevance or possible
elimination, but BLM's use of the 5900 account reduces the budgeted
dollars required to operate PD. SAF recommends this account be
reauthorized and not allowed to expire at the end of fiscal year 2015.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these important
requests. SAF and its extensive network of forestry and natural
resources professionals stand ready to assist with further development
and implementation of these efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
January 16, 2015.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Southern
Ute Indian Tribe, I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2015
appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President's
recommended budget. I request that the subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
The tribe requests the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal
year 2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and
personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery
programs. The tribe recognizes and appreciates that the past support
and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success
of these ongoing efforts.
Sincerely,
James L. Olguin,
Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
April 8, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: The Southwestern Water
Conservation District was established by the Colorado legislature to
conserve and protect the waters of the San Juan and Dolores Rivers and
their tributaries.
Following this mandate, I am requesting your support for fiscal
year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program in the amount of
$1,392,100.00 consistent with the President's recommended budget. I
request that the subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
On behalf of our District board, I request the subcommittee's
assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to allow the FWS to
continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally
important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past
support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the
success of these ongoing efforts.
Sincerely,
Bruce Whitehead,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin
Island Tribe, thank you for the invitation to submit our funding
priorities and recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). Squaxin
Island Tribe requests that tribal program funding throughout the
Federal Government be exempt from future sequestration cuts. Further we
ask that the legal obligations to pay full Contract Support Costs (CSC)
not be at the expense of reducing tribal program funding and that
tribal programs not be subjected to across the board rescissions not
imposed on other beneficiaries of the Federal Government. For the
fiscal year 2015 budget, we submit the following requests:
tribal specific requests
1. $500,000 Shellfish Management Program--BIA.
2. $2 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
Southern Puget Sound--BIA.
3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
(NWITC) Residential Program in IHS.
national requests and recommendations--bureau of indian affairs
1. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program
Funding.
2. +$4 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund
Contract Support Costs (CSC).
3. +$19.3 million over fiscal year 2014 for Tribal Priority
Allocations Account.
4. Fully fund all of the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order
Act of 2010 that authorizes additional funding for law and order
programs that affect Indian Tribes;
5. $500,000 for Johnson O'Malley education assistance grants to
support a new student count in 2015 and provides funding for the
projected increase in the number of students eligible for grants.
6. Office of Self-Governance (OSG)--Provide increased funding to
the OSG to fully staff the office for the increase in the number of
Tribes entering Self-Governance.
national requests and recommendations--indian health service
1. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health
Services.
2. Support IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services).
3. +$30 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund
Contract Support Costs (CSC).
4. +$50 million over 2015 request for Purchased and Referred Care.
5. Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance
(OTSG) to fulfill legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106-
260 which increased the responsibilities of OTSG.
The Squaxin Island Tribes supports the fiscal year 2015 budgets
requests of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest
Portland Area Indian Health Board and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission.
squaxin island tribe background
We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and the
tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of
the first 30 federally-recognized Tribes to enter into a Compact of
Self-Governance with the United States.
Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately
2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays
and inlets of southern Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh
water, the tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at
Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. The tribe also
owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a plot of
36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area
including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition,
the tribe manages roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands.
The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the
largest employer in Mason County with over 1,250 employees. The tribe
has a current enrollment of 1,040 and an on-reservation population of
426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service area
population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an
unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor Force
Report).
tribal specific requests justifications
1. $500,000--SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT.--The Squaxin Island Tribes faces
a budget deficit to maintain and operate the shellfish program at the
current level. To effectively grow and develop the program, an annual
minimum increase of $500,000 to address the shortfall and ensure the
continuance of this program is requested.
Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people for
thousands of years and are important today for subsistence, economic
and ceremonial purposes. The tribe's right to harvest shellfish is
guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. It is important to
remember that these rights were not granted by the Federal Government.
They were retained by the tribe in exchange for thousands of acres of
tribal lands. On December 20, 1994 U.S. District Court Judge Edward
Rafeedie reaffirmed the tribe's treaty right to naturally occurring
shellfish. Rafeedie ruled that the tribe(s) has the right to take up to
50 percent of the harvestable shellfish on Washington beaches.
The Squaxin Island Natural Resources Department (SINRD) is charged
with protecting, managing and enhancing the land and water resources of
the tribe, including fish and shellfish habitat and species. In so
doing, the Department works cooperatively with State and Federal
environmental, natural resources and health agencies. The shellfish
management work of the SINRD includes working with private tideland
owners and commercial growers; surveying beaches; monitoring harvests;
enhancing supply (prepping, seeding, monitoring beds) and licensing and
certifying harvesters and geoduck divers. We estimate that 20 percent
of treaty-designated State lands and 80-90 percent of private tidelands
are inaccessible to us due to insufficient funding.
In fiscal year 2011, the shellfish program represented only
$250,000 of the $3.3 million budget. The result is we are unable to
fully exercise our treaty rights due to lack of Federal support for
shellfish.
2. $2 Million--Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for
Southern Puget Sound.--In the past few years, problems with seed
production have developed in the shellfish industry. These problems
have been primarily caused by weather and or other environmental
factors, and their effects on the industry have resulted in the lack of
viable and large enough seed for growers. The Squaxin Island Tribe
recognizes that it is uniquely positioned to develop a new nursery to
serve the shellfish growers of the South Puget Sound region. A
shellfish nursery is a capital project that is both proven and a cost
effective technology that takes small oyster and clam seeds and
provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to grow to a
size that can survive integration onto a regular beach placement. We
have an ideal location for a nursery because it will not be disturbed
by residents or recreational boaters.
Our efforts will be an extension of another project that was
created through a U.S. Department of Agriculture appropriation nearly
two decades ago for the Lummi Tribe, which created an oyster and clam
hatchery in Northern Puget Sound. The Lummi project over years has been
very successful and they have supplied not only their own beaches but
other tribes' in their region as well. The project would benefit not
just Squaxin Island Tribe. It would further improve the quality and
quantity of seed and make the seed process more effective for tribal
and non-tribal growers. The users of the facility would be the Squaxin
Island Tribe, other Tribes, and non-tribal clam and oyster businesses
that have been largely unable to find sites for this type of operation.
The tribe's project will be a joint venture with the Lummi Nation,
in that Lummi would be a primary larvae supplier. The project, with the
expected grow-out and expansion of the industry attributable to the
improved supply of seed, would offer jobs in a depressed employment
area. Once established, the venture would be fully self-sustaining
through sales of the product grown and at the nursery.
This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2 million.
The tribal in-kind contribution to the efforts would include land and
shoreline and operating costs. Comparable land and shoreline, if
privately owned, would be easily valued in the millions.
3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center
(NWITC) Residential Program in IHS ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning
from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light''--NWITC has not received an
adequate increase in its base Indian Health Service budget since the
original Congressional set-aside in 1993.--The Squaxin Island Tribe has
been operating the Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) since
1994. Ingenious in creativity, the center offers a wide variety of
cultural activities and traditional/religious ceremonies, making it a
natural place to heal--body, mind and soul. Fittingly, the center was
given the spiritual name ``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the
Dark, Deep Waters to the Light.'' Since the original Congressional set-
aside in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate increase in the base
Indian Health Service budget. It is critical to increase the NWITC's
annual base in order to sustain the current services to the Tribes of
the Northwest. An increase of $1.5 million would restore lost
purchasing power and meet the need to add mental health and psychiatric
components to the treatment program through other funding agents. This
increase would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of
Native Americans.
NWITC is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility
designed to serve American Indians from tribes located in Oregon,
Washington and Idaho who have chronic relapse patterns related to
unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC is unique in its integration of
tribal cultural values into a therapeutic environment for co-occurring
substance abuse and mental health disorders. It is a 28 bed, 30-60 day
residential facility.
Welcomed and hailed by tribal Leaders who felt the urgent need for
such a facility, NWITC is centrally located in Grays Harbor County
between Olympia and Aberdeen, on 2.5 acres in the small rural town of
Elma, Washington. NWITC accepts patients that are referred through
outpatient treatment programs, parole and probation services,
hospitals, assessment centers and child and family service centers.
Medical care is provided through local Indian Health Service clinics
and other medical service providers. NWITC has responded with an
overwhelming success rate of nearly 65 percent.
In 2011, the NWITC served 225 patients from 28 tribes and added
intensive case management and crisis support to alumni in order to
continue to promote positive outcomes for clients. Despite funding
challenges, NWITC has continued to develop and deliver innovative,
culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly complex demands.
The Treatment Center's traditional foods and medicines program is
supported through a partnership with the Northwest Indian College and
is funded through grants from the Washington Health Foundation, the
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, The Potlatch Fund and
several tribes. Weekly hands-on classes focus on traditional foods and
medicines, including methods for growing, harvesting, processing, and
preparation. Twice a month, tribal elders, storytellers, and cultural
specialists speak as part of the program. A monthly family class allows
patients to share what they are learning with their loved ones.
Patients gain hands-on experience by working in three on-site teaching
gardens. This program serves as a model for other tribal communities.
Although we are submitting testimony on the fiscal year 2015 BIA
and IHS budgets, we must comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration
which disproportionately impacted tribal programs. The BIA and IHS
tribal funding incurred a disproportionate share of cuts; IHS $220
million and BIA $119 million. This act continues to undermine Indian
treaty rights and the Federal obligations and trust responsibility to
American Indian and Alaskan Native people. The ongoing contribution of
tribal nations to the U.S. economy is the land on which this Nation is
built.
It is ironic that we were forced into a lifestyle and to give up
our land, and that which we retained or have since regained is
threatened by the promises you made and have since reclaimed!
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
The requests of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe for the fiscal year 2015
Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows:
--Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by
moving the program to mandatory entitlement spending.
--Support reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians.
--Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis.
The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe is located astride the U.S. Canadian
border in northern New York. Traditionally the keepers of the Eastern
Door of the Iroquois Confederacy, we have continued as a government for
our people since before the arrival of Europeans on U.S. shores. We
cooperate with the United States on a nation-to-nation basis, and today
operate our own environmental, social, policing, economic, health and
educational programs, policies, laws and regulations. We operate our
own medical clinic, and provide a variety of services from mental
healthcare, nutrition care, pharmacy and laboratory services,
outpatient services, dental care, pregnancy care, and other services.
ensure contract support costs receive funding via mandatory spending
We are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund
contract support costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge
Congress to support that goal. We also acknowledge that the
administration's request is a direct response to Congress' actions with
regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical
caps on CSC funding and rejected the administration's proposal--put
forward without consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes--to
individually cap contract support cost recovery at the contractor
level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that
allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our
members--programs like those described above. If contract support costs
are not fully funded, however, our programs and services are directly
impacted because we are forced to divert limited program funding to
cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate
Congress' support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries through
to fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding
for CSC must not come with a penalty--namely, a reduction in program
funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds.
That result would have the same devastating effect on our service
delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint
Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, noted that ``since [contract support costs] fall
under discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all
other programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations
bill, including other equally important tribal programs.'' Moreover,
without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC
remains subject to agency ``discretion'' from year to year, even though
tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these
ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult
with tribes on a permanent solution.
In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress
is empowered to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory
entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ``Entitlement'' as
``A legal obligation of the Federal Government to make payments to a
person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar
entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which the
budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.''
Further, ``Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through
those programs' eligibility criteria and benefit or payment rules.''
\1\ CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget
authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation
acts--as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is
not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States.
Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA--to end Federal domination
of Indian programs and allow for meaningful control by Indian tribes
over their own destinies in the face of Federal bureaucratic
resistance--will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that
allow the statute to function are considered ``discretionary.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://
www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint
Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch
between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation
approach leaves both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
in the ``untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for
the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.'' As the
Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ``Typically obligations of this
nature are addressed through mandatory spending.'' The obvious solution
then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory
requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory
entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge
the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory
basis.
reauthorize the special diabetes program
While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for
Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those
funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment
(Public Law 113-93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the
Medicare ``doc fix'' bill, it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at
$150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the
sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112-240).
This funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven
highly effective in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results.
For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in
2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point
overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye,
kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you
support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period
at increased funding levels.
fund the ihs on an advance appropriations basis
We support legislation that would place the IHS budget on an
advance appropriations basis. The goal is for the IHS and tribal
healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of
Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the
uncertainties of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions.
Under advance appropriations 2 years of funds is approved in the first
year, but the second year's worth of appropriations is not counted
against the subcommittee's allocation nor the Budget Resolution until
the year in which it is obligated. Thereafter funding is appropriated 1
year at a time, but it is 1 year in advance. This contrasts with
forward funding which does require a one-time extra (3/4 of a year)
funding that does count against the subcommittee's allocation and the
Budget Resolution. Congress provides advance appropriations for the
Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for parity
in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize
IHS advance appropriations has been introduced--H.R. 3229 by
Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We
ask that you support the effort to fund IHS on an advanced basis.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We will be glad
to provide any additional information the Committee may request.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico
April 29, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Scott A. Verhines, P.E.,
New Mexico State Engineer.
______
Prepared Statement of the Suquamish Tribe
Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The Suquamish
Tribe asks that you support economic development, job creation, and our
national heritage by appropriating increased funding for the Historic
Preservation Fund (HPF) for fiscal year 2015. We agree with the
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers that the
appropriation needs to be $15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers (THPOs) and $50 million for State Historic Preservation
Officers (SHPOs).
Historic Preservation Officers funded through the HPF form the
backbone of our Nation's historic preservation programs. Together these
programs provide the tools needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and
protect the places that give meaning to our great Nation. Funding also
leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal contributions,
and long-term economic development in communities around the country.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers are recognized as the
authentic representatives of cultures and societies that have been in
existence for countless generations. They are an active expression of
tribal sovereignty and perform many functions and responsibilities in
Indian County. THPOs are involved with projects to improve Indian
schools, roads, health clinics, and housing, conducting important
Federal and State compliance work. They are the first responders when a
sacred site is threatened; when an ancestral home is uncovered; and
when Native ancestors are disturbed by development. They are also
responsible for their tribe's oral history programs and operating
tribal museums and cultural centers.
The amount appropriated in fiscal years 2012-2014 and the
President's fiscal year 2015 request was $56.4 million. Of that amount,
$46.9 million was for the State line item and $9.0 million was for the
tribal line item. In addition, $500,000 was appropriated for a
competitive grant program to help survey and identify historic
resources important to underrepresented populations.
Unfortunately, the amount of HPF funds appropriated is not keeping
pace with the increase in THPOs. There are now 151 THPOs, compared to
only 12 in fiscal year 1996 when the program was first funded. There
are expected to be at least 156 THPOs in fiscal year 2015. The addition
of new THPOs each year keeps the average level of support per THPO
suppressed below $60,000, barely enough to operate a program to protect
cultural resources on and off tribal lands.
Without adequate funding, America's national treasures will be
forever lost. The HPF is the primary, and in many communities the only,
means to ensure appropriate implementation of our Nation's historic
preservation laws and the only way to adequately safeguard our historic
resources. For nearly the past half century, the HPF has enabled
successful Federal-State, Federal-tribal, and public-private
partnerships that have helped preserve historic sites and communities
throughout the Nation. Thank you for your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition
Dear Chairman Jack Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable
members of the subcommittee: The Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition
(SUFC) represents nonprofits, national associations, nursery and
landscape professionals, public works professionals, arborists, and
others nationwide. Working together since 2004, these diverse
professionals monitor, care and advocate for urban trees and green
infrastructure. Collectively, we are asking for your support for
several programs under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction that
support urban forests and green infrastructure.
Urban forests are vital to creating and maintaining healthy,
livable communities of all sizes. Trees growing in populated areas are
a key component of community infrastructure and provide proven benefits
to more than the 80 percent of Americans who live there. Urban forests
enhance air and water quality, reduce energy use, increase property
values, and provide quantifiable health and wellness benefits to
people. Creating and maintaining a healthy tree canopy also creates a
substantial demand for green collar jobs in a sector poised for rapid
growth.
usda forest service
Since the passage of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1990, the Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) program has been a
catalyst and provided important technical assistance for promoting
healthy forests in our communities. In addition, the U&CF program
provides critical assistance to help communities manage risk, respond
to storms and disturbance, and contain threats from invasive pests. In
2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial, educational, and
research assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly 198 million people,
over 60 percent of the U.S. population. Urban forests are integral to
any community striving to reinvest in itself, encourage active, healthy
citizens, and create a healthier and more sustainable environment with
smart green infrastructure. The SUFC understands the current economic
conditions of the country and recommends fiscal year 2015 funding be
allocated at fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for the Urban and
Community Forestry program at $31.3 million.
The Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Research program is
essential in providing support for urban forestry research activities
focused on understanding conditions and trends in our Nation's urban
and community forests and in providing tools and best management
practices to community groups and urban forestry practitioners. Forest
Service researchers and partners have made huge strides in recent years
in developing new technologies and tools, such as the i-Tree program,
for mapping the urban forest and to understand the current situation
and future trends. Similarly, agency researchers have been helping
policymakers and practitioners to understand the environmental,
economic, and social services that trees and forests provide. The SUFC
urges Congress to provide funding for the Forest and Rangeland Research
line item at $303 million. This reflects $231 million for basic forest
research, consistent with the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and $72
million for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). We also call the
subcommittee's attention to our collaborative efforts with the Forest
Service to make progress toward incorporating urban forest assessments
into the agency's FIA program. We urge the subcommittee to encourage
the Forest Service to make strong efforts to integrate urban forests
into FIA so that its critical data-collection efforts on our Nation's
forests include the estimated 100 million acres of urban forest lands.
Finally, the SUFC wishes to thank Congress for the report language
it included with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, which
encourages the Forest Service to maintain a strong urban forest
research program. While there is no budget line item for urban forestry
research, the Forest Service has recognized Urban Natural Resources
Stewardship as one of seven Priority Research Areas within its overall
Forest and Rangeland Research program. We urge the subcommittee to
continue including such language in its Interior Appropriations reports
as a reflection of Congress' interest in strong urban forestry research
in the absence of a budget line item.
Exotic pests and invasive species are among the greatest threats to
urban forests. Trees in our towns and cities are at risk from non-
native insects and diseases such as the emerald ash borer and Asian
longhorned beetle. Non-native pests already cost city governments $2
billion each year to remove and replace trees they have killed.
Homeowners in these communities pay another $1 billion per year to
remove dead trees from their own properties. The substantial loss of
trees in our communities also impacts the quality of life and property
values. Funding for the Forest Health Program supports activities
related to prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects,
diseases, and plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring
through pest surveys. SUFC supports no less than fiscal year 2012
funding levels of $111 million (of which $48 million was directed to
cooperative lands) in fiscal year 2015 for the USDA Forest Service
Forest Health Management Program.
environmental protection agency
All forests play vital roles in delivering clean water to
communities of every size. Urban and rural forests offer fiscally-sound
green solutions to the management of stormwater, water storage,
groundwater recharge, and pollutant reduction. Green infrastructure is
a cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure
needs that provides many community benefits: improving water and air
quality; reducing energy use and mitigating climate change; improving
habitat for wildlife; reducing a community's infrastructure cost and
promoting economic growth.
SUFC supports the EPA's goal of strengthening green infrastructure
activities to further sustainability goals by incorporating green
infrastructure and enhancing stormwater management. SUFC also supports
efforts to expand the use of green infrastructure to meet Clean Water
Act goals through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF). SUFC
supports the President's fiscal year 2015 request of $5 million to
strengthen green infrastructure activities, and the fiscal year 2014
enacted level of $1.449 billion for CWSRF.
The Urban Waters Federal Partnership is a 13 interagency
coordinated effort helps stimulate local economies, create jobs,
improve quality of life, and protect health by revitalizing urban
waterways and the communities around them, focusing on underserved
urban communities of all sizes. SUFC supports appropriating fiscal year
2015 funding to the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, coordinated by
the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water.
land and water conservation fund
SUFC supports full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF), including funding for the State and Local
Assistance Program. We support the fiscal year 2015 budget request
which calls for permanent authorization of $900 million in mandatory
funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture beginning in 2016. During the transition to permanent
funding in 2015, the budget proposes $350 million in discretionary and
$550 million in permanent funding, shared by the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture. This includes discretionary funding for State
Assistance grants at $48.1 million, which includes $3 million for
``Competitive Grants.''
the national park service
The reestablishment of the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery
(UPARR) program within the National Parks Service, proposed to be
funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is essential to
bring nature to the urban communities. These competitive grants focus
on engaging and connecting communities, especially young people, to
their neighborhood parks through projects that would revitalize and
rehabilitate park and recreation opportunities. SUFC supports the
President's fiscal year 2015 request of $25 million from LWCF for the
Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).
Sincerely,
Alliance For Community Trees
American Forests
AmericanHort
American Planning Association
American Public Works
American Rivers
American Society of Landscape Architects
Arbor Day Foundation
Davey Tree Foundation
Keep America Beautiful
International Society of Arboriculture
National Association of Clean Water Agencies
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of State Foresters
National Recreation and Parks Association
Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
Professional Landcare Network
Sacramento Tree Foundation
SavATree Consulting Group
Society of American Foresters
Society of Municipal Arborists
The Nature Conservancy
Tree Care Industries Association
______
Prepared Statement of the Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following members of
the national Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee:
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Association of Zoos & Aquariums
Izaak Walton League of America
National Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy
The Wildlife Society
Wildlife Conservation Society
Wildlife Management Institute
Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to provide recommendations
on the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. The 6,414 organizations and businesses that are
part of the Teaming With Wildlife coalition represent millions of
birders, fish and wildlife professionals, hunters, anglers, boaters,
hikers and other nature enthusiasts. The State and Tribal Wildlife
Grants program was created in response to this diverse coalition. We
encourage the subcommittee to provide a minimum of $58.695 million for
the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2015, which
would avoid further cuts to this program. Funding for the State &
Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been reduced by 35 percent since
fiscal year 2010.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the only Federal
program with the singular purpose of preventing Federal endangered
species listings. It is achieving success as highlighted in the State
Wildlife Grants Success Stories Report which showed how partnerships in
every State are conserving vulnerable fish and wildlife, including many
that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing. The program
is providing needed capacity to assess and implement actions to
conserve many of the hundreds of species that have been petitioned for
Federal endangered species listing.
Preventing new endangered species listings is a goal shared by
conservationists, business, farmers and ranchers and has broad
bipartisan support. Through early and strategic action, we can be
successful in preventing new endangered species. Adequate and
consistent funding for the program is essential to fulfillment of the
shared Federal-State responsibility for keeping our Nation's wildlife
from becoming endangered. Now more than ever, we should be focusing
limited resources on this kind of smart, effective investment in
conservation.
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been cut by \1/3\
since 2010. The reduction in funding is impacting States' and their
partner's ability to restore habitat, protect land, incentivize private
lands conservation, monitor species, conduct research and mitigate
threats like invasive species and disease. Past cuts are slowing
conservation work which is leading to a higher probability for future
endangered species listings. There is no other program that can take
the place of the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program.
Although the need is much greater, continued funding will help
maintain essential capacity to conserve the more than 12,000 species
that States have identified as at-risk in their State Wildlife Action
Plans. These plans were developed collaboratively by leading
scientists, conservationists, sportsmen and private landowners and
identified the most effective and practical means to prevent wildlife
from becoming endangered in every State, territory and the District of
Columbia. The plans are up for a critical 10-year review and revision
in 2015. Funding is needed to ensure States and their partners have the
resources needed to update the plans to ensure the best science is
available to inform the plans so that successful implementation can be
achieved.
We understand and appreciate the fiscal constraints that face our
Nation. However, the investment in the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants
program is relatively modest compared to the scope of work it funds
(proactive conservation in all 56 States, territories and the District
of Columbia) and the importance of that work (recovery of some of our
Nation's most imperiled fish and wildlife). We appreciate the
subcommittee's past support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
program and hope the highest level of funding possible will be realized
for the program in fiscal year 2015.
______
Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre
Communications Group--the national service organization for the
American theatre--is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony
on behalf of our 494 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
and the 36 million audience members that the theatre community serves.
We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the National
Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2015.
Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
economy, creates jobs and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
arts generate $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, support
4.13 million jobs and return $9.59 billion in Federal income taxes. Art
museums, exhibits and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a
significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for
each Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the
economic health of America. In an uncertain economy where corporate
donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished, and
increased ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and
diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced.
Maintaining the strength of the not-for-profit sector, along with the
commercial sector, will be vital to supporting the economic health of
our Nation.
Our country's not-for-profit theatres develop innovative
educational activities and outreach programs, providing millions of
young people, including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for
the future by expanding their creativity and developing problem-
solving, reasoning and communication abilities--preparing today's
students to become tomorrow's citizens. Our theatres present new works
and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities.
These theatres also nurture--and provide artistic homes for the
development of--the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors,
directors and designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway and in
the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have
become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing
forces in difficult times, and producing work that reflects and
celebrates the strength of our Nation's diversity.
nea grants and their impact
Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact:
With a $10,000 Art Works grant from the NEA, Trinity Repertory
Company in Providence, Rhode Island, will produce a new production of
Oliver, directed by Sharon and Richard Jenkins. Audience members will
experience a production which offers fresh insights to a classic work,
giving prominence to character and narrative, and introducing updated
orchestrations that reveal the beauty of the music. Post-show
discussions will encourage audiences to immediately reflect on their
ideas. Outreach activities will include a free performance for
constituents served by social service agencies, and a pay-what-you-can
performance. Six matinees will welcome 3,000 school children, and
workshops will bring actors and other teaching artists into the
region's classrooms for 50 customized pre- and post-show sessions.
Fifteen actors and musicians will be employed, as well as designers,
artisans and a 100-member staff. Nine local children will also receive
the enriching experience of working in a professional theatre while
living at home and staying in school.
In order to create a lasting impact on the field and promote
burgeoning playwrights, South Coast Repertory (SCR) based in Costa
Mesa, California received a $50,000 Art Works grant to support the 17th
annual Pacific Playwrights Festival which brings together artists,
local audiences and theatre professionals from across the country.
Audiences will enjoy seven previously unproduced works and the world
premieres of Samuel D. Hunter's Rest, Rachel Bonds' Five Mile Lake and
Adam Rapp's The Purple Lights of Joppa Illinois. Additionally, the
festival will include staged readings of Theresa Rebeck's Zealot, Eliza
Clark's Future Thinking, Rajiv Joseph's Mr. Wolf and Melissa Ross' Of
Good Stock. All five readings from last year's festival went on to full
productions at SCR and other theatres. This NEA grant will help support
all seven projects and advance new American playwrights across the
American stage. In addition to programming like this festival SCR
annually serves more than 15,000 Orange County students and teachers
through ticketing programs and bus subsidies that make professional
theatre accessible to underserved youth and free after-school dramatics
workshops available for at-risk children in Title One elementary
schools.
Weston Playhouse Theatre based in Weston, Vermont, received a
$20,000 grant to support a production of Pulitzer-Prize winning author,
Annie Baker's adaptation of Anton Chekhov's ``Uncle Vanya.'' The
production is being complemented by a series of engagement and learning
opportunities. In the spring, a teachers' workshop was held that
provided more than a dozen educators with a wealth of knowledge about
the playwright, the play, the art of translation, and the creative
process of production development. In the early fall, these educators
will bring their students to a matinee performance of this masterpiece
for just $9 a ticket. Teachers will have the opportunity to engage with
their students after the show, with carefully-prepared study guides.
Last year's Mockingbird matinee series brought in 1,365 students and 75
educators. Similar numbers are expected this year. For adults this
summer, there will be a gallery showing of the 1994 film ``Vanya on
42nd Street,'' and plans are in place for a pre-show reception for a
group from the Vermont Land Trust, igniting the environmental themes
explored in all of Chekhov's work and giving members of the community
the opportunity to have a voice in addition to a deep artistic
experience.
Not only did the NEA's funding contribute to realizing this
production, but it also helped to further Weston Playhouse Theatre
Company's mission to enrich the lives of a broad rural population with
theatre of national quality and significance supported through
education and outreach. To do this, a year-round staff of seven swells
to more than a hundred during the summer months. Every summer, more
than 20,000 ticket-holders take a seat in one of Weston's three
performance spaces. Each production is enhanced with show notes,
director notes, pre-show director talks, and post-show talkbacks. In
building audiences and performers for the future, Weston runs a Student
Ambassador program, as well as residency programs in local schools and
classes.
The NEA has awarded Shakespeare Festival St. Louis in Missouri a
$15,000 grant to support Shakespeare in the Streets (SITS), a
grassroots theatrical experience that invites St. Louis' diverse
neighborhoods to tell their unique community stories. Under the
guidance of a creative team, community residents contribute to
developing an original play based on Shakespeare's works--a play whose
themes reflect the community's social and economic ``character.'' Their
partnership results in three free street performances that showcase the
combined talents of professional actors performing alongside local
residents. The project uses techniques in community co-creation to
inspire regional collaboration and conversation.
The audience for the three free performances was over 2000 people
in 2013. Over 130 local area residents participated in the production
aimed to reclaim St. Louis city streets as places of community,
conversation, and collaboration. The program employs dozens of artists,
teaching artists, and provides stipends for neighborhood young people
to work professionally with the Festival and gain transferable skills
to other disciplines. SITS involves dozens of corporate, foundation,
and community partners and provides educational workshops at all three
area schools, followed by free Summer Shakespeare Camps for
neighborhood students, allowing them the chance to create their own
version of the Shakespeare production while fostering an understanding
of Shakespeare's universal themes. The Festival annually employs over
80 artists and craftsmen, serves over 25,000 young people at 125
schools, and performs for more than 60,000 patrons each year through
its main stage and community programs. In 2013 the Festival entertained
its 600,000th patron in Forest Park.
These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the
Endowment's Theatre Program is able to fund only 50 percent of the
applications it receives, so 50 percent of the theatres are turned away
because there aren't sufficient funds. Theatre Communications Group
urges you to support a funding level of $155 million for fiscal year
2015 for the NEA, to maintain citizen access to the cultural,
educational and economic benefits of the arts, and to advance
creativity and innovation in communities across the United States.
The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the
Nation's well-being and its economic vitality. It is supported by a
remarkable combination of government, business, foundation and
individual donors. It is a striking example of Federal/State/private
partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure of
stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when
other sources of funding are diminished. Further, the American public
favors spending Federal tax dollars in support of the arts. The NEA was
funded at $146 million in the fiscal year 2014 budget; however, it has
never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and
its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee to fund
the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural
programs reaching Americans across the country.
Thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Town of Baldwin, Florida
This outside witness testimony is being submitted by the Town of
Baldwin, Florida to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies for consideration of fiscal year 2015
appropriations within the U.S. Department of the Interior and/or the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of $1,000,000.
i. project synopsis
The Town of Baldwin is presently under a Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) Administrative Order (AO 160 NE) that
calls for an investigation and monitoring of the effluent wastewater
discharge at the Baldwin Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF), as FDEP
does not have reasonable assurance the discharge will meet the State of
Florida's numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). Because the WWTF will not
likely meet these NNC requirements, the town will look to completely
eliminate all effluent surface water discharge.
This project aims to eliminate the WWTF surface water discharge by
piping reclaimed/reuse water from the WWTF to the Brandy Branch
Generating Station owned and operated by the Jacksonville Electric
Authority (JEA) for use as cooling water. Approximately 0.25 millions
of gallons per day (MGD) annual average daily flow (AADF) of wastewater
effluent will be reused, resulting in the complete elimination of
surface water discharge into the unnamed ditch that flows to Deep
Creek. The Brandy Branch Generating Station currently uses up to 1.0
MGD of groundwater for cooling water, and this project would reduce
JEA's groundwater withdrawals by 0.25 MGD.
ii. project evaluation
JEA owns and operates the Brandy Branch Generating Station which is
located east of Baldwin. This facility is a gas-fired power plant which
utilizes 1.0 to 1.5 MGD of groundwater for cooling purposes, which far
exceeds the Baldwin WWTF average day design flow of 0.4 MGD and maximum
day design flow of 0.8 MGD. Discussions with JEA representatives have
indicated that they would be willing to accept the WWTF effluent for
use as cooling water. The facility typically only utilizes cooling
water during daylight hours. Effluent would be discharged at the base
of existing cooling towers which are located approximately 7 ft. above
grade. The facility has no onsite storage. Currently, the facility
utilizes Floridan Aquifer wells to supply 100 percent of their cooling
water needs. This alternative would have the added benefit of reducing
groundwater withdrawals, in addition to eliminating a surface water
discharge.
The following facilities would be required to convey reclaimed
water to the Brandy Branch Generating Station: (1) effluent transfer
pump station to pump reclaimed water into an onsite ground storage
tank; (2) 1.25 MG domed-top ground storage tank at the WWTF site; (3)
two high service pumps with variable frequency drives (VFD); (4) 19,000
linear feet (LF) of 10-inch force main to convey reclaimed water to
Brandy Branch Generating Station; (5) two jack & bores of the CSX
railroad and two directional drills; (6) yard piping; (7) sitework and;
(8) electrical/instrumentation.
Operation of the transfer pumps would be liquid level controlled.
Operation of the high service pumps would be flow and/or pressure
controlled. The high service pumps would shut off upon encountering
high pressure resulting from a closed valve at the Brandy Branch
Generating Station. The ground storage tank would be equipped with an
overflow discharging to the existing surface water outfall in the event
that the tank filled to capacity. It is anticipated that an emergency
discharge to the surface water outfall would have to be maintained for
those infrequent events when the generating station was not taking
cooling water for maintenance reasons. No new treatment facilities
would be required at the Baldwin WWTF, only storage and pumping
facilities.
A. Technical Feasibility
This project is technically feasible. Further evaluation of
effluent quality by JEA will be necessary to see what effects the
blending with groundwater may have on their facilities. Also, control
logic for the high service pumps will need to be developed to coincide
with JEA's operational requirements.
B. Design Criteria
Design criteria for the proposed facilities are summarized in Table
B-1, as follows:
TABLE B-1--DESIGN CRITERIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent Transfer Pump Station
Type.................................. Submersible
Number................................ 2
Design Point.......................... 700 gpm @ 40 ft. TDH
Horsepower............................ 20 HP
Effluent Ground Storage Tank
Type.................................. Domed-Top Circular Pre-
Stressed
Number................................ 1
Effective Capacity.................... 1.25 MG
Diameter.............................. 93 ft.
Height................................ 25 ft.
High Service Pumps
Type.................................. Self-Priming
Number................................ 2
Design Point.......................... 833 gpm @ 80 ft. TDH
Horsepower............................ 40 HP
Effluent Force Main
Size.................................. 10 in.
Length................................ 19,000 LF
Material.............................. PVC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Environmental Impact
This project would have significant positive effects on the
environment. It would result in the elimination of a surface water
discharge, thereby improving the water quality of the receiving stream.
It would also result in the reduction of groundwater withdrawals at the
generating station, thereby conserving precious groundwater. The only
potential deleterious effect would be that an emergency discharge to
the existing outfall would need to be maintained for those infrequent
times that the generating station was not taking reclaimed water. It is
anticipated that the emergency discharge would be needed for less than
two weeks per year.
D. Economic Evaluation
An economic evaluation of this project has been conducted, to
include estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and
present worth analysis.
1. Capital Cost
The capital cost for this project has been developed utilizing bid
pricing from similar work, manufacturers price quotes, and engineering
judgment. All costs presented are in 2014 U.S. dollars. A construction
contingency of 10 percent and non-construction costs of 15 percent will
be included. The capital cost for the proposed project is summarized in
Table D-1, as follows:
TABLE D-1--ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Description Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Mobilization and General Conditions.................. $100,000
b. Effluent Transfer Pump Station....................... 150,000
c. Effluent Storage Tank (1.25 MG)...................... 750,000
d. Reuse High Service Pumps............................. 100,000
e. Yard Piping.......................................... 100,000
f. Sitework............................................. 50,000
g. Electrical/Instrumentation........................... 150,000
h. 19,000 LF of 10 in. Reuse Main....................... 950,000
i. Two (2) Jack & Bore of CSX Railroad.................. 100,000
j. Two (2) Directional Drills of 12 in. HDPE............ 50,000
-------------
Subtotal--Estimated Construction Cost............... 2,500,000
Construction Contingency (10 percent)........... 250,000
-------------
Total--Estimated Construction Cost.................. 2,750,000
Estimated Non-Construction Cost................. 412,000
-------------
Total--Estimated Capital Cost............... 3,162,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. O&M Cost
An annual O&M cost for this project will be developed, assuming the
following: current average daily WWTF flow of 0.25 MGD; power costs of
$0.10/kWh; equipment maintenance costs equivalent to 3 percent of
equipment capital cost, and; pipe and tank maintenance costs equivalent
to 0.2 percent of capital cost. Labor costs are assumed to remain the
same as existing as this alternative will not require increased
staffing. The O&M cost for the proposed project is summarized in Table
D-2, as follows:
TABLE D-2--PROJECTED ANNUAL O&M COSTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Description Annual Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power.................................................. $7,100
Equipment Maintenance.................................. 7,500
Tank & Pipeline Maintenance............................ 3,400
----------------
Total--Projected Annual O&M Cost................. 18,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Present Worth Analysis
A present worth analysis of the alternative will be performed,
taking into account the estimated capital cost, projected O&M cost, and
salvage value. The 2013 EPA discount rate of 4.125 percent will be used
in determining the present worth of the corresponding O&M costs and
salvage value of the alternative. A period of analysis of 20 years will
be utilized.
(P/A, 4.125 percent, 20 yrs) = 13.44
(P/F, 4.125 percent, 20 yrs) = 0.446
i. Estimated Capital Cost
$3,162,000
Present Value = ($3,162,000)
ii. Projected O&M Cost
$18,000
Present Value = ($18,000) x 13.44 = ($241,900)
iii. Salvage Value
Piping (50 yrs.) = $1,200,000 x 0.446 x (50 yrs. - 20
yrs.)/50 yrs. = $321,100
Structures (30 yrs.) = $825,000 x 0.446 x (30 yrs. - 20
yrs.)/30 yrs. =
$122,700
Equipment (20 yrs.) = $425,000 x 0.446 x (20 yrs. - 20
yrs.)/20 yrs. = $0
Present Value = $443,800
iv. Total Present Worth
($3,162,000) + ($241,900) + $443,800 = ($2,960,100)
______
Prepared Statement of the Tri-County Water Conservancy District
April 11, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Mike Berry,
General Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tribal Education Departments National
Assembly
Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Cochran and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Quinton Roman Nose and I am the Executive
Director of the Tribal Education Departments National Assembly
(``TEDNA''). TEDNA is a national non-profit membership organization for
tribal education agencies/departments (``TEAs''), which are executive
branch agencies of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments
responsible for Tribal education matters. There are an estimated 200
TEAs, located in 32 States, serving over 700,000 American Indian and
Alaska Native (``Native American'') students. TEDNA respectfully
requests $2 million to support TEAs in the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year
2015 to conduct much needed Indian education activities. Further, TEDNA
supports the President's request through his Opportunity, Growth and
Security Initiative for $3 million to be directed toward incentives for
Bureau of Indian Education grant-funded schools, capacity-building and
Tribal control of those schools.
authorization for funding
Federal funding for TEAs is authorized in the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2002, title X, section 1140 (25 U.S.C.Sec. 2020).
justification for funding
Federal education policy is failing Native American students.
Native American students drop out of high school at a higher rate and
score lower on achievement tests than any other student group. The
national dropout rate of Native American students is double that of
their non-Indian peers. Likewise, the U.S. Department of Education's
Office of Civil Rights (``OCR'') March 2014 Data Snapshot recognized
that Native American elementary and secondary students in public
schools are disproportionately suspended and expelled. OCR also found
that Native American kindergarten students are among those held back a
year at nearly twice the rate of white kindergarten students, and that
9 percent of Native American ninth grade students repeat ninth grade.
In achievement, Native American 8th grade students are 18 percent
more likely to read or perform in mathematics at a ``below basic''
level. Only a quarter of Native American high school graduates taking
the ACT score at the ``college-ready'' level in math and only about
one-third score at the ``college-ready'' level in reading. A 2013
report issued by the Education Trust pointed out:
Unlike achievement results for every other major ethnic group
in the United States, those for Native [American] students have
remained nearly flat in recent years, and the gaps separating
these students from their white peers have actually widened.\1\
At the same time, tribal government involvement in the education of
Native American students is severely restricted. Since 1988, Congress
has authorized funding specifically to build tribal capacity to
directly serve Native students in Bureau of Indian Education (``BIE'')
schools. However, funds have never been appropriated to fulfill this
crucial need. A similar authorization for tribal capacity building
aimed at public schools on Indian reservations has been funded since
fiscal year 2012, resulting in the Department of Education's pioneering
State-Tribal Education Partnership Program (``STEP''). Though very
important, STEP only addresses one aspect of the existing need. While
the corresponding funding opportunity for BIE schools has gone
unutilized, our Native American students in BIE schools have continued
to be underserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Education Trust, The State of Education for Native American
Students at 3 (August 2013), available at: http://www.edtrust.org/
sites/edtrust.org/files/NativeStudentBrief_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TEAs are in a unique position to halt and reverse the negative
outcomes for Native students. TEAs have already proven that they are
capable of improving Native American student outcomes. For example, the
Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, one of the STEP grantees, has a science,
technology, and math program, among many other education programs, that
serves approximately 250 Chickasaw students. Ninety percent of senior
students participating in the program enroll in college. Through the
STEP grant, Chickasaw has already put in place the framework to improve
student outcomes and attendance. For example, before the co-governance
model was in place, several Native American students were falling
through the cracks and being expelled. Now, the Chickasaw Nation has
stepped in to move expelled students into other alternative high school
programs. Through this process, Local Education Agencies (``LEAs'') now
understand that this is exactly the type of situation that the
Chickasaw Nation TEA can address before the expulsion stage so
intervention services can be provided, such as counseling, to students
that are at risk. Thus, the STEP Program put in place a process
allowing the TEAs and LEAs to proactively flag at risk students and
provide the necessary intervention services.
The work of the Nez Perce Tribe's TEA is another good example. The
most current research indicates that Native American academic
achievement must include effective teaching strategies. Also,
researchers studying the achievement of Native American students have
found a connection between low achievement and low cultural relevance.
The Nez Perce Tribe, another STEP grantee, has made a large in-road to
providing teacher training on the integration of cultural pedagogy,
tribal education standards, and common core standards. In addition,
technical assistance is provided by the Nez Perce TEA to their partner
LEA's on use of the Native Star Culture and Language Indicators which
address culturally-responsive school leadership, community engagement,
and infusion of culture and language into the school's curriculum and
instruction.
The State of Idaho's State Education Agency (``SEA'') acknowledged
that it does not have the expertise to provide training or technical
assistance in meeting the unique educational and cultural needs of
Native American students. Nez Perce's STEP grant has provided a
platform for the Tribe's TEA and the local LEAs and SEA to work
together to improve Native American student performance in this manner
vis-aa-vis the three Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act
programs (title I, part A; title II, part A; and School Improvement
Grants). Nez Perce also has a family engagement piece to their STEP
grant that recognizes the role of the family as the first educator and
organizes the parents and school staff to work together to assess
parent involvement programs, policies, and practices. The end goal is
to improve the educational experience and college/career readiness of
the students.
A final example is The Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, which
operates a learning center that works with at risk students. The Hoopa
Valley TED identifies K-12 students at risk, pairs the students with
mentors, and develops student-learning plans. Students are tutored in
target academic areas and coached in life skills. This program alone
has improved student academic performance by two letter grades in core
academic areas.
These examples of success demonstrate the positive impact tribal
involvement has on Native American students. This type of successful
tribal involvement in the education of Native American students should
be expanded and replicated in BIE schools. Congress has identified in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act several areas of focus in
meeting this worthy objective. If appropriated by this subcommittee,
these funds would be used to facilitate tribal control in all matters
relating to Native American education on reservations. More
specifically, there are three areas of particular focus. First, TEAs
can use this funding to support early education initiatives and develop
culturally relevant curriculum and assessments. Second, increased
tribal participation will include TEAs providing coordination,
administrative support services and technical assistance to schools and
education programs on Indian reservations. This would include
maintaining and sharing electronic data regarding Native American
students, and implementing programs to increase graduation rates and
post-secondary school readiness. This would foster much-needed
cooperation and coordination with entities carrying out education on
Indian reservations. Third, this appropriation would fund the
development and enforcement of tribal educational codes, including
tribal educational policies and tribal standards applicable to
curriculum, personnel, students, facilities, and support programs. As
Congress has already recognized, these three areas are core educational
functions that are most appropriately left to tribes.
We applaud President Obama's request in his Opportunity, Growth and
Security Initiative that Congress invest in ``incentivizing schools
funded through the Bureau of Indian Education to introduce reforms that
improve student outcomes.'' TEDNA supports the President's approach to
provide incentives to tribally controlled schools so that they
voluntarily adopt certain research-based reforms rather impose mandates
and sanctions. Further, TEDNA suggests that this funding be modeled on
the discretionary grants used by the U.S. Department Education to
foster competition among applicants and build tribal capacity,
particularly the capacity of tribal educational agencies, to operate
schools. At a low cost to taxpayers, such a competition would bring
much-needed reform to many of the tribally controlled schools in the
BIE-funded system, one of the lowest-achieving school systems in the
Nation.
Moreover, tribal governments, acting through their TEAs, should
have a central role in a reformed BIE school system. Therefore, the
President's initiative should restructure the administration of BIE
schools and have TEAs act as school boards for BIE grant schools. This
is the type of administrative and governance reform TEDNA has
encouraged for many years. We believe that TEDNA's request today for
the appropriation of capacity-building dollars complement the
President's initiative well.
Investment in TEAs is sound Federal policy. Direct tribal
involvement in education eliminates undue bureaucratic barriers and
streamlines administration. Moreover, encouraging and supporting tribal
control in education begins to implement the policy of Tribal self-
determination in education and further the United States' trust
responsibility to Native American students. Thus, this subcommittee is
presented with a unique opportunity to increase tribal involvement and
leverage the expertise of TEAs in educating Native students.
request
TEDNA respectfully requests $2 million TEAs in the Department of
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2015. TEDNA also supports the President's request in the
Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative to foster competition in
tribally controlled grant schools funded by the BIE and we urge
Congress to appropriate $3 million for fiscal year 2015 for that
purpose.
______
Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members
of the subcommittee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit
testimony on behalf of The Trust for Public Land in support of programs
under your jurisdiction for the fiscal year 2015 appropriations
process. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land
conservation organization working to protect land for people in
communities across the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the
support that you have shown for Federal conservation programs during
these challenging fiscal times. We recognize that the subcommittee will
again face enormous challenges in meeting the broad range of priority
needs in the Interior and Environment bill this year. Our work in many
States around the country shows that there is tremendous support for
conservation and access to recreation at the local, State and Federal
level, and the programs under your jurisdiction play a critical role in
bringing those community visions to reality. Thank you for your
support.
Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the land
conservation toolbox and provides manifold benefits to the American
people. Given the limited public conservation funding at all levels of
government, TPL works to leverage Federal conservation dollars,
bringing to bear private philanthropic support as well as State and
local funding to forge solutions to sometimes complex conservation
funding challenges. The major programs under your jurisdiction that we
count on year in and year out are the entire suite of Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs--including the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the
National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Forest Service (USFS)
acquisitions, NPS State and local grants, the Forest Legacy Program and
the Cooperative Endangered Species Act Fund--as well as the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North American Wetlands
Conservation Act and the USFS Community Forest Program.
land and water conservation fund
For almost 50 years the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been
the cornerstone that sustains our Federal public lands heritage and
remains today a compelling and urgently needed program. When Congress
created LWCF in 1964, it dedicated specific revenues to ensure that
funds would be available for annual land conservation and outdoor
recreation needs. The major source of these revenues has been offshore
oil and gas development in Federal waters. LWCF does not rely at all on
taxpayer dollars. Instead, revenues generated from energy development
and natural resource depletion are used for the protection of other
natural resources such as parks, open space, and wildlife habitat for
the benefit of current and future generations. We (and, polls show,
most of America) believes it is both logical and necessary that this
principle--using a small percentage of annual Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) receipts (which average over $6 billion) as a conservation
offset--be fully honored.
Investments in conservation and outdoor recreation make sound
economic sense, too. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that
active outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion annually to the U.S.
economy, supports nearly 6.1 million jobs across the U.S., and
generates $39.9 billion in annual national tax revenue.
For these and many other reasons we strongly support the fiscal
year 2015 President's budget proposal to fully fund the Land and Water
Conservation Fund at $900 million, with $350 million from discretionary
sources and $550 million in mandatory funds, for the various component
programs funded under LWCF. In the fiscal year 2015 bill, we
respectfully request that you allocate at least $350 million in
discretionary funding as the budget proposes to support essential
community-based conservation. We recognize that the mandatory funding
request requires additional legislative action, and that you face
significant challenges in addressing the many competing demands covered
in your bill. We believe that continued investment in the entire suite
of LWCF programs as proposed in the budget is essential and are ready
to work with the subcommittee to ensure that dollars invested are well
spent on our Nation's most urgent needs. We greatly appreciate the key
role your subcommittee plays in ensuring that program dollars are used
for high-priority strategic investments.
LWCF's programs bring specific and complementary conservation
benefits to the American public. These key programs are:
federal land acquisitions
Every year tens of millions of Americans, as well as visitors to
our country, visit our Federal public lands--national parks, forests,
wildlife refuges and BLM conservation lands. Strategic inholding and
other acquisitions in these Federal areas through LWCF ensure
recreation access and nature education; foster vital economic growth;
protect clean water and other community resources; enhance the
incomparable natural and scenic treasures that belong to all Americans;
and frequently resolve complex land-use conflicts and produce
management savings. Without adequate funding, the unfortunate
alternative often is an irretrievable loss of public use and enjoyment
of these areas and irreversible damage to the resources we all care
about.
This is precisely the choice for numerous outdoor recreation and
natural resource protection projects budgeted in fiscal year 2015,
including lands in the San Bernardino and Tahoe national forests in
California, the newly-designated Rio Grande del Norte National Monument
in New Mexico, the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, the
Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire, , and within the Yakima River
Watershed in Washington State. The Trust for Public Land is working in
these and other areas identified in the President's budget and looks
forward to working with the subcommittee as you consider these critical
needs.
At the same time that incompatible development within Federal units
is a mounting concern for the public, we have found that many private
inholding owners are open to and quite often eager to find a
conservation solution. Faced with uncertainty about the availability of
LWCF dollars, however, many landowners find that they cannot afford to
wait for that win-win outcome. Adequate and timely acquisition of
inholdings through the LWCF is critical to efforts to protect the
Nation's public lands heritage when these time-sensitive acquisition
opportunities arise. As the subcommittee evaluates the myriad
programmatic needs and measures for making programs more efficient for
the fiscal year 2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill, we
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure that funds
are spent wisely on strategic and urgent conservation priorities.
national park service/state and local assistance grants
Since 1965, the State and local assistance grant program has
provided formula funds to States and local communities for 43,000
projects that create and expand State and local parks or improve
recreation facilities. This program reaches deep into communities
across our Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of
local importance and opportunities for close-to-home recreation. As TPL
continues our work with many of these communities to meet these needs,
we hope the subcommittee will fully fund the administration's request
for stateside grants. We also support the allocation of LWCF funds to a
new nationwide competitive State and local grants program, which was
first funded in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill and is
proposed for additional funds in the President's fiscal year 2015
budget. This proposal is generating substantial interest in cities and
towns across the Nation and we look forward to working with you and
others to make it a success.
national park service/urban park and recreation fund
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2015 proposes $25 million
(included in the mandatory LWCF proposal) to fund the Urban Park and
Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Funding UPARR in fiscal year 2015
would enable the National Park Service to issue competitive grants for
improved recreational opportunities in parks and along trails in
metropolitan areas throughout the country. From 1978 to 2002, UPARR
grants helped bring improvements to parks and playgrounds in 380
communities in 43 States as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico. Grants have gone to places as diverse as Providence, Rhode
Island; San Francisco, California, Knoxville, Tennessee; Springfield,
Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; and Meridian, Mississippi. Through our Parks
for People Program, The Trust for Public Land works closely with cities
to meet a goal of providing safe access to recreation within a 10
minute walk from home or school. We work with schools and communities
to design, fund and care for improved parks and playgrounds. The
restoration of UPARR funding in the fiscal year 2015 Interior and
Environment Appropriations bill would be a sound investment in the
health and well-being of our Nation's children.
u.s. forest service/forest legacy program
The Forest Legacy Program provides extraordinary assistance to
States and localities seeking to preserve important working forests.
Since its inception in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program has protected
over 2.3 million acres of forestland and has leveraged more than the
required 25 percent match. For fiscal year 2015, the President's budget
recommends projects that provide multiple public benefits through
forest protection--clean water, wildlife protection, climate change
adaptation and mitigation, public access to recreation, economic
development and sustainable forestry. We urge your continued support
for sustained investment in this strategic and successful program.
Included in the fiscal year 2015 budget proposal are numerous projects
where TPL is working in partnership with the States to protect
recreation access for snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs in the
woods, buffer important Federal and State conservation areas and
provide strategic land conservation that fits a larger goal. Among
these are the program's top priority project in Montana, which will
protect the primary water supply for the community of Whitefish; a
2,085-acre addition to Camel's Hump State Park in the Green Mountains
of Vermont; the second-phase of a project protecting an important
watershed adjacent to Eureka, California; an 1800-acre property 2 miles
from Zion National Park; a 6,700 acre working forest project on the
Olympic Peninsula along Puget Sound; and a working forest project in
Maine that represents 22 percent of the State's entire maple syrup
production and 4 percent of the entire national output.
u.s. fish and wildlife service/cooperative endangered species
conservation fund
We are grateful for the subcommittee's historic support for U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs, including the Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), which leverages State and
private funds and has protected threatened and endangered species
habitat across the Nation. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) land
acquisition program within CESCF is critical to communities like
Whitefish, Montana where landowners and public wildlife managers are
working together through integrated HCP's to foster species recover and
appropriate economic development. In TPL's work with these and other
communities, we have seen how essential CESCF Federal cost-share
dollars are to species conservation and local economies. In addition,
the Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) program under CESCF aids species
recovery where there is no HCP--as, for instance, with the proposed
protection of a ranch along the Lower Deschutes River in Wasco County,
Oregon.
Beyond LWCF, we urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding
to other conservation programs including:
u.s. fish and wildlife service/north american wetlands conservation act
(nawca)
We respectfully request your support for program funding at the
President's budget level of $34.1 million in fiscal year 2015. The
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed
matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation, restoration and
enhancement projects. Our recent work through the NAWCA program will
ensure protection of fast-disappearing coastal habitat in Connecticut
and support restoration along the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. This
is a highly-leveraged program with a substantial record of success and
is another important Federal conservation tool to support critical
wetland habitat.
u.s. forest service/community forest program
Last but not least, we urge your continued support for the
Community Forest Program (CFP), which the subcommittee has funded since
fiscal year 2010. This program complements existing conservation
programs by helping local communities and tribes identify, purchase,
and manage important forestlands that are threatened with development.
These locally led efforts can be tailored to the needs of each
community, from timber revenue for local budgets to recreation access
and outdoor education. Every Federal dollar from CFP is evenly matched
by funding from State, local, and private sources. The Forest Service
has now approved 13 grants to innovative local and tribal projects in 9
States, and the program has generated significant interest from local
entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home forests. Our
successful projects using CFP grants include the Barre Town Forest in
Vermont and the Thurston Hills Community Forest in Oregon. Given the
strong interest in community forests from coast to coast, we urge you
to include $5 million in the fiscal year 2015 bill for this innovative
conservation tool.
The programs highlighted here are critical to the future of
conservation at the local, State and Federal levels; reflect the
continued demand on the part of the American people for access to
outdoor recreation; and help sustain our economy and reflect the true
partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we
are deeply thankful for the subcommittee's recognition of the
importance of these programs and urge you to maintain robust funding
for them in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related
Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your
consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tuba City Boarding School--Governing Board
Hon. Sally Jewell, Secretary,
U.S. Department of Interior,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary,
U.S. Department of Interior,
Washington, DC.
american indian education study group tribal consultation: proposal to
redesign the u.s. department of interior's bureau of indian education
Dear Secretary Jewell and Assistant Secretary Washburn: As the
Navajo Nation Local Control Education Governing Board we are very
thankful to be given the opportunity to provide additional comments on
the ``Draft Proposal to Redesign the U.S. Department of Interior's
Bureau of Indian Education (Dated: April 17, 2014).'' In many respects,
we are very supportive of the goals, objectives, and statements
contained in the draft proposal, especially with its emphasis on
promoting tribal control, achieving high performing schools, as well as
and increasing and improving services and support that builds tribal
capacity. In line with these goals, the Navajo Nation reiterates its
prior position regarding the American Indian Education Study Group and
expresses strong support for a Navajo Nation State Education Agency,
the Navajo Nation's alternative definition of Adequate Yearly Progress
(``AYP''), and Navajo Nation's Alternative Accountability Workbook. A
copy of the Navajo Nation's position (Dated: January 10, 2014) is
attached to this letter.
In particular, we strongly support the goals contained in the working
draft because it:
1. Promotes Tribal Control
-- Align BIE's path forward with President Obama's policy of self-
determination for tribes because tribes understand the unique
needs of their communities best.
-- With a careful transition plan in place, gradually transform
BIE's mission from running schools to serving tribes to conform
with the reality that most BIE schools are now operated by
tribes.
2. Achieve High-Performing Schools
-- Ensure BIE meets its responsibility that all students attending
BIE-funded schools receive a world-class and culturally
appropriate education, are prepared for college and careers,
and can contribute to their tribe and country.
-- Provide necessary resources and support (e.g., facilities and
human capital) to schools so that they can meet the demands of
21st century teaching and learning.
3. Increase and Improve Services and Support that Tribal Build
Capacity
-- Scale up best practices in successful tribally controlled schools
to other schools.
-- Support chronically failing schools with adequate support and
research-based interventions, if necessary.
-- Provide pathways for tribes that wish to take over control of
remaining BIE-operated schools by providing technical
assistance and guidance on operating high-achieving schools.
-- In the December 2011 White House Tribal Nations Conference
Progress Report, the Obama administration expressed strong
support for a proposal to enhance the role of tribal
educational agencies through a new pilot authority, called the
State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) grant, which would
support tribal educational agencies in working closely with
public school districts and schools located on reservations.
This pilot authority and grant presently allows the Navajo
Nation to enter into collaborative agreements with State of New
Mexico and two of the largest public school districts serving
Native American students in the United States and to assume
responsibility for some State-level functions in administering
ESEA programs.
We also agree with key priorities highlighted in the draft proposal
because it also provides for:
--World Class Instruction for all BIE Students.--Challenge each
student to maximize his or her potential and be well-prepared
for college, careers and tribal/global citizenship.
--Highly Effective Teachers and Principals.--Help tribes to identify,
recruit, retain and empower diverse, highly effective teachers
and principals to maximize the highest achievement for every
student in all BIE-funded schools.
--Agile Organizational Environment.--Build a responsive organization
that provides the resources, direction and services to tribes
so that they can help their students attain high-levels of
student achievement.
--Budget that Supports Capacity Building Mission.--Develop a budget
that is aligned with and supports BIE's new mission of tribal
capacity building and scaling up best practices.
--Comprehensive Supports through Partnerships.--Foster parental,
community and organizational partnerships to provide the
emotional and social supports BIE students need in order to be
ready to learn.
In line with those goals, we also recommend:
1. In line with identifying, recruiting, retaining highly effective
teachers/principals, and building teacher/principal capacity (human
capital) we strongly recommend that the BIE and other appropriate
government agencies to enact a teacher/principal scholarship program
that is very similar to the Indian Health Service (``IHS'') scholarship
program. Ever since the IHS Scholarship Program's creation in 1977, the
program has successfully supported thousands of American Indian and
Alaska Native students in their quest for a health/medical professions
degree leading to a career in Indian health. A scholarship program that
is specifically targeted to identify, recruit, and support teachers,
including principals, especially in hard-to-fill Science, Technology,
Engineering, Mathematics (``STEM'') areas, would significantly help our
schools to meet the demand and need for highly effective teachers/
principals. Not only would such a scholarship program enable tribes to
build capacity, because scholarship recipients would be committed to
serving several years on the Navajo Nation or in other Native American
schools.
2. Changing, amending, or waiving rules, regulations that negatively
impact rural schools such as the regulation [25 C.F.R.
Sec. 36.11(a)(5)] that limits the number of days that schools can
employ long-term substitute teachers. Because of extreme remoteness and
difficultly hiring highly effective and fully qualified and licensed
teachers, many of our schools have little to no choice but hire long-
term substitute teachers who may need to teach students much longer
than the existing regulation allows. Changing, amending, or waiving
this regulation may allow our schools to provide the continuity in
instruction that students need until a fully qualified and licensed
teacher can be hired to fill that position.
3. Any education plan to reform and restructure the BIE must also
provide strong support, including funding, to identify, recruit, and
enhance the role and capacity of highly effective bilingual teachers.
There is statistically significant research that shows that students
who are educated in their language and culture perform better
academically, while also reinforcing their self-identity, and
preserving their language and culture. At the moment, many of the
existing bilingual teachers who possess strong content knowledge,
including the ability to effectively teach Navajo language and culture,
are on the verge of retirement or leaving our schools, which further
complicates attempts by tribes to preserve and maintain our language
and culture. The Navajo Nation has lead the way in many respects, by
working with 3 different States to enact alternative teacher licensing
regulations, which presently allows persons who are knowledgeable and
competent in Navajo language and culture to teach in our schools. We
have also enacted the Navajo Nation's Five (5) Content Standards
(Navajo Language, Culture,
History, Government, ( Character), which can readily be
incorporated into many school's curriculums because it also complements
the Common Core State Standards (``CCSS'').
4. In light of the recommendations provided in the draft proposal to
build tribal control of education and capacity, we also recommend that
the BIE (or other appropriate government entities), to consult and meet
with tribes such as the Navajo Nation to conduct an evaluation/
assessment of a tribe's existing capacity or provision of funding to
accomplish that objective.
As we move forward with redesigning/transforming the Bureau of
Indian Education (``BIE'') and improving the quality of education that
our Navajo/Native American students receive, it is extremely important
to remember that we are fighting for the lives of our children and that
we can no longer afford to lose another generation of young people to a
failing education system or to continue to make excuses for failure and
low expectations. We must always put the needs of our children and
students first; not adults, special interests, or politics. When we put
the needs of our students first, it will make many of the tough
decisions that must inevitably be made, easier, clearer, and worth the
fight. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marie B. Acothley, Tuba City WNA
Board President.
Juanita Burns-Begay, Vice-President.
Sarana Riggs, Secretary.
Frank Bilagody, Member.
Irvin Begaye, Member.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Geological Survey Coalition
summary
The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
about the fiscal year 2015 budget for the United States Geological
Survey (USGS). The administration's budget requests $1.073 billion for
the USGS. This level represents an increase of $41 million over the
fiscal year 2014 level. The request, however, also includes $41 million
in cuts to on-going programs and does not include $75 million in
important research and development initiatives that have been
identified by the agency as priorities should funding be available.
Thus, the USGS Coalition respectfully requests that Congress work to
provide the USGS with $1.189 billion for fiscal year 2015, which would
allow the agency to sustain current efforts and make strategic new
investments that will produce the knowledge and decision-support tools
needed by decision-makers across the country.
The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and inform
responses to many of the Nation's greatest challenges. Few modern
problems can be addressed by a single scientific discipline. The USGS
is an agency that has a unique capacity to deploy truly
interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research,
and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem
management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and
quantity, reduce risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver
timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide
emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and maps.
about the united states geological survey coalition
The USGS Coalition is an alliance of over 70 organizations united
by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States
Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. The Coalition
supports increased Federal investment in USGS programs that underpin
responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural
and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term health,
security, and prosperity of the Nation.
essential services for the nation
Established by Congress as a branch of the Department of the
Interior in 1879, the United States Geological Survey has a national
mission that extends beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands
to positively impact the lives of all Americans. The agency plays a
crucial role in protecting the public from natural hazards, assessing
water quality and quantity, providing geospatial data, and conducting
the science necessary to manage our Nation's biological, mineral, and
energy resources. Through its offices across the country, the USGS
works with partners to provide high-quality research and data to
policymakers, emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil
and environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A few examples
of the USGS' valuable work are provided below.
The Survey collects scientific information on water availability
and quality to inform the public and decision makers about the status
of freshwater resources and how they are changing over time. During the
past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data at over 21,000
sites, water-level data at over 1,000,000 wells, and chemical data at
over 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites. This information is
needed to effectively manage freshwaters--both above and below the land
surface--for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial, industrial,
recreational, and ecological purposes.
The USGS plays an important role in reducing risks from floods,
wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and
other natural hazards that jeopardize human lives and cost billions of
dollars in damages every year. Seismic networks and hazard analysis are
used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building
codes. USGS monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about impending
eruptions that are used by aviation officials to prevent planes from
flying into volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS network of stream
gages enable the National Weather Service to issue flood and drought
warnings. The bureau and its Federal partners monitor seasonal
wildfires and provide maps of current fire locations and the potential
spread of fires. USGS research on ecosystem structure informs fire risk
forecasts.
USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--including rare
earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal--
are essential for making decisions about the Nation's future. The
Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and
energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects
of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic supplies
of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new
energy technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The
USGS is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential,
production, and consumption.
USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of
natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts
research and monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation--data that
informs management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding
protected species and land use. Ecosystems science is also used to
control invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions
of dollars in economic losses. The Survey provides information for
resource managers as they develop adaptive management strategies for
restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural resources in the
face of environmental change.
Research conducted by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts
of land use and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and
ecosystems. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive
of remotely sensed land data in the world, allowing for access to
current and historical images that are used to assess the impact of
natural disasters and monitor global agriculture production. The USGS
also assesses the Nation's potential for carbon sequestration. Other
Interior bureaus use USGS research on how climate variability affects
fish, wildlife, and ecological processes to inform natural resource
management decisions.
funding
Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to
provide essential funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid
dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging
questions facing decision-makers across the country.
Through careful management and deferring staff travel and training,
the USGS has survived the recent budget cuts resulting from
sequestration. Staff training and participation in scientific meetings,
however, are necessary investments that help USGS maintain its
technical capacity. It is through exchanges at scientific meetings and
workshops that new ideas emerge and scientific analyses are shared,
challenged by colleagues, and honed prior to submitting research for
publication in peer-reviewed journals. We encourage Congress to work
with the USGS to ensure that scientists are able to fully participate
in scientific meetings.
As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to
salaries and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure
the continuity of data acquisition and that the data gathered are
reliable and available for future scientific investigations. We believe
that the leadership of the USGS is doing all it can, and has been for a
number of years, to contain costs while continuing to deliver high
quality science. The budget request for fiscal year 2015 includes cuts
to scientific support, which includes information technology and
administration and management functions. Although efficiencies can
often be found through innovation in these areas, we encourage Congress
to ensure that these cuts do not hinder the provision of services and
support that agency personnel require to complete research, gather
data, and provide the information needed by the public for informed
decisionmaking.
The USGS has offset some new investments by eliminating a
significant number of full time equivalent positions. Research progress
and the communication of research findings to end-users will be slowed
or disrupted as a result of the reduction in staffing. Rebuilding
scientific and technical expertise can be challenging. Thus, the loss
of any positions can have long-term implications for USGS programs.
Among the programmatic reductions the scientific community is
concerned about are:
--$13.0 million in cuts to Core Science Systems, such as the Bio-
Science Data synthesis, Urban Area assessments, National Atlas,
and other programs.
--$11.3 million in cuts to various water research and monitoring
programs.
--$4.5 million in cuts to Administrative Services.
--$2.5 million in cuts to the National Civil Applications Program.
--$1.0 million in cuts to the Coastal Vulnerability program.
--$5.4 million in cuts to Fisheries, Wildlife and Environments
Research.
--$1.9 million in cuts to Energy Research, Oil and Gas Assessments,
and Wastewater contaminants research.
We recognize and appreciate that budget conditions remain
challenging and the work before the subcommittee is not easy. Yet, we
believe that sustained and strategic new investments in the USGS
promise significant long-term benefits. Should funds be available, we
hope that Congress will restore proposed cuts and provide new funds for
research and development priorities that USGS has identified but lacks
resources to pursue. The agency has identified at least $75 million in
research and development opportunities in the areas of (1) energy and
mineral development; (2) climate resilience; (3) landscape scale
ecosystem management, restoration and protection; (4) water resources
management; and (5) species protection and health.
conclusion
We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing
irreplaceable data can increase costs to society today and in the
future. Data not collected and analyzed today is data lost forever.
This is particularly significant for environmental monitoring systems,
where the loss of a year's data can limit the scope and reliability of
long-term dataset analysis. The USGS Coalition requests that Congress
work to provide $1.189 billion for fiscal year 2015.
The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee's past leadership
in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for
your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of United Tribes Technical College
For 45 years, with the most basic of funding, United Tribes
Technical College (UTTC) has provided postsecondary career and
technical education, job training and family services to some of the
most impoverished, high risk Indian students from throughout the
Nation. Despite such challenges we have consistently had excellent
retention and placement rates and are a fully accredited institution.
We are proud to be equipping our students to take part in the new
energy economy in North Dakota and to be part of building a strong
middle class in Indian country by training the next generation of law
enforcement officers, educators, medical technicians and
``Indianpreneurs.'' We are governed by the five tribes located wholly
or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North Dakota State
college system and do not have a tax base or State-appropriated funds
on which to rely. The requests of the UTTC Board for the fiscal year
2015 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
are:
--$6.8 million in BIE funding for our Indian Self-Determination Act
contract which is in the Tribal Technical Colleges BIE line
item and is $2.5 million over the administration's request for
UTTC.
--One-time BIE funding to forward fund United Tribes Technical
College and the few other tribal colleges who are not forward
funded.
--Congressional support for a tribally administered law enforcement
training center at UTTC and/or more involvement in law
enforcement training initiatives.
Base Funding.--UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian
Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so for 37 years. BIE
funds requested above the fiscal year 2014 level are needed to: (1)
maintain 100-year-old education buildings and 50-year-old housing stock
for students; (2) upgrade technology capabilities; (3) provide adequate
salaries for faculty and staff who are in the bottom quartile of pay
for comparable positions elsewhere; and (4) fund program and curriculum
improvements.
We appreciate that the administration is requesting a $200,700
increase for UTTC for a total of $4,564,000 but our need is so much
more than that. We request that the UTTC portion of the Tribal
Technical Colleges line item be $6.8 million and that the total line
item of Tribal Technical Colleges be at least $11 million.
Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has
significantly increased its number of students within the past 10 years
while actual base funding for educational services, including Carl
Perkins Act funding, have not increased commensurately. Our BIE funding
provides a base level of support while allowing us to compete for
desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants. Very little of
the other funds we receive may be used for core career and technical
educational programs; they are competitive, often one-time supplemental
funds which help us provide support services but cannot replace core
operational funding.
We highlight several relatively recent updates of our curricula to
meet job market needs: The ramifications of the North Dakota Bakken oil
boom are seen throughout the State. We saw the need for more certified
welders in relation to the oil boom and so expanded our certified
welding program. We are now able to train students for good paying, in-
demand welding jobs. Similarly, our online medical transcription
program was designed to meet the growing need for certified medical
support staff. Other courses reflect new emphasis on energy auditing
and Geographic Information System Technology. And we recently opened a
distance learning center in Rapid City where there are some 16,000
American Indians in the area. We are also working toward the
establishment of an American Indian Specialized Health Care Training
Clinic.
Forward Funding.--We have wanted BIE forward funding for some time
and the experience these past several years with the continuing
resolutions, sequestration and inexcusably slow and insufficient
allocation of funds really brings home this issue.
There was a glitch in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process
which resulted in UTTC (and Navajo Technical University (NTU)) not
receiving BIE forward funding. There is authority for forward funding
for tribal colleges under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and
Universities Act, 25 U.S.C. 1810(b)(1) and (2). This authority applies
to all colleges funded under that act, including UTTC and NTU.
When the administration requested $50 million for forward funding
its fiscal year 2010 budget, they asked for it under the line item of
``tribally controlled colleges and universities''--that line item
includes 27 tribally controlled colleges. However, we are funded under
the line item of ``tribal technical colleges'' and Haskell,
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), and the Institute of
American Indian Arts (IAIA) are funded under other authorities, and
thus when Congress provided the requested $50 million for forward
funding, UTTC and NTU, Haskell, SIPI, and the IAIA were left out. The
American Indian Higher Education Consortium has estimated $22 million
is needed to forward fund these schools. This does not increase the
Federal budget over the long run. It simply provides funds for vital
education programs before the start of each school year, which is
critically important when appropriations are delayed and the Government
is funded under continuing resolutions.
The manner of distribution of fiscal years 2013 and 2014 BIE funds
has been a disaster. Between having funding provided via continuing
resolutions and held back due to the prospects of a sequestration,
planning has been very difficult. Six months into fiscal year 2013 we
had been allocated only 37 percent of our BIE funding and in the
current (fiscal year 2014) year only about 25 percent of funds were
allocated in the first 6 months. The unprecedented uncertainty in terms
of timing and amount of funding has taken a toll. New faculty feel
vulnerable because of the appropriations situation, and prospective
candidates are reluctant to accept positions due to the same
uncertainty. We have significantly reduced off-campus professional
development activities for faculty, and held back on upgrading
technology resources for our faculty and students.
additional information about united tribes technical college
We have:
--Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, for July 2011 through
2021, with authority to offer all of our full programs online.
We have 23 associate degree programs, 19 certificate and 3
bachelor degree programs (Criminal Justice; Elementary
Education; Business Administration). Six courses are offered
online.
--Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy
program, wellness center, area transportation, K-8 elementary
school, tutoring, counseling, family and single student
housing, and campus security.
--A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
--A semester retention rate of 85 percent and a graduate placement
rate of 77 percent. Over 45 percent of our graduates move on to
4-year or advanced degree institutions.
--Students from 75 tribes; 85 percent of our undergraduate students
receive Pell grants.
--An unduplicated count of undergraduate degree-seeking students and
continuing education students of 1,391.
--A dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school
students, providing them an introduction to college life and
offering high school and college credits.
--A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at
least $34 million annually to the economy of the Bismarck
region. A North Dakota State University study reports that the
five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct and
secondary economic contribution to the State of $181,933,000 in
2012.
A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.--We ask Congress
to seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian country
with an eye toward the establishment of a campus-based academy for
training of law enforcement officers in the Northern Plains area of
Indian country. There are cultural and legal reasons why such training
should be tribally directed in order to be appropriate for the
realities of tribal communities. With the advent of expanded tribal
authorities under the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against
Women Act, 2013, the need has grown. State and national training
resources would have an important role in this new endeavor.
Our Criminal Justice program offers 2- and 4-year degrees, and
prepares graduates for employment as Federal, State or tribal law
enforcement, correction, parole and probation, and transportation
safety officers; victim advocates; U.S. Customs, Homeland Security, and
Military Investigative services; and private security agents. We point
out that the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act
contains requirements regarding background checks and character
investigations. We want to expand our endeavors to help meet law
enforcement needs in Indian country. Given our Criminal Justice
program, our location and our campus resources, we propose the
establishment of a Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.
Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the
BIA's Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. The BIA Academy can
train only three classes of 50 persons annually. The BIA is depending
on the basic training provided by State academies to supplement what is
provided at Artesia. We firmly believe UTTC is well positioned with
regard to providing both basic and supplemental law enforcement
training. An academy at UTTC would allow tribal people in the Great
Plains and other nearby regions a more affordable choice of training
locations, minimizing the distance and long separation of trainees from
their families.
The fiscal year 2015 Indian Affairs budget justification (p. IA-
PSJ-12) notes that training initiatives for the Indian police academy
includes developing a pre-academy training program for candidates prior
to their attending the academy; developing a mid-level manager training
program; and establishing an online distance learning program for
recertification, among other things. These are things that UTTC could
do as part of an academy at UTTC or in partnership with the Indian
Police Academy.
In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources
of UTTC to make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in
Indian country. We can offer college credit to trainees, and our
facilities include the use of a state-of-the-art crime scene simulator.
Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of economic
development for our tribal nations, and local control of law
enforcement training resources is a key part of that effort.
The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.--As you know, in March 2011
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued two reports regarding
Federal programs which may have similar or overlapping services or
objectives (GAO-11-474R and GAO-11-318SP). Funding from the BIE and the
Department of Education's Carl Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled
Postsecondary Career and Technical Education were among the programs
listed in the reports. The full GAO report did not recommend defunding
these programs; rather, it posed the possibility of consolidation of
these programs to save administrative costs. We are not in disagreement
about possible consolidation of our funding sources, as long as program
funds are not cut.
BIE funds represent over half of UTTC's core operating budget. The
Perkins funds supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE funds. It takes
both sources of funding to frugally maintain the institution. In fact,
even these combined sources do not provide the resources necessary to
operate and maintain the college. We actively seek alternative funding
to assist with academic programming, deferred maintenance, and
scholarship assistance, among other things. The need for postsecondary
career and technical education in Indian country is so great and the
funding so small, that there is little chance for duplicative funding.
There are only two institutions targeting American Indian/Alaska
Native career and technical education and training at the postsecondary
level--UTTC and NTU. Combined, these institutions received less than
$15 million in fiscal year 2014 Federal operational funds ($7.7 million
from Perkins; $7 million from the BIE). That is not an excessive amount
for two campus-based institutions who offer a broad (and expanding)
array of programs geared toward the educational and cultural needs of
their students and who teach job-producing skills.
Closing.--UTTC offers services that are catered to the needs of our
students, many of whom are first generation college attendees and many
of whom come to us needing remedial education and services. Although
BIE and Perkins funds do not pay for remedial education, we make this
investment through other sources to ensure our students succeed at the
postsecondary level. Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Utah Water Users Association
April 3, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Carly B. Burton,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
April 3, 2014.
Hon. Jack Reed, Chairman,
Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the
$124,253,000 item entitled ``Conservation and Restoration'') to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for
fiscal year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ``Conservation and Restoration'' funds
for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to
meet expenses incurred by FWS's Region 2 in managing the San
Juan Program's diverse recovery activities.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Sincerely,
Manuel Heart,
Tribal Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Scott A. Verhines, P.E.
summary
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2015
appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of
the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that at least $5,200,000 be
appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management within the Soil, Water,
and Air Program for general water quality improvement efforts in the
Colorado River Basin, and an additional $1,500,000 be appropriated
specifically for salinity control related projects and studies.
statement
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is
comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
appointed by the respective Governors of the States. The Forum has
examined the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado
River. These include activities by the States, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The Salinity Control Program has been adopted by the
seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency as a part of each State's water quality standards.
About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River Basin is owned,
administered or held in trust by the Federal Government. The BLM is the
largest land manager in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public
lands that are heavily laden with naturally occurring salt. When salt-
laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and enter the river system,
affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the
Lower Basin States and Mexico.
I support past Federal legislation that declared that the Federal
Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to
controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has charged the
Federal agencies to proceed with programs to control the salinity of
the Colorado River Basin with a strong mandate to seek out the most
cost-effective solutions. The BLM's rangeland improvement programs are
some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. In
addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable and control
erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-
off and enhance wildlife habitat.
The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin
States contain a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation
to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM
participation in the salinity control program is critical and essential
to actively pursue the identification, implementation and
quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public
lands.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from
Colorado River salinity to United States water users are about $376
million per year. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that these
quantified damages would increase to $577 million per year by 2030 if
the Salinity Control Program was not continued. Unquantified damages
already increase the total damages significantly.
Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin States, including
New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of
the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an independent
program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River, in addition
to cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of
Agriculture salinity control programs. It is important that the BLM
pursue salinity control projects within its jurisdiction to maintain
the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of
salinity control projects that will help avoid unnecessary damages in
the United States and Mexico.
At the urging of the Basin States, the BLM created a position to
coordinate its activities among the BLM State offices and other Federal
agencies involved in implementation of the salinity control program.
The BLM's Budget Justification documents have stated that BLM continues
to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation
with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Agriculture, and
report salt retention measures to implement and maintain salinity
control measures of the Federal salinity control program in the
Colorado River Basin. The BLM is to be commended for its commitment to
cooperate and coordinate with the Basin States and other Federal
agencies. The Basin States and I are pleased with the BLM
administration's responsiveness in addressing the need for renewed
emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to comply with
BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act, as amended.
To continue these efforts, I request the appropriation of at least
$5.2 million in fiscal year 2015 for general water quality improvement
efforts in the Colorado River Basin by the BLM within the Soil, Water,
and Air Program, and that an additional $1.5 million be appropriated
specifically for salinity control related projects and studies. I
appreciate consideration of these requests. I fully support the
statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted
by Don Barnett, the Forum's Executive Director, in request of
appropriations for BLM for Colorado River salinity control activities.
Scott A. Verhines, P.E.
New Mexico State Engineer
Secretary, New Mexico
Interstate Stream
Commission
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Western Governors'
Association (WGA). My name is James D. Ogsbury and I am the Executive
Director of the WGA. WGA is an independent, non-partisan organization
representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3 U.S.-flag
islands. We are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the
appropriations and activities of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service
and Environmental Protection Agency.
Western Governors recognize that certain agencies within this
subcommittee's jurisdiction are especially impactful to the West. These
Federal agencies have rich potential to supplement State efforts or
impinge on State authority. They can exercise vital leadership or they
can interfere with well-managed State activities. Accordingly, it is
critical that State and Federal agencies develop and maintain positive
and cooperative working relationships. Western Governors believe that
such cooperation is only possible when States are regarded as full and
equal partners of the Federal Government in the development and
execution of programs for which both have responsibility.
As you consider appropriations and policy directives for Federal
agencies, Western Governors urge you to take cognizance of States'
authority in resource management and their potential to enhance the
delivery of government services and protections to our citizens.
Western Governors are strong and pragmatic chief executives, committed
to judicious exercise of their power within constitutional and
practical constraints. The following requests and recommendations are
thematically related in that they commonly call for greater recognition
of State authority and better utilization of State capabilities by the
Federal Government.
With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA
recommends the enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable
funding mechanism for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program administered
by the Department of Interior. As you know, these appropriations do not
represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather they represent
important (if inadequate) compensation for the disproportionate acreage
of non-taxable Federal lands in the West. Similarly, continued funding
of the Secure Rural Schools program will help compensate communities
whose timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and
acquisitions of the Federal Government.
Western States are investing enormous amounts of time, money and
manpower in species conservation. It is only appropriate that Federal
agencies likewise commit sufficient resources for species protection,
particularly on Federal lands. If Federal lands are inadequately
managed, no amount of effort on State and private property will be
sufficient to assure species' success. Federal agencies should
demonstrate their commitment to species preservation and recovery by
committing adequate funding for conservation efforts on Federal lands.
Part of the Federal commitment to species conservation involves
financial support for species management by State agencies through the
State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program. Because State responsibilities
for species conservation are increasing in number and complexity, the
subcommittee is urged to reject the $8.7 million reduction to this
program proposed by the administration.
The subcommittee is well informed regarding the pressing problem of
``fire borrowing,'' pursuant to which resources necessary for the
reduction of wildfire threats are transferred to emergency firefighting
activities, perpetuating a cycle of high fire risk and elevated
emergency expenditures. Be advised that WGA is on record as supporting
legislation that would solve the budgetary issue of fire borrowing by
creating a funding structure similar to that used by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency in its response to natural disasters.
During last year's Government shutdown, certain national parks were
kept open through the initiative of States which undertook
responsibilities of park management. The subcommittee is encouraged to
provide the resources necessary to compensate those States for the
costs they incurred in shouldering a Federal obligation.
WGA understands that this subcommittee is as interested in how
funds are spent as it is in how much money agencies spend. The
following recommendations are intended to help ensure that the taxpayer
realizes a better return on the investment of limited discretionary
resources. This goal will be more readily achieved to the extent that
Federal agencies better leverage State authority, resources and
expertise.
Last year this subcommittee included language in its report
directing Federal land managers to use State fish and wildlife data and
analyses as sources to inform land use, land planning and related
natural resource decisions. Federal and State agencies need data-driven
science, mapping and analyses to effectively manage wildlife species
and their habitat. States possess constitutional responsibilities for
wildlife management, as well as intimate knowledge of wildlife habitat
and resources. In addition, they often generate the best available
wildlife science. The use of State science should be more effectively
utilized to both reduce total costs and increase the efficacy of
Federal wildlife management efforts. Accordingly, the subcommittee is
encouraged to reiterate and strengthen its report language regarding
this issue for fiscal year 2015.
Western Governors believe that States should be full and equal
partners in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and should
have the opportunity to participate in pre-listing and post-listing ESA
decisions. The ESA is premised on a strong State-Federal partnership.
Section 6(a) of the ESA states that, ``In carrying out the program
authorized by the Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum
extent practicable with the States.'' WGA submits that such cooperation
should include partnership with States in the establishment of
quantifiable species recovery goals, as well as in the design and
implementation of recovery plans.
It is axiomatic that ESA listing decisions have dramatic impacts on
vital State interests. Consequently, States should have the right to
intervene in proceedings regarding the ESA. The subcommittee is urged
to support the legal standing of States to participate in
administrative and judicial actions involving ESA that, by their
nature, implicate State authority and resources.
Several Federal statutes--including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air
Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--vest the States with
the role of co-regulator with the Environmental Protection Agency. That
role would be significantly enhanced by greater State representation on
the Science Advisory Board (SAB), on which the agency relies to provide
the scientific underpinnings of regulatory decisions.
The SAB was established by the Environmental Research, Development,
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) and has a broad mandate
to advise EPA on scientific, technological, and social and economic
issues. The SAB Charter defines the SAB as a scientific and technical
advisory committee. Sections 5(b)(2) and 5(c) of FACA require the
membership of an advisory committee to be ``fairly balanced in terms of
points of view represented and the functions to be performed.''
Despite the foregoing mandates and the tremendous value that would
be added to SAB processes by State participation, States are woefully
and demonstrably under-represented on the SAB, as well as on its
standing and ad hoc committees. States are equipped and prepared to
contribute their regulatory expertise, as well as their scientific
resources and data, to SAB deliberations. Consequently, the
subcommittee is urged to ensure that EPA achieves more balanced SAB
representation, to include State participation that constitutes no less
than 10 percent of the membership of SAB committees, subcommittees and
subject matter panels.
On March 25, the administration unveiled a proposed rule of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
intended to clarify the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act.
Many States have indicated concern that the proposed rule significantly
expands the definition of ``waters of the United States'' and could
impinge on State authority over the regulation of waters within their
borders. WGA is concerned that States were insufficiently consulted in
the development of this proposal and played no role in the creation of
the rule, which has such major implications for States.
Congress intended that the States and EPA would implement the CWA
in partnership, delegating authority to the States to administer the
law as co-regulators with EPA. Accordingly, WGA encourages
congressional direction to EPA to engage the States in the creation of
rulemaking, guidance, or studies that threaten to redefine the roles
and jurisdiction of the States. State water managers should have a
robust and meaningful voice in the development of any rule regarding
the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act or similar statutes.
Solving many of the West's challenges will require a broad view of
the interrelated nature of natural resource problems. For example,
Federal underinvestment in the eradication of invasive species (like
cheatgrass) and in the active management of national forests can result
in increased severity of wildfires. This greater wildfire threat in
turn poses greater peril to the crucial of habitat of species (like the
greater sage grouse) that States are working diligently to conserve.
Western Governors appreciate the enormity of your job, as well as
your commitment to the provision of cost-effective government services.
The foregoing recommendations are offered in a spirit of cooperation
and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you as appropriate as you
discharge your critical and challenging responsibilities.
Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western States Water Council and Native
American Rights Fund
i. introduction
The Western States Water Council (WSWC) and the Native American
Rights Fund (NARF) submit the following joint testimony in support of
adequate funding for the Secretary of the Interior's Indian Water
Rights Office (SIWRO) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to carry
out their responsibilities in support of Indian water rights
settlements.\1\ This testimony is based on WSWC Policy Resolution
#336.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The WSWC is a government entity created by the Western
Governors, which advises the Governors of 18 Western States on water
policy matters and is affiliated with the Western Governors'
Association. NARF is a non-profit 501c(3) organization that provides
legal representation and technical assistance to Indian tribes,
organizations and individuals nationwide--a constituency that often
lacks access to the justice system.
\2\ Available at: http://www.westgov.org/wswc/
336%20indian%20water%20rights%20settlements
%207oct2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For over 30 years, the WSWC and NARF have worked together to
support the negotiated resolution of Indian water rights claims. Our
organizations believe there is a need to quantify Indian water rights,
that negotiated settlements are preferable to litigation as a means of
quantifying those rights, and that the Federal Government should
encourage and facilitate settlements. As discussed below, the SIWRO and
the BIA play a key role in the settlement process, and Congress should
ensure they receive sufficient funding to carry out their settlement
efforts.
ii. prior appropriation and indian water right claims
The doctrine of prior appropriation governs the allocation of water
in most Western States. Under this system, the first parties to
physically divert and put water to a ``beneficial use'' have priority
over subsequent water users. Thus, senior water right holders with
earlier priority dates (the date the water was first put to beneficial
use) can seek curtailment of uses with junior priority dates in times
of shortage.
Most non-Indian water development in the West occurred after the
Federal Government finalized treaties and executive orders to establish
reservations for tribes, and after Congress severed land and water
rights in the West and directed that water rights be obtained under
State law. In addition, most tribal treaties and executive orders
creating Indian reservations did not specify the tribes' water rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the resulting conflict in Winters
v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), finding that tribal treaties and
executive orders impliedly reserved water rights necessary to meet the
purpose(s) of a tribe's reservation. These reserved rights differ from
State-issued water rights because they: (1) arise independently of
beneficial use; (2) are not limited by beneficial use; (3) are measured
by present and future supplies needed to fulfill the reservation's
purpose(s) instead of past uses; and (4) have priority dates that
correspond to the date the tribe's reservation was established.
iii. the need to resolve tribal water rights claims
Resolving Winters rights claims is critical for Western States
because tribal rights typically have priority dates that are senior to
non-Indian uses, and therefore have the potential to displace
established State-issued rights. This is especially problematic where
tribal rights pertain to river systems that are fully appropriated by
non-Indian users. The un-quantified nature of many tribal rights
creates great uncertainty with regard to existing State-based uses and
can impede local, State, and regional economic development. As a
result, quantifying tribal water right claims is essential for Western
States to address increasing water demands related to the West's
growing population, and to allocate water supplies that continually
change and are often scarce due to drought, reduced snowpacks, and
other factors.
At the same time, tribes often lack the resources to develop their
water rights. This lack of a reliable water supply and related
infrastructure throughout Indian Country sometimes prevents tribes from
protecting the health, welfare, and safety of their communities. For
example, over 40 percent of tribal members in the Navajo Nation haul
water for domestic use. This lack of potable water has caused various
illnesses.\3\ Members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, the Chippewa
Cree Tribe of Montana, and others also haul water for basic domestic
needs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Concerning S. 1771--Northwest New Mexico Rural Water Projects
Act: Hearing on S. 1771 Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural
Resources, 110th Cong. 8 (2007) (statement of Joe Shirley, Jr.,
President, Navajo Nation).
\4\ Testimony of John Echohawk on behalf of the Native American
Rights Fund: Oversight Hearing on Indian Water Rights Settlements
Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the H. Comm. on Natural
Resources, 110th Cong. 7-8 (2008) (statement of John Echohawk,
Executive Director, NARF) [hereinafter Echohawk Testimony].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The absence of adequate and reliable potable water supplies also
contributes to unemployment, poverty, and mortality rates on
reservations that are much higher than those of neighboring non-Indian
communities. In California, the lack of an adequate water supply has
prevented the Tule River Tribe from providing fire protection, housing,
and economic opportunities to tribal members. The tribe also has
unemployment and mortality rates that are 50 percent higher than Tulare
County as a whole and has been unable to act on hundreds of housing
applications.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In Support of S. 789, the Tule River Tribe Water Development
Act: Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 637, S. 789, S. 1080, and S.
1453 Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the S. Comm. on Energy
and Natural Resources, 111th Cong. 7 (2009) (statement of Ryan
Garfield, Chairman, Tule River Tribe); Echohawk Testimony, supra note
6, at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements are the preferred manner of resolving tribal water
rights claims because they allow States and tribes to address these
issues in ways that are not available through litigation. Specifically,
settlements: (1) enable tribes to turn quantified rights into ``wet
water,'' while litigation typically provides tribes with ``paper
rights'' only; (2) allow tribes and non-Indian parties to craft
mutually-beneficial solutions tailored to their specific needs; (3) are
often less costly and time-consuming than litigation, which can last
for decades and be extremely expensive for all parties, including the
Federal Government; (4) give States and tribes control over the
resolution of water rights claims; and (5) build positive relationships
between States, tribes, and the Federal Government, which are essential
because water is a shared resource that all parties must cooperatively
manage after adjudication.
For example, the Federal Government holds Indian water rights in
trust for the tribes and has a fiduciary duty to protect tribal water
rights. Because the Federal Government has not always protected tribal
water rights, tribes often have significant breach of trust claims
against the United States. At the same time, many tribal water rights
claims in the arid West involve fully-appropriated stream systems. To
address these issues, tribes will often waive their breach of trust
claims against the Federal Government as well as a portion of their
claimed water rights in consideration for Federal funding to build
needed drinking water infrastructure, water supply projects, and tribal
fishery restoration projects. These projects generally enable tribal
and non-tribal water users to use existing water supplies more
efficiently and advantageously and do not take water from existing non-
Indian water users. Moreover, these types of mutually-acceptable
outcomes are simply not available through litigation.
iv. the role of the federal government in settlements
The Federal Government is joined in all water rights adjudications
involving tribes because it holds the tribes' rights in trust. This
means that it has a fiduciary duty to help tribes resolve their rights
and ensure that settlements are funded and implemented, in addition to
its obligation to protect tribal water rights. It also means that
Congress and the President must approve each settlement.
The Federal Government has long supported a policy of resolving
Indian water rights claims through negotiation rather than litigation.
To this end, the Department of the Interior's Indian Water Rights
Settlement Program facilitates Federal involvement in the settlement
process. The SIWRO leads this program in consultation with Interior's
Officer of the Solicitor, facilitating inter-agency participation and
cooperation needed to achieve and implement comprehensive settlements.
In particular, the SIWRO coordinates and supports Federal
settlement activities through 38 Federal assessment, negotiation, and
implementation teams that are working throughout the West. These teams
consist of representatives from agencies and bureaus within Interior,
including the BIA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Solicitor's Office,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Department of Justice and
other Federal departments. These teams also provide a unified Federal
voice that helps further the settlement process, a matter of crucial
importance for the States as well. However, the legitimate need for
these teams far outstrips the number of teams available.
Furthermore, Interior and its agencies and bureaus provide critical
monetary, personnel, and technical support that tribes need to
effectively participate in the settlement process. As part of these
efforts, the BIA provides technical assistance to tribes and
coordinates the process of soliciting water-related funding proposals
from tribes. It also identifies funding needs for studies required in
ongoing Indian water rights litigation and negotiations. For instance,
the BIA's Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation Program provides
necessary documentation, technical studies, and other materials needed
for the United States to further the negotiation of tribal water right
claims.
Appropriating insufficient funds for these purposes hinders the
resolution of tribal water right claims. Therefore, Congress should
ensure that the SIWRO and the BIA receive adequate appropriations to
carry out their responsibilities in support of Interior's water rights
settlement program.
v. the consequences of not supporting settlement efforts
Tribes require the resources that the SIWRO and the BIA provide to
participate effectively in the settlement process. Failure to provide
adequate appropriations for these programs could postpone the
negotiation and implementation of Indian water rights settlements.
Ultimately, this makes the resolution of many tribal water rights
claims more expensive for the Federal Government in the long-run
because increasing water demands, decreasing water supplies, and other
factors will only increase the costs of resolving these claims.
vi. conclusion
The United States has a trust obligation to the tribes that
includes ensuring that they can participate in the settlement process.
Failure to provide sufficient funding to fulfill this obligation will
only increase Federal costs, perpetuate hardships to tribes, and
prolong resolution of conflicts between reserved water rights and
State-created water rights. This, in turn, could potentially disrupt
established economies and hinder effective State and regional water
planning and development.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Land Trust
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Reid Haughey and I am the president of the
Wilderness Land Trust. We are a small not-for-profit organization
focused on protecting designated wilderness. To do this, we work in
partnership with landowners who own private property within designated
and proposed wilderness areas and the agencies that manage these areas.
We acquire properties from willing sellers with the intent to transfer
ownership to the United States. My testimony focuses on a very small
portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund--funding for the
Inholding Acquisition Accounts for the four land management agencies.
Continued modest funding of the Inholding Accounts is vital to the
success of securing and preserving wilderness already designated by
Congress, while treating private landowners within these areas fairly.
The management of human development activities in wilderness is
expensive for the agencies. The potential resource damage to the
protected lands and waters is enormous. By contrast, the cost of
acquiring these properties when they are offered for sale is relatively
small. That is why it is so important to continue the modest
appropriations needed for the inholding acquisition program.
As we approach the 2014 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act, I
am before you today to thank you for funding the Inholdings Accounts in
fiscal year 2014 and to ask for that support once again. An
appropriation of between $3 and 5 million to each of the land
management agencies, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,
the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, is
sufficient to enable the agencies to acquire high priority inholdings
from willing sellers. Support for these accounts:
--Saves money by eliminating management inefficiencies that
frequently exceed the cost of acquisition;
--Helps private landowners within federally designated wilderness and
other conservation areas;
--Allows the agencies to act when opportunities occur to acquire
inholdings, often only once a generation; and
--Completes designated wilderness areas, removing threats from
incompatible and harmful development within their boundaries.
We are not asking Congress to undertake a new acquisition program
or to significantly increase current appropriation levels. As 2014 is
the 50th Anniversary of The Wilderness Act, we ask Congress to continue
its 50-year commitment to complete the wilderness areas it has
designated, and to provide private landowners who wish to sell the
opportunity to transfer their land within those wilderness areas to
public ownership by prioritizing the use of the inholding accounts for
the acquisition of inholdings within and adjacent to designated
wilderness areas. Focusing the inholding accounts on designated
wilderness and funding the Forest Service Wilderness Inholdings core
project will be money well spent, completing established congressional
designations and taking care of landowners who still own lands within
these now-designated wildernesses.
So, why worry? Aren't wilderness areas secured when Congress
designates them? All designations include language that authorize the
Federal acquisition of private lands within these areas and, once
acquired, automatically protect them as part of the designated
wilderness that surrounds them. As part of our celebration of the 50th
anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Trust has commissioned an
inventory of private lands within wilderness. The results are
startling. The report determined that within the lower 48 States,
180,000 acres of private lands still remain. There are also 440,000
acres of State owned lands.
This represents tremendous progress reducing private inholdings in
wilderness over the last 20 years. When the Trust last estimated the
amount of private land within designated wilderness in the lower 48
States, we estimated there were 400,000 acres of private lands. It has
taken decades of steady work to reduce that by more than half. During
the same timeframe, 507 new or additional areas were congressionally
designated, adding close to 29 million acres to the National Wilderness
Preservation System. So, true progress indeed. Large appropriations for
the inholding accounts did not accomplish this success--just steady,
modest funding so that lands can be purchased when landowners want to
sell. This is the level of funding we are hoping to continue.
These designated lands are worthy of completion. Landowners who are
ready to sell deserve to have their properties purchased. Their
isolated properties are primarily the result of 19th century
congressional policy when homesteads, mining operations and timber
production were encouraged without the balance of conservation. As a
result, wilderness areas now dedicated by Congress are pockmarked with
islands of private ownership that compromise the wilderness resource,
where ''even man is a visitor who shall not remain'', become expensive
management issues for the agencies and often befuddle landowners who
wish to sell these properties for the benefit of their companies or
families.
Why is consistent funding for the inholding accounts vital? We have
learned that these lands become available about once a generation. Our
20 years of steady work has shown that about 5 percent of the
properties within wilderness come up for sale in any 1 year. If the
opportunity to acquire these when offered is lost, the management
issues and inefficiencies that result from private lands remaining
within designated wilderness continue. Without consistent funding,
numerous opportunities to acquire these private parcels will be lost.
Not for a year, but often for at least another generation.
Many inholding acquisitions secure access. However, the Forest
Service fiscal year 2015 budget request to alter the purpose of the
inholdings acquisition program to focus solely on recreational access
would undermine the success of the program. Acquiring inholdings
secures access where it is now blocked by private land within the
Forest Service boundary--in our case within designated wilderness. The
Recreational Access idea is a new program that aims to expand Federal
ownership to include access easements outside current Forest Service
boundaries. We do not have a position on the merits or need for such an
expansion of Forest Service management responsibilities. We are here to
simply to say that the aim of the new program is not the same as the
inholdings acquisition program and should be evaluated on its own
merits, not substituted for a 50-year proven effort specifically
authorized by Congress. We urge you to assure the continued success of
the inholdings acquisition program by maintaining the traditional use
of the accounts for all four land management agencies and prioritizing
wilderness acquisitions in any fiscal year 2015 appropriations
legislation.
This year, critical acquisitions will not be completed without a
commitment to fund the inholding accounts. In 2013, critical project
examples we worked to acquire included:
--The only inholding within the Hells Canyon Wilderness in Idaho was
offered for sale by the family that long owned it. We bought it
and are in the process of transferring it to Federal ownership.
Buying this key 10 acre mining claim parcel completed the
wilderness, helped the family with its generational change and
kept the promise that when wilderness inholders want to sell,
the United States will acquire their properties.
--East Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness in Nevada includes historic
reminders of the settlement of the west in the mid-19th
Century. It also included one remaining 320 acre inholding. Now
transferred to Federal ownership, this wilderness is complete
and the family ranching operation that used to own it
successfully reorganized so the next generation will continue
their ranching business and tradition.
--The Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness is less than one quarter of a mile
from Highway 101 in Northern California. But ``you can't get
there from here''. The access to the wilderness is blocked by
40 acres of private land. When acquired by BLM, this beloved
wilderness that stretches toward the sea from Highway 101 will
be accessible to the many youth groups that covet this summit
to sea hiking and educational wilderness experience. We bought
it and are now working through the transfer to BLM to create
much needed public access and preserve the 50-year tradition of
wilderness education at the summer camp on the property.
We've also been able to help other private landowners and secure
other wilderness areas. Among them--
--A timber company in northern California that is re-aligning its
landownership and has worked with the Trust to sell its
property, opening access to the Castle Crags Wilderness from
the east and the nearby freeway. The newly created access to
the nearby wilderness has the potential to provide significant
new economic opportunities for the nearby hard-hit community of
Dunsmere to develop recreation-based businesses.
--And, a landowner who built a cabin at a former gold mine on the
banks of the Salmon River within the Frank Church River of No
Return Wilderness. We will work over the next year to clean up
the mine site to protect the river. The transfer of this
property to Federal ownership will further consolidate
protection of the wilderness and enhance the recreational
opportunities so economically important to Idaho and as a
resource for the Nation.
The expenses of managing these isolated private lands do not fall
solely on the Federal Government. Tax revenues received by local
governments do not offset the cost of providing fire protection,
emergency and general government services to these isolated and far
flung properties. It costs more to serve these isolated single
properties than the tax revenue they generate. If you fund the
inholding accounts, we will be back next year with more stories of
success:
--Success completing already designated wilderness;
--Success helping those private landowners, who often feel trapped
within designated wilderness, but were promised that their land
would be purchased at a fair market price if they chose to
sell;
--Success helping local governments control costs; and
--Success helping land management agencies reduce costs of management
and fire suppression.
In summary, continued consistent funding of the inholding accounts
is vital. Without such funding, significant opportunities to acquire
private parcels within our designated wilderness areas will be lost for
at least another generation. We urge your support of continued funding
for these accounts and for the Forest Service's Wilderness Inholdings
core project.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We greatly appreciate
your time and consideration and the support of the subcommittee in
securing these appropriations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 500,000 members
and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire
Americans to care for our wild places. We thank the subcommittee for
the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2015 Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill.
When deciding on funding that affects hundreds of millions of
Americans, we urge you to take into account the full economic, social,
environmental and cultural value of the many programs managed by this
subcommittee. Our public lands and waters contribute significantly to
the U.S. outdoor recreation economy. The Outdoor Industry Association's
latest report shows that outdoor recreation alone generates $646
billion in direct consumer spending, supports 6.1 million direct jobs
and generates $79.6 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenue.
Investments in these critical programs will provide jobs and
protect the health and economic wellbeing of local communities. We urge
bold, immediate action in support of conservation funding for fiscal
year 2015. Specifically, TWS recommends:
wilderness management
The 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act is September 3rd, 2014.
This provides a unique and valuable opportunity to highlight the role
wilderness plays in protecting ecosystems, wildlife, and primitive
outdoor recreation opportunities across the country. America's National
Wilderness Preservation System is a world renowned model for land
conservation, yet our wilderness areas are suffering from a lack of
funding. Trail maintenance, law enforcement, monitoring, and user
education are all significantly underfunded, leading to an erosion of
wilderness values and a diminution of the experience for wilderness
visitors. We recommend that each of the agency wilderness management
accounts be increased to provide trails maintenance, update signage,
remove fencing, fight invasive species, restore degraded hydrology, and
monitor effects of climate change, among other critical wilderness
preservation system needs. Specifically:
--Crosscutting.--Adequately fund the Carhartt Training Center, the
Leopold Research Institute, and the Interagency Wilderness
Character Monitoring Team to complete wilderness character
baseline assessments using Wilderness Fellows.
--Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness.--The budget proposal of
$18.435 million for BLM wilderness management is strong, but
still 7 percent lower than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level,
the funding level necessary to ensure resource and visitor
safety in the 221 BLM wilderness areas. TWS supports restoring
BLM Wilderness funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663
million.
--Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage.--Recreation is
the most ubiquitous use of our forest lands, connecting with
more people and occurring on more acres than any other use, as
well as accounting for more than half of all job and income
affects attributable to Forest Service programs (over 190,000
jobs and $11 billion in spending effects by visitors). We urge
Congress to support wilderness and recreation by restoring
funding to the fiscal year 2010 level of $285.1 million for the
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program.
--National Park Service Wilderness.--Provide a funding increase for
the base wilderness program from its current level of $450,000
as well as 2 years of total funding at $520,000 to highlight
and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act.
Additional funding would eliminate the backlog of Wilderness
Stewardship Plans, support training for all wilderness park
superintendents, improve coordination with interagency
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and reduce the likelihood
of litigation due to management inconsistencies.
land and water conservation fund
Now in its 50th Anniversary year, LWCF remains the premier Federal
program to conserve our Nation's land, water, historic, and recreation
heritage. It is a critical tool to acquire inholdings and protect
national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, BLM lands,
and other Federal areas. The companion LWCF State grants program
provides crucial support for State and local park acquisitions,
recreational facilities, and trail corridors. LWCF also funds two other
important State grant programs--the Forest Legacy Program and
Cooperative Endangered Species programs--that ensure permanent
conservation of important forest lands and threatened and endangered
species' habitat, as well as important wildlife and recreational
habitat and ensures that public lands stay public for hunters, anglers,
and other outdoor recreationists for generations to come.
--TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the proposed $900
million. Full funding for LWCF will allow land management
agencies to manage our public lands more efficiently and cost-
effectively. This is achieved through strategic inholdings
acquisition which reduces internal boundary line surveying,
right-of-way conflicts and special use permits.
emergency wildfire funding
For years U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the
Interior (DOI) have had to divert funds away from vital conservation
and wildfire mitigation programs to cover wildfire suppression costs.
This is having long term negative effects on conservation and land
management, especially where these funds are diverted from programs
aimed at reducing fire risks and costs, which creates a vicious cycle.
With longer and more severe fire seasons the Forest Service has seen
its wildfire management activities rise from 13 percent of the agency's
budget in fiscal year 1991 to almost 50 percent for the past several
fiscal years.
--TWS strongly supports the President's proposal of $954 million in
new budget authority for wildfire suppression under the FLAME
Suppression Cap Adjustment. This will eliminate the need to rob
other accounts to pay for the worst 1 percent of wildfires.
climate change resiliency
Wilderness, public lands, connected wildlife habitats and other
types of ``green infrastructure'' are some of the most cost-effective
investments that can be made to increase climate change resiliency.
Connected wild landscapes allow species and habitats to adapt more
easily to changes in climate, buffer local communities from storms and
natural disasters and our national forests can be effective carbon
sinks.
--TWS supports the President's $1 billion climate change fund to
safeguard not only our public lands but our communities and our
economy.
blm onshore oil and gas policy
The BLM is implementing important management reforms of its oil and
gas program that is leading toward a better balance between oil and gas
development on public lands and the protection of the numerous natural
resource values that were put at risk by previous policies. The
administration has proposed these reforms of the BLM's oil and gas
program, which TWS supports:
--A fee on onshore Federal operators sufficient to provide for a $48
million per year inspection and enforcement program to
implement recommendations made by the Government Accountability
Office; Continuation of the $6,500 APD fee; A $4.00 per acre
fee on non-producing onshore leases.
sage grouse initiative
The Wilderness Society supports the administration's $15 million
request for the BLM's National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy.
If successful, implementation of this strategy will lead to recovery of
this important western game species without the necessity of a listing
under the Endangered Species Act.
blm's national landscape conservation system
The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands)
comprises some 27 million acres of congressionally and presidentially
designated lands and waters, including National Monuments, National
Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas and other designations.
Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs for thousands of
Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in
surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide immeasurable
public values from modest investments: outstanding recreational
opportunities, wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open
space near cities. We ask Congress to:
--Support the administration's fiscal year 2015 recommendation of
$66.5 million to ensure the natural, cultural, and historical
resource protection provided by the Conservation Lands for the
American public.
--Restore the Challenge Cost Share Program at full funding of $19
million. This is a cross-cutting program within DOI, which
provides a 1:1 match for volunteer activities.
renewable energy
TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean
energy economy by developing our renewable energy resources
responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and
necessary use of the public lands when sited in areas screened for
habitat, resource, and cultural conflicts. TWS hopes the Department
will continue to support a program that ensures our public lands can
play an important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure
through environmental review, suitability screening, and energy zone
identification to find suitable places for needed renewable energy
projects. TWS is also a supporter of Secretarial Order 3330 on
Mitigation that would ensure that any impacts are avoided or offset.
TWS urges Congress to:
--Support increased funding for renewable energy programs across
Interior from fiscal year 2014 enacted.
--Support the Department's request to fund BLM's renewable energy
activity at no less than $29 million to make up for the impact
of sequestration.
--Increase funding for the FWS to review and permit renewable energy
projects on public lands.
national wildlife refuge system funding
The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's finest network
of protected lands and waters. Designed to conserve our fish and
wildlife resources, refuges are located in every State and territory
and provide enormous economic benefit for their local communities.
Every year, the System attracts 45 million tourists, hunters,
fishermen, and other recreationists, generating $1.7 billion in sales,
sustaining nearly 27,000 jobs annually, and contributing over $185
million in tax revenue. The Refuge System has been under increasing
fiscal strain, however, with a maintenance backlog of over $3 billion.
--We urge Congress to support funding for the National Wildlife
Refuge System at the President's recommendation of $476.4
million.
national forest restoration
The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) and Collaborative Forest
Restoration Programs (CFLR) provide essential funding to restore
watersheds, improve recreational access by focusing on roads and trails
where water quality and aquatic species are at risk and advance
collaborative restoration projects. Despite its success, the LRT
program was slashed 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 and again in fiscal
year 2014 by 22 percent. We look forward to the results of the 3-region
test pilot for Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR). However, we do
not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded until the test
regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration outcomes without a
loss of program transparency and accountability. To achieve restoration
goals in fiscal year 2015, TWS recommends that Congress:
--Restore Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $45 million within
Capital Improvement and Maintenance;
--Fully fund the CFLRP at the President's recommendation of $60
million; and
--Extend the IRR pilot program, and works closely with the Forest
Service and stakeholders to ensure transparency and
accountability for the activities and outcomes of the pilot
program.
forest service inventory & monitoring and planning
The Inventory and Monitoring is integral to forest planning serving
both as the baseline data and trigger for course correction. The
Planning Program funds amendments and revisions to Land Management
Plans, the overarching documents that guide the management of
individual forests and grasslands. By providing adequate and consistent
funding to both these programs, we advance plans and projects, and
avoid bad decisionmaking, unnecessary costs, and more risks to water
quality and quantity, wildlife, and recreation. TWS recommends that
Congress:
--Support Inventory & Monitoring and Planning by restoring funding to
the running 10-year average of $163,689,000 and $48,254,000,
respectively.
national forest roads
Over the past 4 years, Forest Service roads funding has been cut by
30 percent adding even more strain to a road system where the
collective cost continues to far outstrip the Forest Service's
financial capacity. Roads are one of the most significant stressors on
watersheds and ecosystems, contributing to water pollution and declines
in salmon, trout and other fish. Adequate funding for the road system
is needed to address public safety issues, the negative effects of
roads on wildlife and water, and provide high quality recreational
access to the American public. Adequate funding will also ensure that
previous taxpayer investments in our forest infrastructure are not
squandered through lack of maintenance.
--We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads
at the running 10-year average of $207,383,000 in fiscal year
2015.
--We recommend that Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads funds
are available for maintenance and operations, reconstruction,
limited construction, and decommissioning.
national forest trails
There are 155,600 miles of trails in the National Forest System.
These trails provide 50 million visitor days of cross-country skiing,
hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and off-road vehicle use
each year. The number of annual visitor days has grown 376 percent
since 1977, and the total mileage of trails has grown 56.9 percent to
accommodate this use. In fiscal year 2014 the trails budget was cut
nearly 9 percent to $75 million, despite the fact that the Government
Accountability Office reported in June 2013 that the agency has more
than a $500 million trail maintenance backlog. Currently, the Forest
Service is able to maintain only a third of its trail miles to a
minimum standard condition.
--In light of the history and conditions we describe above, we urge
Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Trails at
its fiscal year 2010 level of $85,381,000 in fiscal year 2015.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
subcommittee: The Wildlife Conservation (WCS) was founded with the help
of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 with the mission of saving wildlife and
wild places worldwide. Today, WCS manages the largest network of urban
wildlife parks in the United States led by our flagship, the Bronx Zoo.
Globally, WCS works to protect 25 percent of the world's biodiversity
and address four of the biggest issues facing wildlife and wild places:
climate change; natural resource exploitation; the connection between
wildlife health and human health; and the sustainable development of
human livelihoods. While taking on these issues, we manage more than
200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing more
than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. scientists and 100 veterinarians.
The American conservation tradition is based on promoting
sustainable use of our natural resources in order to preserve the
world's species and environment for future generations. In recognition
of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to note that
effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect
economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through
tourism and other means.
Domestically, the story of the American bison is an excellent
example of how long-term conservation and management of a natural
resource can have a very positive economic impact. Brought to the edge
of extinction at the end of the 19th century, a few bison were saved,
mostly through the actions of private ranchers. Conservationists, led
by Roosevelt and William Hornaday, brought some of the few remaining
bison to the Bronx Zoo to breed the animals for eventual
reintroduction. Within 2 years, 15 bison bred in captivity at the Zoo
were returned to their natural habitat under Federal control in the
Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Congressman Cole's district in
Oklahoma, the very first wildlife refuge in the United States. This is
the first known instance of a nearly-extinct mammal being successfully
reestablished.
Today, more than 20,000 bison are in federally-managed herds and
serve as major tourist attractions at Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and
other jewels of the National Park system. States are also successfully
managing herds, with the Henry Mountains herd in Congressman Stewart's
district being particularly notable because, in addition to being a
tourist attraction, it generates revenues through hunting concessions.
And in every State in the country, private producers manage 200,000
bison, sustaining thousands of jobs and generating more than $280
million in revenue. Clearly, the rescue, reestablishment and
conservation of bison is a great success, both environmentally and
economically.
Internationally, by supporting conservation, the U.S. is increasing
capacity and governance in developing nations and improving our own
national security as a result. And these efforts are absolutely
critical, as we have reached a crisis with regard to the trafficking of
wildlife. U.S Government estimates compiled by the Congressional
Research Service (CRS) last summer show that illegal trade in
endangered wildlife products, including elephant ivory, rhino horns,
and turtle shells, is worth at least an estimated $7 to $10 billion
annually. When the trade in illegal logging, plants and fisheries are
also included, CRS states that some estimates exceed $100 billion,
which would place the illegal wildlife trade among the 10 largest
criminal activities worldwide. Because of the lucrative nature of this
industry, evidence is showing increasingly that transnational criminal
organizations and terrorist groups that are involved in other major
trafficking operations--drugs, humans and weapons--are engaged in
wildlife trafficking as well.
On the ground in Africa and elsewhere, WCS scientists are seeing,
first-hand, the devastating impact poaching is having on elephants,
rhinos, tigers, and other iconic species. In 2012 alone, we estimate
that 35,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory--that is an
average of 96 elephants per day or one killed every 15 minutes. The
subspecies of African forest elephants has seen a decline of 65 percent
since 2002, dwindling to less than 80,000 today. Continued poaching at
these rates may mean the extinction of forest elephants within a
decade. Action must be taken now, so that we do not end up where we
were with bison 100 years ago. Although that story continues to be a
happy one, there is no guarantee that story of the elephant will not,
ultimately, be a tragedy.
The Federal Government recently announced the National Strategy for
Combating Wildlife Trafficking (National Strategy), which is designed
to provide a framework for a whole-of-government approach to addressing
wildlife trafficking. Several programs within this bill form the basis
upon which that strategy is built. This testimony will touch on several
of those programs, beginning with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which plays a key role in the National Strategy and U.S.
antitrafficking efforts.
united states fish and wildlife service
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF).--Global priority
species--such as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants, great
apes, and marine turtles--face constant danger from poaching, habitat
loss and other serious concerns. MSCF programs have helped to sustain
wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing human-wildlife
conflict, and protecting essential habitat--all while promoting U.S.
economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the world.
These programs are highly efficient, granting them an outsized impact
because they consistently leverage three to four times as much in
matching funds from corporations, conservation groups, and national
governments. WCS requests that $10 million be appropriated for the MSCF
for fiscal year 2015, equal to the fiscal year 2009 funding level.
WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF. In
2009, with support from the African Elephant Conservation Fund, WCS
launched a new project in collaboration with Bauchi State Government to
improve levels of protection and reduce rates of elephant poaching in
Yankari Game Reserve. Yankari contains the largest surviving elephant
population in Nigeria and one of the largest remaining in West Africa.
WCS has been able to make substantial progress in building the capacity
of the ecoguard staff and empowering local authorities to manage this
population. Despite years of extreme poaching pressure, the number of
elephants killed this year has been kept to a minimum through constant
effort and surveillance. A strong team of ecoguards is now using
durable, GPS-enabled technology to detect illegal activities and report
back to authorities in an efficient way, utilizing real-time data and
illustrative maps.
Wildlife Without Borders Global and Regional Programs.--These
programs are a great investment in addressing cross-cutting threats to
ecosystems and wildlife such as disease outbreaks, human-wildlife
conflict, and the bushmeat trade. Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) is
making lasting impacts through capacity building, technical support and
training, local community education and citizen science. In fiscal year
2015, WCS recommends funding the WWB Global and Regional Programs
commensurate with the President's request of $7.2 million.
Created in 2010, the WWB Critically Endangered Animals Fund
provided over $300,000 in grants in fiscal year 2013 to protect the
most imperiled species on the planet. This funding was matched more
than 2 for 1 by non-Federal contributions. A portion of this funding is
supporting a successful WCS project in Myanmar to ensure a genetically
diverse, self-sustaining, wild population of the Burmese roofed turtle.
I urge you to include language in the report to accompany the bill that
would ensure this small but important program for critically endangered
species remains open.
Office of Law Enforcement.--The U.S. remains one of the world's
largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products, both legal and
illegal. A small group of dedicated officers at the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) are tasked with
protecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources by investigating
wildlife crimes--including commercial exploitation, habitat
destruction, and industrial hazards--and monitoring the Nation's
wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and facilitate legal commerce.
Many of the new responsibilities placed on the FWS by the National
Strategy will be enforced by the OLE, and WCS supports the President's
request for $65.8 million. Most of the proposed increase will go to
strengthening forensic capabilities needed to address wildlife
trafficking and expanding the capacity of the Special Investigations
Unit so that it can maximize the scope and effectiveness of FWS efforts
to respond to the elephant poaching crisis and shutdown trafficking in
elephant ivory. This funding, in concert with full implementation of
the effort to deploy OLE personnel at key embassies overseas, will
increase investigations involving species that are victimized by
illegal trade.
The National Strategy calls for the Federal Government to
``increase coordination among law enforcement and intelligence agencies
to enhance the effectiveness of Federal efforts to combat wildlife
trafficking.'' For no agency is this increased coordination with the
intelligence community more important than for the OLE. We strongly
encourage the Committee to include language in the report that would
facilitate increased coordination between the OLE and the intelligence
community.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--The State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants program gives States and tribes funding to develop and
implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect declining
wildlife and habitats before protection under the Endangered Species
Act is necessary. This important program is supported by more than
6,200 organizations that have formed a national bipartisan coalition
called Teaming with Wildlife of which WCS is a steering committee
member. WCS recommends Congress provide $58.7 million, equal to the
fiscal year 2014 level, for the program to implement State Wildlife
Action Plans.
united states forest service
International Programs.--The Forest Service International Programs
(FSIP) level the playing field in international trade for U.S. timber
producers and reduce illegal logging by providing specialized
experience. This improves the sustainability and legality of timber
management overseas which translates to less underpriced timber
undercutting U.S. producers. FSIP, through partnerships with USAID and
the Department of State, helps to improve the resource management in
countries of strategic importance to U.S. security. Resource scarcity
and unregulated extraction of natural resources--whether water, food,
timber, or minerals--is often a root cause of unrest and corruption,
both of which undermine democracy, the rule of law and political
stability. FSIP has increasingly leveraged modest funding from Congress
to make a big impact for the U.S. taxpayer. For every Federal dollar
invested in FSIP, four additional dollars is leveraged in matching
funds and other contributions from partners. WCS requests that the
fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $8 million for the FSIP is maintained
in fiscal year 2015.
With technical and financial support from FSIP, WCS has been
working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called
the Primorye in the Russian Far East. The region hosts over a hundred
endangered species as well as numerous threatened species, including
the Far Eastern leopard and Amur tiger. Habitat conservation for these
animals, which are dependent on large tracts of intact forest
ecosystem, benefits associated species and biodiversity in the region.
FSIP works with us to exchange information and methodologies with
Russian scientists, managers, and students on a variety of wildlife-
related topics to support conservation and capacity building efforts
and ensure the sustainable management of forests and wildlife habitat.
united states national park service
Office of International Affairs.--In 1961, the U.S. Government
initiated its first international conservation program with the
creation of the Office of International Affairs (OIA). Since then, this
office has facilitated technical assistance and exchange projects with
counterpart agencies globally building on the legacy of American
leadership in national parks management. OIA is also the managing
agency for World Heritage Sites located in the United States. Thanks to
this program, NPS is working on collaborative areas of trans-frontier
concern, including at the Beringia Shared Heritage Initiative (U.S.-
Russia), which WCS has been involved with as part of our ongoing
conservation efforts in Arctic Alaska. WCS is currently studying the
behavior and survivorship of migratory birds that travel to Teshekpuk
Lake in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve to nest each year, as well
as the impacts climate change is having on Alaska's walrus populations.
The international work conducted by NPS is not only about helping other
countries protect their parks and heritage. It is about bringing home
best practices and learning from international engagement that could
benefit the American parks. WCS recommends including the President's
request of $897,000 for the OIA in fiscal year 2015.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to share WCS's
perspectives and make a case for increased investment in conservation
in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, EPA and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. Conservation of public lands is an American
tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that
the management of our natural resources requires coordination between
all nations. Continued investment in conservation will reaffirm our
global position as a conservation leader, while improving our national
security and building capacity and good governance in developing
countries. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget for the Department of
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society was
founded in 1937 and is a non-profit scientific and educational
association representing nearly 10,000 professional wildlife biologists
and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through
science and education. Our mission is to represent and serve the
professional community of scientists, managers, educators, technicians,
planners, and others who work actively to study, manage, and conserve
wildlife and habitats worldwide.
united states fish and wildlife service
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
program that supports States in preventing wildlife from becoming
endangered. It is also the primary program supporting implementation of
State Wildlife Action Plans, which detail on the ground conservation
actions in each State to keep common species common. Funding assistance
for State wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority needs to
prevent further declines in at-risk species in every State. Previous
budget reductions and sequestration have had a serious and
disproportionate impact on State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.
Compounding these impacts is a decrease in funding recommended in the
President's budget, to $50 million in fiscal year 2015. We recommend
Congress appropriate at least $58.7 million for State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants to maintain level funding in fiscal year 2015. We also
ask that Congress not shift additional funds directed to States through
formula grants to a competitive allocation. This funding is critical
for maintaining wildlife diversity programs at the State level and a
further reduction in the formula grants may have dramatic negative
consequences.
As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, or
CARE, The Wildlife Society supports the President's request for the
National Wildlife Refuge System's operations and maintenance accounts
at $476.4 million for fiscal year 2015. CARE estimates that the Refuge
System needs at least $900 million in annual operations and maintenance
funding to properly administer its 562 refuges and 38 wetland
management districts spanning over 150 million acres. Given current
fiscal realities, we understand that funding at $900 million is not
currently possible. However, at its highest funding level in fiscal
year 2010, the Refuge System received only $503 million--little more
than half the needed amount. Since that time, congressional
appropriations have not only failed to account for rising costs, but
have been steadily backsliding resulting in the loss of 324 employees
since 2011, or 9 percent of all staff. Yet the Refuge System actually
pays for itself several times over by generating $4.87 in economic
activity for every $1 appropriated by Congress to run the Refuge
System.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-
regulatory, incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented
success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird
populations. This program has remained drastically underfunded despite
its demonstrated effectiveness. We support the President's request of
$34.1 million and encourage Congress to match this request for fiscal
year 2015.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program
supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the U.S., Latin
America and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion birds
representing 341 species spend their winters, including some of the
most endangered birds in North America. This program should be funded
at or above $6.5 million to achieve maximum success. However,
recognizing the current fiscal climate, The Wildlife Society recommends
Congress maintain level funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act at $3.7 million in fiscal year 2015.
The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all three
subactivities within the Ecological Services Program. Endangered
species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting, resulting in
significant benefits to species through State management efforts. FWS,
with the help of Federal and State agency partners, has been working to
implement new strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness
of this program and to reduce the regulatory burden on private
landowners and industry partners. To support these actions and the
increased emphasis on consultation and recovery, we recommend Congress
match the President's request and provide $28 million for Listing, $105
million for Planning and Consultation, and $124 million for
Conservation and Restoration in fiscal year 2015.
The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) provides
financial and technical assistance to private landowners across the
country to restore degraded habitat and to safeguard against potential
regulatory burdens associated with endangered species listings. With
over two-thirds of our Nation's lands held as private property, and up
to 90 percent of some habitats lost, private lands play a key role in
preserving our ecosystem. For example, working under a new MOU with the
Natural Resource Conservation Service, PFW has been critical in
engaging private landowners to restore and maintain habitat for the
Greater-sage Grouse in States like Idaho and Nevada; potentially
removing the need for a future listing. We urge Congress to provide $60
million in support of the PFW Program in fiscal year 2015 in order to
allow landowners to help contribute to land and wildlife preservation.
Through its International Affairs office, FWS works with many
partners and countries in the implementation of international treaties,
conventions, and projects for the conservation of wildlife species and
their habitats. International trade, import, and transportation of
wildlife species can have a huge impact on America's security, economy,
and environment. Careful regulation of imports and implementation of
international policies is an important task. We ask Congress to match
the President's request of $14.6 million in support of FWS
International Affairs in fiscal year 2015.
bureau of land management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands support over 3,000
species of wildlife, more than 300 federally proposed or listed
species, and more than 1,300 sensitive plant species. Historically, the
Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) and the Threatened and
Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have been forced to pay
for the compliance activities of BLM's energy, grazing, and other non-
wildlife related programs, eroding both their ability to conduct
proactive conservation activities and their efforts to recover listed
species. Given the significant underfunding of the BLM's wildlife
programs, combined with the tremendous expansion of energy development
across the BLM landscape, we recommend Congress appropriate $52.6
million for BLM Wildlife Management in fiscal year 2015. This will
allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring
habitat conditions, conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and
developing cooperative management plans. We support the proposed
increase of $15 million for sage grouse conservation efforts; this kind
of broad-scale, landscape based conservation is exactly what is needed
to manage and conserve sage grouse across their range.
Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered
Species Management Program, to allow BLM to meet its responsibilities
in endangered species recovery plans. BLM's March 2001 Report to
Congress called for a doubling of the Threatened and Endangered Species
budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff positions over 5
years. This goal has yet to be met. In light of this, we strongly
encourage Congress to increase overall funding for BLM's endangered
species program to $48 million in fiscal year 2015.
The Wildlife Society, part of the National Horse and Burro
Rangeland Management Coalition, appreciates the commitment of BLM to
addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro
Management. We support the requested increase of $2.8 million for
implementation of the National Academy of Sciences recommendations and
findings and continued research and development on contraception and
population control. However, with more than 12,000 horses above BLM's
stated Appropriate Management Levels on the range and nearly 50,000
horses in off-site long- and short-term holding facilities The Wildlife
Society is concerned about BLM's emphasis on fertility control alone.
The current language limiting the use of humane euthanasia for unwanted
or unadoptable horses should be removed to allow BLM to use all
necessary management tools to bring populations of on- and off-range
wild horses and burros within manageable range and additional funding
should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has occurred due
to overpopulation of these animals. The requested $80.2 million should
be provided to BLM if they continue removing excess horses from the
range at a reasonable rate and focus additional resources on habitat
restoration.
united states geological survey
The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
that is supported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is
necessary for understanding the complex environmental issues facing our
Nation today. This science will play an essential role in the
decisionmaking processes of natural resource managers, and it will help
protect our water supply and conserve endangered species. More
investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve
monitoring, produce high-quality geospatial data, and deliver the best
science to address critical environmental and societal challenges. The
Wildlife Society supports funding of at least $1.1 billion for USGS in
fiscal year 2015.
The Ecosystems Program of USGS contains programmatic resources for
fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species and the Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ecosystems program strives to
maximize research and support for comprehensive biological and
ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports the President's
request of $162 million for USGS's Ecosystems Department in fiscal year
2015. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $45.1 million for
the Wildlife Program. Additionally, we appreciate the requested
addition of $300,000 for pollinator research and of $1 million for
research on the impacts of future energy development on wildlife
sustainability.
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are
managed under the Ecosystems Department and conduct research on
renewable natural resource questions, participate in the education of
graduate students, provide technical assistance and consultation on
natural resource issues, and provide continuing education for natural
resource professionals. In fiscal year 2001, Congress fully funded the
CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since
then, budgetary shortfalls have continued to cause an erosion of
available funds, resulting in a current staffing vacancy of nearly one
quarter of the professional workforce. In order to fill current
vacancies, restore seriously eroded operational funds for each CFWRU,
and enhance national program coordination, the fiscal year 2015 budget
for the CFWRUs should be increased to $18.5 million, the level
requested by the President. This would restore necessary capacity in
the CFWRU program and allow it to meet the Nation's research and
training needs.
The Wildlife Society appreciates the fiscal year 2014 funding of
$25.5 million for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science
Center. This center plays a pivotal role in addressing the impacts of
climate change on fish and wildlife by providing essential scientific
support. In order for this role to be fully realized, The Wildlife
Society recommends that Congress fund the National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center at the requested $35.3 million in fiscal year
2015.
united states forest service
Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
about 425 threatened and endangered species, and another 3,250 at-risk
species. In fiscal year 2011, the Forest Service combined several
programs and budgets, including Vegetation and Watershed Management,
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, and Forest Products into a
single Integrated Resource Restoration activity budget. We continue to
be concerned with this merger because it makes accountability to
stakeholders and Congress more difficult. However, with these
reservations noted, we urge Congress to support the request of $820
million for the Integrated Resource Restoration program in fiscal year
2015.
Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep
understanding of the biological and geological forces that shape the
land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by
the USFS is at the forefront of science, and essential to improving the
health of our Nation's forests and grasslands. Furthermore, it will
play a key role in developing strategies for mitigating the effects of
climate change. We urge Congress to match the President's request of
$275 million in fiscal year 2015 for Forest and Rangelands to support
this high-quality research.
department of interior wildland fire management
The Wildlife Society supports the request for $30.0 million to
establish a new ``Resilient Landscapes'' activity to improve the
integrity and resilience of forests and rangelands by restoring natural
vegetation landscapes to specific conditions and maintaining fire
resiliency.
Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
professionals.
______
Prepared Statement of the World Wildlife Fund
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) requests your support for a
number of important conservation programs within the Department of the
Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). WWF is the largest
private conservation organization working internationally to conserve
wildlife and nature. WWF currently sponsors conservation programs in
more than 100 countries with the support of 1.2 million members in the
United States and more than 5 million members worldwide. We
respectfully request that the subcommittee fund the following programs
at the following levels in fiscal year 2015:
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement at no less
than the administration's request of $66.7 million, including
additional funding to support implementation of the National
Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking and at least $4.8 million for
Lacey Act enforcement.
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Affairs at
the administration's request of $14.6 million, including
additional funding to support implementation of the National
Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking.
--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multinational Species Conservation
Funds at $10 million, $900,000 above the administration's
request.
One of WWF's top priorities is supporting efforts to combat
wildlife trafficking and the current global poaching crisis. The
illegal trade in wildlife, including timber and fish, is worth $10-20
billion annually and is ranked among the top five most lucrative
criminal activities worldwide. Wildlife trafficking is strongly linked
to transnational organized crime organizations and other criminal
activities, such as arms and drug trafficking. Large-scale illegal
trade in wildlife, driven largely by soaring demand in Asia for
wildlife products, has sparked a poaching crisis that is pushing some
of our most iconic species towards extinction, including elephants,
tigers and rhinos. This crisis is also having a devastating impact on
local communities and undermining regional security and economic growth
in the developing world, including in countries of strategic importance
to the United States. According to an assessment released by Federal
intelligence agencies in September 2013, there is also significant
evidence that wildlife trafficking is helping to finance armed
insurgencies and groups with ties to terrorism, including the Lord's
Resistance Army, the Janjaweed, and al-Shabaab. Last year alone, an
estimated 30,000-35,000 elephants were killed illegally throughout
Africa. In the past 10 years, the number of forest elephants in Central
Africa has dropped by two-thirds, putting them on the path to
extinction within the next 10 years. East Africa is also being hit
hard: in January, the Tanzanian Government released numbers showing
that the population of elephants in that country's Selous Game Reserve
had fallen 66 percent in just 4 years--a shocking decline for a reserve
that until recently was home to Africa's second largest concentration
of elephants. In South Africa, the number of rhinos lost to poaching
has jumped 7000 percent between 2007 and 2013. A record 1004 South
African rhinos were illegally killed for their horns in 2013--up 50
percent from the year before and a stunning increase from only 13
poaching incidents in 2007. As few as 3200 tigers remain in the wild in
all of Asia, due in large part to poachers killing the animals for
their skins, bones and other body parts. Several of the agencies and
programs that this subcommittee helps to fund play essential roles in
combating this crisis, which is robbing developing countries of natural
resources and economic opportunities, harming American businesses by
flooding global markets with cheap illegal forest and fish products,
and threatening U.S. security interests. Recognizing the seriousness of
the situation, the President issued an Executive Order on July 2013 and
mandated a National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking,
released in February 2014, which calls on all relevant agencies to work
together as part of a whole-of-government response to the crisis. The
Department of Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service will carry a
large part of the responsibility for implementing the Strategy, and we
believe they should be provided with the necessary resources to be
successful.
united states fish and wildlife service office of law enforcement
The USFWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) investigates wildlife
crimes, enforces regulation of wildlife trade, helps citizens comply
with the law, and works with other international and U.S. Government
entities to carry out its mission. Its agents and investigators also
have a central role in implementing the new National Strategy on
Wildlife Trafficking and enforcing new domestic regulations on elephant
ivory. OLE wildlife inspectors are on the front lines in the fight
against wildlife trafficking, working in nearly 40 designated and non-
designated ports of entry around the country. In fiscal year 2011, they
processed 179,000 declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife products
worth more than $2.8 billion. OLE's special agents are expert
investigators that break up smuggling rings, stop commercial
exploitation of protected U.S. species, and work with States to protect
U.S. game species from poaching. ``Operation Crash'' is an ongoing
nationwide criminal investigation led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service that is addressing all aspects of U.S. involvement in the black
market rhino horn trade. The first phase of this probe, focused on
unlawful purchase and outbound smuggling of rhino horn from the U.S.,
has resulted in 15 arrests and nine convictions to date, involving
charges include conspiracy, smuggling, money laundering, tax evasion,
bribery, and making false documents, as well as violations of the
Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act (the primary domestic law against
wildlife trafficking). Eight arrests were made in February 2012 as part
of a nationwide ``takedown'' that involved more than 140 law
enforcement officers executing search warrants in 13 States; 2013 has
seen the arrests and indictments of several other individuals
(including Chinese and U.S. antiques dealers) who were operating a
second large-scale rhino horn and elephant ivory smuggling network. In
spite of successes such as this one, OLE is severely underfunded to
meet the rapidly growing challenges it faces, including the need to
place agents at key posts around the world to assist in shutting down
global wildlife smuggling rings. OLE's budget has suffered a 17.8
percent reduction in real dollars since fiscal year 2010, limiting its
ability to investigate and prosecute wildlife crimes and help citizens
to comply with the law. Budget cuts through fiscal year 2013 have
caused cancellation of plans to hire 24 more special agents and
prevented vacancies from being filled for 14 front line inspectors as
well as 3 forensics experts for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon--the only laboratory
in the world dedicated to solving wildlife crimes and a unique asset in
efforts to crack down on ivory and rhino horn smuggling. USFWS OLE is
also responsible for enforcing of the Lacey Act and its expansion to
cover plants and plant products, and additional funding is needed to
carry out enforcement activities against those actors that choose to
trade in illegal timber and timber products. The illegal timber trade
is estimated to cost U.S. industry $1 billion annually. With public
enforcement cases, FWS sends a message that illegal activities will not
be tolerated. Due to pressing needs and enhanced responsibilities under
the National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking, WWF recommends at least
$66.7 million for the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement, consistent with
the administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request, including at
least $4.8 million for Lacey Act enforcement.
united states fish and wildlife service office of international affairs
The USFWS International Affairs (IA) program supports efforts to
conserve our planet's wildlife and biodiversity by protecting habitat,
combating illegal wildlife trade and building capacity for landscape-
level wildlife conservation around the world. The program's three
divisions--the Division of International Conservation, the Division of
Management Authority and the Division of Scientific Authority--manage
various components of international wildlife conservation. The Division
of Management Authority and the Division of Scientific Authority run
the International Wildlife Trade (IWT) program, which provides
oversight of domestic laws and international treaties that promote the
long-term conservation of plant and animal species by ensuring that
international trade and other activities do not threaten their survival
in the wild. IWT works to prevent illegal trade in wildlife and
wildlife products, which threatens vulnerable wildlife populations,
undermines U.S. foreign policy and security objectives by financing
criminality and corruption, and transmits diseases and invasive
species, which negatively impact public health and economic
productivity in the U.S.--one of the largest importers and exporters of
wildlife products. IWT ensures trade is legal and does not harm species
in the wild while implementing scientific and management requirements
of laws and treaties for traded species and issuing 15,000-20,000
permits per year. Working with governments, industry and experts around
the world, IWT also strives to establish conservation programs that
include sustainable use, supporting economic opportunity while also
conserving species. IWT also leads the U.S. Government's active
engagement on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is one of the most important
tools for combating the global illegal wildlife trade. The Division of
International Conservation provides critical support to on-the-ground
species conservation through its Wildlife Without Borders (WWB)
programs and signature initiatives. The WWB Regional program supports
species and habitat conservation in priority regions, including Africa,
Latin America and the Caribbean and Mexico, through capacity building,
outreach, education and training. This includes training African
wildlife professionals to combat the bushmeat trade and working to
bolster wildlife laws and increase enforcement capacity in African
countries. The WWB Global program targets crosscutting, global threats
to wildlife, supports signature initiatives to maximize long-term
impact, and address declines of critically endangered species, such as
amphibians. From 2007 to 2013, the WWB Regional and Global Programs
supported more than 940 conservation projects, awarded over $31 million
in grants and leveraged an additional $46 million in matching funds for
on-the-ground wildlife conservation programs, education, training and
outreach. We recommend $14.6 million for the Office of International
Affairs, consistent with the administration's fiscal year 2015 budget
request.
united states fish and wildlife service multinational species
conservation funds
Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF), the
United States supplements the efforts of developing countries
struggling to balance the needs of their human populations and endemic
wildlife. These modest Federal programs, administered by USFWS, make
targeted investments in conservation of several global priority
species. In 1989, Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act
authorizing a dedicated fund in response to the threat posed to that
species by rampant ivory poaching. Four more Funds have since been
authorized to support the conservation of Asian elephants, great apes,
marine turtles, and tigers and rhinos. Each of the funds is authorized
at $5 million, with the exception of the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund,
which was intended as a double fund to address both sets of species,
and is therefore authorized at $10 million. Appropriated funds for the
programs have consistently remained roughly 30 percent or less of the
authorized level. MSCF programs have played a critical role in saving
wild populations of these species by controlling poaching, reducing
human-wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat. In light of
the resurgence of a severe poaching crisis in Africa, these funds are
just as important and relevant now as they were when Congress passed
them.
Support from the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund (RTCF) and the Asian
Elephant Conservation Fund (AsECF) to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and its
local partners has contributed to incredible successes in protecting
endangered wildlife in Nepal. The funds have supported anti-poaching,
habitat restoration and species monitoring that, combined with
community-level engagement and strong government support, helped to
ensure that no rhinos, tigers or elephants were poached in Nepal
between February 2012 and February 2013. This is the second time Nepal
has celebrated a year of zero-poaching (the first was in 2011) in spite
of rising demand for rhino horn and ivory on Asian black markets and a
sharp increases in the number of rhinos and elephants killed in Africa
over the same period. In addition, RTCF funding has supported efforts
that have led to a 63 percent increase in Nepal's tiger population from
2009 to 2013 and is supporting the creation and expansion of tiger
reserves and protected areas in Malaysia, India and Thailand as well as
anti-poaching and enforcement efforts on the Indonesian island of
Sumatra. Also on Sumatra, AsECF support to World Wildlife Fund has
helped to established ``Flying Squads''--teams of rangers equipped with
noise and light-making devices and trained elephants that drive wild
elephants back into the forest whenever they threaten to enter
villages. The Squads have reduced losses suffered by local communities
and prevented retaliatory killings. In 2009, they helped reduce
elephant mortality in the Riau region by 27 percent in 2009 compared to
the previous 4 years. The African Elephant Conservation Fund (AfECF) is
supporting improved protected area enforcement in several African
countries, including hiring and training of local ``ecoguards'' to
protect populations of elephants and other threatened wildlife. In
Cameroon's Campo Ma'an National Park, the AfECF supported a large-scale
anti-poaching operation involving village and forest patrols, soldiers
and game guards that flushed out four suspected poachers, including two
notorious elephant poachers, and resulted in the seizure of 450 lbs. of
bushmeat. Since 2008, the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF) has been
supporting conservation efforts in Virunga National Park--Africa's
oldest national park (established in 1925), which contains some of the
richest biodiversity of any protected area on the continent and one of
the largest populations of endangered mountain gorillas. GACF funding
has helped to improve law enforcement and training for park rangers,
develop alternative fuel sources to reduce the destructive practice of
charcoal creation from the park's forests, increase aerial surveillance
capacity, and grow the park's tourist revenue through a chimpanzee
habituation and tourism project that generated nearly $1 million in
2011 alone. In the Solomon Islands of the Pacific, the Marine Turtle
Conservation Fund (MTCF) has supported WWF conservation activities on
important nesting beaches for endangered sea turtles, including turtle
tagging, DNA sampling, nesting beach cleanups, hatchery construction,
workshops on community-based monitoring, and active monitoring of nests
during the turtles' nesting seasons. Hatchling success has grown each
year since the program began.
These programs have proven remarkably successful, generating
enormous constituent interest and strong bipartisan support in
Congress. Since 1989, they have awarded over 2,300 grants and actively
engaged with nearly 600 domestic and foreign partners, working in over
54 foreign countries. From 2007 to 2013, MSCF programs provided $77
million in grant funding for on-the-ground conservation, leveraging
nearly $117 million in additional matching funds. WWF recommends $10
million for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, an increase
of $900,000 over the Administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request.
Thank you for considering these requests.