<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:99866.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-288
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Department of the Interior
and Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year 2006
109th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
H.R. 2361
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
S. Hrg. 109-288
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2361
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
99-866PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
Professional Staff
Bruce Evans
Ginny James
Leif Fonnesbeck
Ryan Thomas
Rebecca Benn
Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
Rachael Taylor (Minority)
Administrative Support
Michele Gordon
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 1
Wednesday, March 10, 2005
Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary.............. 53
Nondepartmental witnesses........................................ 143
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Cochran, Bennett, Dorgan,
and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
HON. MARK E. REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DALE N. BOSWORTH, CHIEF
HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM AND BUDGET ANALYSIS
opening statement of senator conrad burns
Senator Burns. Good morning. We are very pleased to welcome
Dale Bosworth, the Chief of the Forest Service, and Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, Mark Rey this
morning, and also Hank Kashdan, who is Director of Program and
Budget Analysis. We thank you all three for coming down this
morning.
We all know that there has been significant belt-tightening
in non-defense programs for this coming year, and of course the
Forest Service budget request we are reviewing today is
currently an example of that. The President's budget request of
$4.065 billion for non-emergency discretionary appropriations
represents a cut of 5.8 percent compared to the 2005 level of
$4.239 billion.
I know that this budget climate requires some tough
choices, but some of the proposed program cuts have us a little
bit troubled up here. For example, funding for construction and
maintenance has been decreased by $134 million, roughly 26
percent, compared to current levels. This is hard to understand
given the Forest Service's own estimates that there is more
than $8 billion in backlog of maintenance work on the national
forests.
Funding for State Fire Assistance has also been decreased,
by over $22 million, which has almost cut in half the number of
communities in which the Forest Service can provide technical
assistance and grants for equipment. These local fire
departments are often the first to respond to wildland fires.
They provide a vital help to the Forest Service and the
Department of the Interior.
Also, I am concerned about the $29.5 million cut in Forest
Health Programs in State and Private Forestry. We have millions
of acres in our Nation's forests that are infested with insects
and diseases like the western bark beetle, the southern pine
beetle, and the gypsy moth. The dead trees that result from
these pests add to our already excessive fuel loads we have on
our forests. Reducing this program affects the agency's ability
to monitor and eradicate these pests and diseases.
On the other side of the ledger, some programs receive
significant increases in the proposed budget request. These
include: Research, $9 million; Forest Legacy, $22.8 million;
hazardous fuels, $19 million; and Wildland Fire Suppression,
$51.6 million. I think we will all be interested in hearing
from both of you how you formulated your 2006 budget and how
you made the difficult decisions to allocate funding between
the various programs.
There is another issue that concerns me also, the
skyrocketing cost of firefighting programs. The average annual
cost for fire suppression in the Forest Service in the last 5
years has been around $958 million. By way of comparison, in
the 5 years prior to that it was only $352 million.
These escalating costs force the Forest Service to borrow
massive sums of money and have caused serious disruptions in
the ongoing work of the agency. For fiscal year 2004, the
committee was able to provide a special allocation of $400
million to deal with these escalating costs and impacts of
heavy borrowing. The last fire season was not a particularly
bad one compared to what we have seen over the last few years,
but you still needed to tap into those additional funds to pay
for firefighting expenses.
I would like to hear from both of you today on whether this
special allocation proved effective in the past fire season,
whether you believe that a similar mechanism is needed in the
future, and how the agency has implemented several measures the
committee included in the 2005 Interior bill to address rising
fire suppression costs. These cost-saving measures include
putting in place an independent panel to review the
expenditures on large fires and devoting a full-time staff to
analyzing the most efficient means to procure the hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of supplies that are needed by the
fire program each year.
Finally, I am pleased to see that the agency has obtained a
clean audit opinion of its books for the third consecutive
year. You are to be congratulated on that, Chief. In addition,
the agency was removed this year from the GAO's list of
agencies at high risk of waste, fraud, and abuse. I
congratulate you and your leadership in straightening up many
of these problems that we had in the Forest Service, and I know
you are doing much more in this area and hope to hear from you
later today on that subject.
I thank you for joining us today. We will have a lot of
questions from this committee with regard to where we have cut
and where we have added. We would enjoy listening to your
reasoning for that. I thank you again for coming this morning,
and now I yield to my good friend from North Dakota, Senator
Dorgan.
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me also welcome the Chief and Mr. Rey. I think you have
covered, Mr. Chairman, many of the interests that I have. I am
very interested in hearing the rationale for the budget
recommendations. I must say that in the area of capital
improvement and maintenance, given what we know is the backlog
and the really critical need to be funding these areas, I am
very concerned about a 40 percent reduction in facilities, a 16
percent reduction in roads, and in deferred maintenance and
infrastructure improvement a 30 percent reduction--29.7
percent.
All of this begs the question, what are we going to do to
address what we know are problems here and what we know
requires us to continue to make investments to our forest lands
and the property that allows the American people to enjoy our
forest lands.
So I am going to submit some questions as well at the end
of this dealing with leafy spurge and some other weed issues
that I am sure they would expect. Mr. Chairman, as you know,
the Congressional Review Act issue is on the floor of the
Senate beginning now dealing with the rule coming from USDA to
allow the live importation of cattle from Canada. Although I
believe a Federal judge in your State of Montana yesterday
issued a stay on that issue, we will nonetheless have a 3-hour
debate and a vote on the Congressional Review Act trying to
overturn that rule. So I will at some moment leave to go
participate in that debate after we hear the witnesses.
But again let me thank you for holding the hearing and I am
anxious to hear Under Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth.
Senator Burns. Chief? Who wants to lead off down there this
morning?
summary statement of hon. mark e. rey
Mr. Rey. I think that would be me.
Senator Burns. Okay, lead.
Mr. Rey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan, for
the opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006
budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Chief
Bosworth in appearing before you today.
As Chief Bosworth will discuss in a little more detail,
this year marks the 100th anniversary of the Forest Service. As
such, I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that as a
result of the agency's multiple use management actions over the
past 100 years, the decline in forest land has stabilized and
acres of forest land have increased in some areas of the
Nation. Areas destroyed by wildfire have declined by 90
percent, forest growth is exceeding harvest, tens of millions
of acres of cut-over land have been reforested, and much of
these areas have again been harvested and reforested. Finally,
populations of important wildlife species have been restored
from the brink of extinction which they faced 100 years ago.
So the situation today is far different than it was 100
years ago, as a result of 100 years of conservation
stewardship.
Let me touch on some of the issues that the Forest Service
will be focusing on as we begin the second century. First, the
health of our Nation's forests. The Healthy Forests Initiative
and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provide emphasis and
new authorities necessary to protect communities and natural
resources from the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The fiscal
year 2006 budget for the Forest Service and the Department of
the Interior together includes about $867 million to continue
implementation of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
This is an increase of $57 million from last year and a
substantial increase over the authorization provided in the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act Title 1 provisions.
In fiscal year 2006, the Forest Service and the Department
of the Interior land managing agencies will reduce hazardous
fuels on 4.3 million acres of Federal land, an increase of
nearly 300,000 acres from fiscal year 2005, which will be an
all-time record achievement as compared to about a million
acres treated annually during the years of the decade of the
1990s.
Now, as you look at our fiscal year 2006 request for the
Healthy Forests, you are going to find that the program is
oriented more heavily toward Federal than non-Federal lands,
and that emphasis exists for three reasons. First of all, we
are the only ones who can and will treat Federal lands. We are
the only governmental entity that will do that.
Second, by and large the Federal lands are in worse shape
from a fuels standpoint than non-Federal lands. Third, there
are other programs with, in some cases, more effective delivery
mechanisms to provide assistance beyond that which we can
provide to our non-Federal partners to assist in firefighting
and hazardous fuel reduction processes.
I would also note that the Forest Service will focus two-
thirds of its treatments in the wildland-urban interface to
protect communities, in accordance with the priorities set in
the fiscal year 2006 request.
While the effective treatment of hazardous fuels provides
the long-term protection of communities and natural resources
from the threat of catastrophic wildfire, the agency must also
continue to address fire preparedness. The Forest Service and
the Department of the Interior will maintain sufficient
readiness resources to suppress more than 98 percent of
wildfires on initial attack. As a result of the reengineering
of our fleet of aviation assets in advance of the fiscal year
2004 fire season, the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior maintained--actually exceeded--the success rate from
previous years in suppressing fires on initial attack. In 2003,
for instance, we were successful in extinguishing 98.3 percent
of ignitions on initial attack. In fiscal year 2004, we were
successful in extinguishing 99 percent of ignitions on initial
attack. This meant 70 fewer escapements, with an average
suppression savings of about $20 million. So our reengineered
aviation fleet stood us in good stead.
As the chairman correctly noted, the money for suppression
is up this year as compared to last year. As we have in
previous years, we have budgeted the 10-year average, which
continues to increase. That accounts for that increase in the
2006 request.
Let me talk a little bit now about Forest Service
organizational efficiency, or operational efficiency. In
response to concerns about agency accountability and
management, the Forest Service has been diligently working to
improve its financial and program management. The agency's
implementation of new planning rules, for instance, is expected
to significantly reduce both the time and cost to amend or
revise land and resource management plans.
Another very important efficiency initiative contained in
the President's budget would enable the agency to more
effectively manage its facilities. Presently the agency has
over 40,000 facilities in its inventory. That is significantly
more than we need and it averages substantially more than one
building per employee. Legislation proposed as part of the
budget request would authorize the sale of unneeded facilities
for fair market value and the use of sale proceeds to address
our maintenance backlog. That, we believe, is directly
responsive to the reductions that we have suggested in
maintenance programs.
In addition, the legislation would provide for the
establishment of a working capital fund for facility
maintenance that will assess programs that use facilities for
the maintenance of those facilities.
In response to the President's management agenda, the
Forest Service is becoming more efficient in how it performs
administrative support. By the end of 2005, the agency will
have completed its implementation of a new information
technology support organization and the centralization of its
financial management and functions. In 2006, the agency will
centralize its human resource management activities. Combined,
these three efforts will reduce overhead expenses by $91
million annually, and that is money that can be saved and
thereafter reprogrammed for on-the-ground management activity.
As the chairman noted, in recognition of the agency's
commitment to sustain an effective financial management, the
Government Accountability Office removed the Forest Service
from its high-risk list. The GAO action was a direct result of
three successive clean audits, the first three in the agency's
history, and the demonstrated commitment of the administration
to implement organizational changes that will ensure the Forest
Service's ability to sustain clean audits into the future.
prepared statement
I look forward to working with the committee and the
Congress to enact the President's fiscal year 2006 budget
request. After Chief Bosworth is done, we would be happy to
respond to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mark E. Rey
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
2006 Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased to join Chief Bosworth
in appearing before you today. In my testimony, I will discuss two main
issues. First, I will focus on priorities for the Forest Service as it
moves into its second century of fulfilling its mission, including the
role that the President's Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) holds in
that mission. Second, I will discuss the reforms and efficiency actions
the agency is employing to deliver its mission more efficiently.
As we move through the process of enacting the fiscal year 2006
Budget, all of us in the Executive Branch, like all of you in Congress,
are well aware of the challenges faced in funding the priorities of the
Nation. The President's proposed budget for the Forest Service
addresses key priorities, makes critical tradeoffs, and demands
efficiency in delivery of programs. I look forward to working with you
to enact the President's budget for the Forest Service.
moving forward--a new century of service
As Chief Bosworth will also discuss, this year marks the 100th
anniversary of the Forest Service. To give you a sense of how the
Forest Service plans to move forward, I will briefly review the mission
adopted by the Forest Service in 1905 when it was formed, and how its
response to the national issues in the coming century are, for the most
part, similar.
The 1905 mandate given the Forest Service involved responding to
the degradation of watersheds and the substantial loss of forests and
wildlife. The agency began taking important actions to conserve
America's resources, including the closing of public domain lands and
reserving the remaining public lands for protection and management;
promoting the conservation and productivity of forests and grasslands
regardless of ownership; acquiring scientific knowledge on natural
resources management; improving management and productivity of all
agricultural lands and forests; and adopting and enforcing wildlife
conservation laws. As a result of the agency's actions over the past
100 years of multiple-use management, the decline in forestland has
stabilized and increased in some areas of the Nation. Areas destroyed
by wildfire have declined by 90 percent. Forest growth is exceeding
harvest. Tens of millions of acres of cutover lands have been
reforested and much of these areas have again been harvested and
reforested. Finally, populations of important wildlife species have
been restored from the brink of extinction.
In the coming century, the Forest Service must focus on restoring
the health of watersheds, increasing recreational opportunities,
providing clean water, establishing healthy wildlife and fish
populations, and protecting communities and resources from the risk of
catastrophic wildfire. The agency must accomplish this while providing
minerals and forest products to meet the increasing demands of the
nation. The President's emphasis on healthy forests makes sustainable
production of products an integral aspect of improving forest health.
healthy forests initiative
The HFI and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act provides emphasis
and new authorities necessary to protect communities and natural
resources from the risk of catastrophic fire. The fiscal year 2006
budget for the Forest Service and DOI includes about $867 million to
continue implementation of the President's HFI, which is an increase of
$57 million from last year. This amount includes a request for $492
million in hazardous fuels funding and the planned expenditure of an
additional $375 million in other habitat management activities that
will reduce the risk of wildfire. In fiscal year 2006, the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) will reduce hazardous
fuels on 4.3 million acres, an increase of nearly 300,000 acres from
fiscal year 2005, itself an all-time record.
The Forest Service will focus two-thirds of its treatment in the
wildland urban interface (WUI) to protect communities. Protecting
communities from the risk of wildfire can be accomplished by activities
that result in the production of forest products and the protection and
enhancement of watersheds and wildlife. For example, the Forest Service
has worked closely with communities to complete over 600 Community
Wildfire Protection Plans that identify the local strategies necessary
to protect communities and promote multiple-use management activities.
The efficient expenditure of Federal funds requires the agency to
develop appropriate incentives that will make the use of forest
products an integral aspect of the hazardous fuels reduction. The
Forest Service will make maximum use of the stewardship contracting
authority and the new authorities provided by the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act to make treatment of hazardous fuels more efficient. In
furthering this objective, the President's Budget includes a $10
million investment to improve facilities at the Forest Product
Laboratory (FPL) in Madison, Wisconsin that will increase research in
creating new products from forest biomass.
efficient response to wildfires
While the effective treatment of hazardous fuels provides the long-
term protection of communities and natural resources from the threat of
catastrophic wildfire, the agency must also continue to address fire
preparedness. The Forest Service and DOI will maintain sufficient
readiness resources to suppress more than 98 percent of wildfires on
initial attack. This represents the same approximate level of readiness
that has occurred over the past several years. Being prepared to manage
and suppress wildfire requires continued emphasis on improved and
efficient use of equipment and personnel. As a result of reengineering
the fleet of aviation assets in advance of the fiscal year 2004 fire
season, the Forest Service and DOI maintained the success rate in
suppressing fires on initial attack. Increased emphasis on the using
helicopters instead of large fixed-wing air tankers enabled better pre-
positioning of aviation assets in areas where the greatest danger
existed and the more accurate application of retardant. The Forest
Service is currently completing a long-term aviation strategic plan
that will address the wise use of fixed-wing and helicopter assets,
which we fully expect to further improve efficiency.
Effective use of suppression assets requires close coordination
among Federal, State, and local agencies. Under the oversight of the
Wildland Fire Leadership Council, Federal, State, and local resources
are being more effectively coordinated in response to wildfires. I am
pleased with the coordination that has resulted through this effort.
Although the fiscal year 2004 fire season was relatively mild, the
agency still expended $726 million for wildfire suppression. The
President's Budget continues a focus on reducing wildland fire
suppression costs and provides suppression funds at the ten-year
average cost adjusted for inflation. Additionally, the Budget contains
incentives for reducing costs through the allocation of funds to the
field and authorizing use of unobligated balances for hazardous fuel
treatments.
forest service operational efficiency
In response to concerns about agency accountability and management,
the Forest Service has been diligently working to improve its financial
and program management. The agency's implementation of a new planning
rule is expected to significantly reduce both the time and cost to
amend or revise land management plans. In addition, the rule provides
for a pre-decisional objection process that replaces a less efficient
appeal process. With the objection process, the public has an
opportunity to make their concerns known to a higher-level official,
and the agency then has the opportunity to make appropriate adjustments
before the plan is approved. The appeal process, which was after plan
approval, required any necessary or appropriate changes to be made
through further planning processes.
Another important efficiency initiative contained in the
President's Budget will enable the agency to more effectively manage
its facilities. Presently, the agency has over 40,000 facilities in its
inventory--significantly more than it needs, averaging substantially
more than one building per employee. Legislation proposed as part of
the budget will authorize the sale of unneeded facilities for fair
market value, and the use of sale proceeds to address the maintenance
backlog. In addition, the legislation will provide for the
establishment of a working capital fund for facility maintenance that
will assess programs that use facilities for the maintenance of those
facilities. Local line officers will need to assess the number of
facilities that are needed and the necessary operating funds to perform
facilities maintenance--this creates the incentive to keep the number
of facilities to a minimum. The rest will be conveyed at fair market
value. It is anticipated this action will reduce the agency deferred
maintenance backlog by 25 percent by fiscal year 2010.
In response to the President's Management Agenda, the Forest
Service is becoming more efficient in how it performs administrative
support. By the end of fiscal year 2005, the agency will have completed
its implementation of a new information technology support organization
and the centralizing of its financial management. In fiscal year 2006,
the agency will centralize its human resource management activities.
Combined, these three efforts will reduce overhead expenses by $91
million annually. I appreciate the support Congress has shown as the
Forest Service implements these reforms.
Even with these improvements, however, inefficiencies increase
program delivery costs and are impeding Forest Service performance. The
Administration proposes additional reforms to enhance Forest Service
efforts to improve its accountability and focus on measurable results
in the management of our national forests. These reforms will
significantly reduce overhead, business management, and other indirect
costs to improve efficiency and program delivery.
In recognition of the agency's commitment to sustained and
effective financial management, I am very pleased that the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) removed the Forest Service from its ``High
Risk List.'' The GAO's action was a direct result of three successive
``clean audit'' opinions and the demonstrated commitment of the
Administration to implement organizational change that will ensure the
Forest Service's ability to sustain future clean audits.
conclusion
A ``clean audit'' opinion is the minimum the public should expect
from the Forest Service. Just like America's citizens, a Federal agency
should be able to balance its checkbook. Further, the agency must
demonstrate that it performs its mission as efficiently as possible.
The President's Management Agenda is creating the framework for
efficiency. I believe the Forest Service has responded well and is
demonstrating its commitment to the efficient delivery of natural
resource management on Federal and non-Federal forest and rangelands. I
look forward to working with Congress to enact the President's fiscal
year 2006 Budget.
I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Burns. Chief, do you have an opening statement you
would like to make?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I would.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Proceed.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH
Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman and Senator Dorgan: I also am
pleased to be here to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006
budget for the Forest Service. As Under Secretary Mark Rey
mentioned, it is our centennial year in the Forest Service, 100
years of caring for the land and taking care of the national
forests and grasslands and trying to serve the American people.
It gives us a unique opportunity this year, I believe, to work
with many of our partners and collaborators and critics to
reflect a bit on the past, but more importantly to be looking
to the future, to the next century of service. Together, we can
figure out what kind of changes we need to make so that we will
be able to continue to provide top-quality service to the
American people in managing their forests.
In my opening remarks, I would like to touch on four themes
very briefly. Those are: the budget, the tight, austere budget
that we are in; some efforts to improving efficiency under way;
better visibility and collaboration for the agency; and our
efforts at integrating our work more effectively.
So first, in regards to the budget situation, we at the
Forest Service recognize that we have a responsibility to help
reduce the deficit, which results in some very difficult
choices that we need to make. There are tradeoffs obviously
that come with those choices, and we have worked hard at
identifying those tradeoffs and trying to mitigate those so
that we can continue to produce high-quality services.
We have kept our focus on the top priorities. The top
priorities are reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and
continuing to improve forest health conditions.
Now, in terms of efficiency, for the 4 years that I have
been in this job, we have been focusing on trying to get more
and more dollars, and a higher percentage of our dollars, to
the ground where the job can get done. There are two areas of
efficiencies that we keep focusing on. One is in natural
resource management, getting more efficient with the National
Environmental Policy Act, developing environmental impact
statements, and our consultation efforts with Fish and Wildlife
Service and NOAA Fisheries. You have given us a lot of help
through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. The Administration
has helped with the Healthy Forests Initiative. We have
stewardship contracting that you were key to getting us a pilot
and then the full authority. Those things have helped in that
area.
The other aspect of efficiency is in our own internal
operations, our business management practices. We have been
focusing on improving them and the result is, as has been
mentioned before, that we are no longer on the high-risk list
from GAO and we have had several clean audit opinions.
We would be unable to sustain those clean audit opinions if
we did not make some significant changes in how we are
organized. Therefore, we have opened up a service center for
financial management in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and we are in
the process of moving people to that service center. We are
going to be doing the same kind of efforts with information
technology and we are also beginning the process of moving
people to Albuquerque in our human resources area. We expect to
reduce about 1,300 full-time equivalents, FTE's, when we
complete all of our reorganization for the business management
areas. We expect to save about $91 million a year when we are
fully implemented.
So those changes together will make a big difference in how
we can deliver the services that people want. We are also
making some reforms in facilities management and we will have
some proposals regarding these reforms that we can discuss more
if you wish.
I believe that making these commitments and implementing
these changes, although they are difficult for the
organization, will result in a higher percentage of our dollars
getting to the ground to get the work done.
In the area of visibility and collaboration, we need to
improve and to continuously improve our ability to work with
the public in a very visible way. There are several areas.
Probably the first would be in the areas of partnerships. We
have done a good job in partnerships in my view, but we have
great opportunities to improve that.
In fiscal year 2004, we had about $500 million worth of
work that we got from partners, both in cash and in-kind work,
doing things on the ground. That was matched with about $500
million of our funds, totaling $1 billion of work on the ground
that we were doing through partnerships. We can increase that.
Our new planning rule that just came out in December
requires independent audits at the end of the year for each
forest through an Environmental Management System. That will
allow people to know whether or not we are doing what we say we
will do and whether or not we are getting the results on the
ground in the way that we said we would do.
We will increase our monitoring and that will allow us to
make some adjustments based upon what we learn from the
monitoring and what we learn through those independent audits.
I believe that will increase our public involvement and it will
also increase the visibility of our work.
In the area of wildfire, wildfire protection agreements
that we have in communities help us to work better together
with the communities. We have wildfire protection agreements
with over 600 communities now.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act allows for
recreation advisory councils. Once again, that will be an
opportunity for us to work closer with the public in
determining if, when, where, and how we should be collecting
fees.
As far as integrating our work to provide for healthy
forests, in fiscal year 2006 the Forest Service will reduce
fuel hazards by 2.8 million acres. About 1 million acres of
that will be accomplished with non-hazardous fuels funds, from
things like wildlife habitat improvement dollars, timber stand
improvement dollars, and sale of forest products dollars. The
idea is that if we place those projects in the right places, we
can accomplish both the timber sale objectives as well as fuels
treatment objectives, or habitat improvement objectives as well
as fuels treatment objectives.
So our line officers are now achieving multiple benefits
and multiple goals by focusing integrated treatments in the
right places.
We believe that by integrating work, we will improve our
efficiency and we will in the end accomplish more work on the
ground.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So in closing, I am looking forward to working with you. I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss our budget. Again, it is
a tight budget and we expect to deliver our programs by
focusing on priorities, by improving our efficiency, and by
integrating our work. I would be happy to answer any questions
you might have. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale N. Bosworth
introduction
Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year
2006 Budget for the Forest Service. I am privileged to be here with you
today. I want to express my appreciation for the support this
Subcommittee has given the Forest Service to improve the health and
sustainability of the nation's forests and rangelands.
I am pleased to discuss the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget
request for the Forest Service, which totals $4.07 billion in
discretionary funding. It emphasizes the top priorities of the agency,
especially the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, that are
essential to improving the sustainability and health of the nation's
forests and rangelands. First, I will discuss the future direction of
the Forest Service. Then, I will describe our efforts to reduce
wildfire threats and costs. For the remainder of my testimony, I will
highlight programs and legislative proposals that reflect new
directives or shifts in emphasis for fiscal year 2006.
future direction of the forest service
This year the Forest Service celebrates its 100th anniversary. We
are commemorating a century of caring for America's national treasures.
One hundred years ago, America's first forester, Gifford Pinchot,
recognized that ``our responsibility to the Nation is to be more than
careful stewards of the land, we must be constant catalysts for
positive change.'' This advice was true in 1905 and remains a guiding
light now in 2005. Change is inevitable. This is why the Forest Service
is committed to being a catalyst for positive change into our next
century of service.
Congress created the Forest Service as part of a national strategic
response to the degradation of watersheds and the substantial loss of
forests and wildlife that was occurring at a rapid rate during the last
half of the 19th century. Let me briefly reflect on how much has
changed since the Forest Service was established in 1905. During the
last half of the 19th century, the U.S. population had more than
tripled and forests were being cleared for agriculture at an average
rate of 13.5 square miles per day. Wildfires were burning 20 to 50
million acres a year between 1880 and 1930. These fires, as well as
unregulated hunting and logging, were threatening long-term economic
and environmental values. In fact, these activities were tolerated and
even encouraged in the name of economic development, but it had become
increasing clear that what was going on was unsustainable.
Establishing the Forest Service in 1905 created a direct response
to these threats. This response has been successful. The decline in
U.S. forestland has stabilized and forest acreage is now about what it
was in 1905. In fact, forestland in the Northeast has actually
increased by 26 million acres since the Forest Service was established.
Areas burned by wildfire have declined 90 percent since the 1930s.
Forest growth has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Tens of millions of
acres of cutover lands that existed in 1905 have been reforested. Many
of these are now mature forests whereas other reforested lands have
been harvested a second time and are starting a new cycle. While some
wildlife species continue to face threats, many others that were
greatly depleted or nearly extinct in 1905 have increased dramatically,
such as Rocky Mountain elk and wild turkey.
The Forest Service has played a key role over the past 100 years in
creating the changes that have touched our landscapes. In January, the
agency convened a Centennial Congress in Washington D.C. to discuss
these changes and the future 100 years of the Forest Service. Delegates
to the Congress examined issues ranging from engaging the public in
land management decisions to rewarding forest owners for carbon
sequestration, delivering clean water, and providing other multiple-use
benefits. We discussed how American society shifted from rural and
agrarian to urban and industrialized. This in turn influenced the mix
of uses and values the public seeks from its public lands. Today we see
increased demands for recreation, greater consumption of natural
resources, and mounting pressure on public lands from new development.
Yet, at the same time, the public is expressing greater concern over
the need for sustainable resource management.
This historical shift places us in a conservation era that focuses
on ecological restoration and long-term sustainability. We must manage
the land for long-term ecosystem health and sustainable uses while
meaningfully engaging the public in our decision-making. Land managers
must be adaptable, innovative, and welcoming of new information, ideas,
and perspectives. In the end, to be that constant catalyst for positive
change in this era, the Forest Service must be more collaborative,
accountable, and efficient in managing our natural resources.
In the face of constant change, Americans must examine their
consumption choices as an important aspect of sustainable development
and ecosystem health. The United States consumes more wood than any
other country. We also consume far more timber than we produce. The
Forest Service has an opportunity to promote sustainable wood
production and consumption. For example, Americans build roughly 1.5
million single-family houses each year, which consume roughly 22
billion board feet of lumber. At the same time, we lose approximately
17 percent of this amount to fire each year, which is equivalent to
250,000 new houses. We also lose a significant amount to insects and
diseases. If we could salvage some of this lost wood, without
compromising ecosystem health, we could help minimize our need to
import wood. When imports encourage illegal or unsustainable
environmental practices abroad, then there's a problem. This is why the
Forest Service is assisting the State Department with implementing the
President's initiative against selling illegal logs. The goal of the
initiative is to combat illegal logging and the sale of illegally
harvested timber products. But, minimizing consumption from foreign
forests is only part of the equation. If we want healthy and resilient
ecosystems and communities, then we need intelligent consumption
balanced with sustainable management of our nation's forests and
rangelands.
we are implementing a long-term strategy to reduce wildfire threats
Restoring fire-dependent ecosystems is the long-term solution to
reduce the harmful effects of catastrophic wildfire. Restoration work
involves eliminating the buildup of hazardous fuels so that natural
fire regimes may be reestablished. The results of this effort may, in
some cases, take several years before we begin to see significant
changes in the way fire burns across the landscape. The President's
Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) is helping us tackle the process
gridlock that was impeding the restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems,
including the treatment of hazardous fuels.
In support of the HFI, the President's Budget dedicates $281
million to treat 1.8 million acres for hazardous fuels. An additional 1
million acres will be protected as part of other natural resource
management activities. Since 2001, Federal land management agencies
have treated 11 million acres of hazardous fuels on public lands. The
Forest Service and the Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies
exceeded our program goals by accomplishing 2.9 million acres of
hazardous fuel reduction for 2004, including 1.6 million acres in the
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). Fifty-seven percent of these treatments
were in the WUI.
Another part of our long-term restoration strategy is to treat the
right acres, in the right place, at the right time. Consistent with the
President's recent Executive Order on Cooperative Conservation, the
Forest Service is working closely with State forestry agencies and
other partners to coordinate fuel treatments and to provide technical
and financial assistance to reduce hazardous fuels on State and private
lands. We are also enlisting the assistance of local communities. The
Forest Service is working with coalitions of interested citizens to
identify those areas in greatest need of hazardous fuel treatments.
This collaborative effort includes helping communities complete
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP). To date, over 600 such
plans have been completed or are in progress across the nation. The
number of plans will continue to grow as partnerships are formed and
high-risk areas are identified. A consistent and systematic interagency
approach will have a large-scale impact on reducing the size and
severity of catastrophic wildfires. In addition, in fiscal year 2005, a
handful of pilot projects supported by our Research program will test
the strategic placement of fuel treatments on the behavior and effects
of wildland fires. If this is effective, we will be better positioned
to design and locate treatments to make a difference in the size,
behavior, effects, and costs of fires. This integrated approach will
maximize our investment in fuel treatments and allow us to build more
integrated fuel treatment strategies with our partners.
The expanded stewardship contracting authority provided by Congress
is another key feature of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative
goal of reducing catastrophic wildfire threats by making treatment of
the land more cost-effective and collaborative than ever. For example,
it allows contractors to make economic use of materials removed during
restoration or thinning projects. This incentive promotes efficient
land management practices and creates business opportunities in local
communities. Using the stewardship and general contracting authority
that Congress included in the Tribal Forest Protection Act (Public Law
108-278) enacted last summer, Indian tribes have the opportunity to
enter into agreements with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to achieve additional fuels reduction work on federal lands
adjacent to their reservations. We are working with the Bureau of Land
Management and Tribes on implementation guidelines for the Act.
In all, we have a multi-faceted approach to tackling wildfire
threats. Stewardship contracting, collaborating with partners, and
strategically treating hazardous fuels are just a few examples. With
your continued support of our hazardous fuels program and the HFI, we
can have a long-term impact on minimizing the threat of catastrophic
wildfire.
we are looking for new ways to reduce wildland fire suppression costs
In addition to reducing wildland fire threats, we must also reduce
fire suppression costs. The President's Budget proposes a $51.6 million
increase above the fiscal year 2005 enacted amount for wildland fire
suppression. This reflects the most recent 10-year average for
suppression costs, which are on an upward trend. Despite going into the
2004 fire season on the heels of continuing drought and dry fuel
conditions, the fire activity resulted in a below-average year across
most of the Nation. Alaska, the lone exception, experienced its worst
fire season on record with 703 fires and 6,517,200 acres burned. The
lower 48 States experienced 61,873 fires that burned 1,394,144 acres.
We attribute this less severe fire season to more favorable weather,
fewer dry lightning storms, and to achieving initial attack success
rates of over 99 percent.
Despite this relatively ``good'' fire season, the agency still
expended $726 million on wildland fire suppression. The Forest Service
will continue to focus on reducing wildland fire suppression costs
through incentives for efficient funds management, effective supply
chain management, and rapid demobilization of incident response
resources. The President's Budget provides additional incentives for
reducing suppression costs by allocating suppression funds to the field
and authorizing use of unobligated wildfire suppression funds for
hazardous fuels treatment. Thus, a line officer's success in reducing
suppression expenses can be rewarded through the availability of more
funds to reduce hazardous fuels. Additionally, the Forest Service will
work with the independent panel that was established by Congress to
assess the agency's management of large wildland fires. The panel's
first report on the fiscal year 2004 fire season will be completed
soon.
research guides our decisions and delivers new solutions
In addition to these efforts, hazardous fuels reduction is critical
to minimizing wildland fire suppression costs. Creating market-based
incentives for the removal of this ``biomass'' is an important aspect
of the agency's Forest and Rangeland Research program. The President's
budget includes a $10 million request for capital improvements in our
Forest Products Lab, which has been a world leader in developing
innovative products made from wood and other forest materials.
Maximizing use of forest biomass can complement forest management,
provide jobs in local communities, and offer a renewable energy source
for our country. The agency's Research program is critical for
developing new technologies that make economic use of unmarketable and
other salvageable forest materials while meeting our resource
management needs. For example, the Lab developed a new composite
material for residential siding made of recycled plastic and wood from
juniper and salt cedar, two tree species that contribute to hazardous
fuel loads in the Southwest. Biomass utilization offers a host of
opportunities, many of which are yet to be discovered. For this reason,
we are pleased that the President's Budget includes such an important
investment in our country's future.
The President's Budget also includes a $12.8 million boost in
research to fund the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program to
cover 100 percent of America's forests with an annual inventory. The
FIA is the Nation's only forest census, which has been keeping track of
the heartbeat and other vital statistics of America's forests for
roughly 75 years. FIA is the only program delivering continuous and
comprehensive assessments of our forests in a nationally consistent
manner across all land ownerships. Policy and programmatic decisions
hinge on what the census tells us about forest health. The FIA's up-to-
date monitoring, coupled with cutting-edge research and our State and
Private Forestry programs, also play a key role in addressing the
emerging threat of invasive species. The FIA is critical to assessing
our current progress in implementing our Invasive Species Strategic
Plan. Moreover, FIA information will feed into the two national Early
Warning System Centers that we are establishing in fiscal year 2006 to
identify, detect, and rapidly respond to environmental threats, such as
invasive species, diseases, insects, and fire.
our new planning process is more flexible, efficient, and responsive
Our future forest planning efforts will focus more on emerging
threats, such as invasive species, wildfires, and unmanaged recreation.
To meet these challenges, the Forest Service recently published a
planning rule that offers greater flexibility for land managers. The
rule establishes a dynamic planning process that is less bureaucratic,
emphasizes science, and provides more opportunity for public
involvement earlier in the planning stages. Moreover, land management
plans must be more strategic, transparent, timely, and cost-effective.
This new planning process directs each forest and grassland unit to
adopt an Environmental Management System (EMS), which is an adaptive
management tool designed to provide feedback to land managers on all
phases of land decisions. A key feature of the EMS requires independent
audits of our agency's performance at 5-year intervals to ensure that
we are achieving the plan's goals. The EMS will ground our decisions in
science and strengthen our accountability.
Public involvement in our decisions also makes us more accountable.
This is why the rule requires opportunities for public involvement at
four key stages in the planning process. The rule also establishes a
pre-decisional objection process that replaces our agency's costly and
lengthy appeals process. These new features encourage the public to
participate with land managers in the early planning stages to resolve
any issues and concerns. This will be less adversarial than in the past
where some people waited until after a final decision to make their
concerns known by filing an appeal. Under the old rule, it typically
took 5 to 7 years to revise a 15-year land management plan, and in the
case of one forest, cost as much as $5.5 million. Under the new rule, a
plan revision will take approximately 2 to 3 years and cost much less.
we can reap multiple benefits from preserving open space
The President's Budget dedicates $80 million to the Forest Legacy
Program, which will protect an estimated 300,000 priority acres in
fiscal year 2006. This program is an excellent tool for reducing the
loss of open space and saving working forests. This program is
successful, in part, because it places the important decisions of how
and where to protect open space in the hands of States, local
governments, individual landowners, and non-profit partners. Protection
of open space serves multiple purposes that go beyond the obvious
benefit of supporting biodiversity, maintaining scenic beauty, and
preventing conversion of land to undesirable uses. More open space
directly encourages and supports working forests, working farms, and
working ranches. This is a value-added benefit that makes it profitable
to maintain open space. We need to maintain ``working forests''- those
that are managed to produce economic and environmental benefits. Study
after study shows that conservation of forests is one of the best
methods for keeping our drinking water safe and clean.
Another key to this program's success is that it leverages millions
of dollars at the local level. For example, each Federal dollar
typically leverages an equal amount in non-Federal contributions. Since
1992, a $197 million Federal investment has protected over $381 million
of land value, encompassing over 1 million acres through conservation
easements and land purchases. We hope that you will continue to support
this important program.
The President's Budget also proposes an increase of $5 million for
the Forest Stewardship Program, which provides planning and management
assistance to thousands of America's private forest owners. Federal
funds are leveraged by contributions from State forestry agencies that
deliver this program. The improved forest management that results from
this program benefits all Americans by providing a full range of
ecosystem services, including clean water and air, habitat for
wildlife, and forest products.
we have new approaches to tackle the public's growing recreation needs
National forests and grasslands are an integral connection between
the American public and their desire to experience the great outdoors.
The Forest Service hosts more than 200 million recreation visitors each
year. Reconciling this demand within the limits of maintaining
sustainable ecosystems is becoming a greater challenge each year. To
address this issue, we are looking at a variety of new approaches to
keep us in the forefront of meeting visitors' expectations of having
safe and enjoyable recreational experiences. Last year, President Bush
signed into law the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. This Act
allows the Forest Service to charge modest fees at recreation sites
that can be used to help maintain and improve the recreational
experience of our visitors. The vast majority of recreation sites and
services will continue to be free for activities such as horseback
riding, walking, hiking, and general access to national forests and
grasslands. The Act also establishes citizen recreation advisory
committees that will provide important input on implementation of the
fee program. We look forward to working with these committees and
Congress to ensure that the public is fully involved and fees are fair
for the value received.
In the past several years, I have noted that unmanaged recreation,
particularly with respect to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, is a major
challenge to our national forests and grasslands. The age of Americans
being able to drive anywhere on National Forest System lands has come
to an end. Over the last 3 decades, ownership of OHVs in the United
States has grown from 5 million to 37 million vehicles. National
forests are experiencing an explosion of user-developed trails beyond
our agency's capacity to manage or maintain. Some of these unauthorized
trails are causing unacceptable resource damage. In response, the
Forest Service recently published a proposed regulation on management
of motor vehicle use on national forests. The regulation would require
forests to work closely with local communities to designate roads,
trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use and specify allowable use
by vehicle class and time of year. Motor vehicle travel off of the
designated system would be prohibited. The agency is currently
developing the final rule, which is expected to be published later this
year.
we need to reverse the trend of deteriorating facilities
Our backlog in deferred maintenance for our infrastructure
continues to be a challenge. This backlog is especially critical for
facilities that provide recreation opportunities to the public, as well
as our administrative sites where employees work and provide services
to the public. It is appropriate that we look for solutions beyond
appropriations to tackle our deferred maintenance backlog. For example,
this budget proposes a new incentive-based approach to reduce our
maintenance backlog for administrative sites and visitor centers.
Moreover, the President's Budget proposes new legislation that
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange
administrative sites that are no longer needed for National Forest
System purposes. The legislation will facilitate the timely disposal of
administrative sites and free up dollars to invest back in existing or
replacement facilities. It will also provide for the use of a working
capital fund for the performance of routine maintenance. These reforms
will assist the agency in maintaining and improving the quality of its
facility assets.
we have made great strides in performance and financial management
accountability
The Forest Service will continue agency-wide efforts to improve
performance and financial management accountability in fiscal year
2006. We have already made significant progress toward this goal. I am
proud to report that the Government Accountability Office removed the
Forest Service from its ``high risk'' list because we achieved a third
consecutive ``clean'' audit opinion and are implementing significant
organizational changes that ensure sustainability in financial
management. Not only is this an important accomplishment for our
agency, but it demonstrates our serious commitment to make continued
improvements in financial management, as well as build efficiency into
other administrative areas that have been burdened with outdated
policies and decentralized processes. While I am pleased with our
financial management improvement, I must also acknowledge that
attaining this milestone simply means that we are now balancing our
checkbook--something the public should expect as the norm. Keeping the
checkbook balanced will allow the agency to better focus on its natural
resource management functions.
Our Financial Management Improvement Project is moving forward as
planned. Later this month, the new Albuquerque Service Center will be
operational, with phased implementation throughout this fiscal year.
This new center will provide financial and budgetary services to the
agency using performance standards that focus on customer service,
efficiency, and data quality. With full implementation of financial
management reforms, the Forest Service anticipates that it will realize
a $35 million in annual savings. Additionally, when other reforms are
implemented, the annual savings will increase to $91 million.
A key element of quality financial management is the ability to
link funding and expenditures to the strategic goals of the agency. In
response to the Budget and Performance Integration initiative in the
President's Management Agenda and the Government Performance and
Results Act, the Forest Service is presenting an improving performance-
based budget year after year. In fiscal year 2004, the Forest Service
completed a new strategic plan. This planning blueprint has helped the
Forest Service and its field units develop programs of work that
address our natural resource needs while maximizing limited resources
and improving performance accountability. The strategic plan was the
driving force in making budget decisions and requests for fiscal year
2006. With important system enhancements, the Forest Service will be
able to provide project-specific information about fiscal year 2006
expenditures with direct linkage to our strategic plan's goals and
objectives.
To ensure that the Forest Service's annual activities are
appropriately aligned with its Strategic Plan, the agency is making
effective use of the Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART). The
PART process has been used in the past to develop more effective
performance measures and emphasis in programs, including wildland fire
management, capital improvement and maintenance, Forest Legacy, and
invasive species. Two additional programs will be evaluated in support
of the fiscal year 2006 President's Budget.
conclusion
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2006 delivers funding for
innovative approaches as well as long-standing programs that have
served the land and the American public well. The President's Budget
also demonstrates that the Forest Service must use incentive-based
approaches to reduce costs and accomplish its mission. We must continue
to work closely with Federal and non-Federal partners to leverage
alternative funds to accomplish our program of work. As I said at the
beginning of my testimony, we must move forward with a renewed interest
in collaboration, efficiency, and accountability as we enter this new
century of service. We must be rapid responders, but we must also
respond to change with great care. After all, we are the trustees of
America's greatest natural resources.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's Budget. I
look forward to working with you to implement our fiscal year 2006
program and am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Thank you a lot, Chief. We
appreciate your statement. We appreciate your good work on the
task. Of course we realize that we are on a tight budget up
here also.
GRAZING
I want to bring up one thing that still kind of concerns
me. We talk about healthy forests and we talk about removal of
fuels, and I think we have done a lot to move in that direction
and we have accomplished a lot. I noticed in the budget that
you cut $3.4 million out of your budget for processing of
grazing allotments. Now, I want to remind our good friends
this: Every place that we have grazing, we have less fires. I
think the grazing permits can be thrown right in there with
healthy forests or fuel or fire prevention and should be moved
up in the priorities. Instead, we have given you categorical
exclusion to help you increase and to deal with those permits.
They are not moving any faster that I can see, and now we
are cutting budget from it, which, I think, does a couple of
things. The program keeps an industry alive, and it keeps your
forest in a management-type mode where we can prevent fires and
provide additional fuels reduction.
I do not see you making that connection on how important
this really is. It is a natural thing. It does not cost us
anything. We, in fact, get a few dollars back for it.
Mr. Bosworth. Mr. Chairman, the numbers that were
calculated to show how many allotment management plans we would
complete were calculated prior to the time that we had the
opportunity to use categorical exclusions. Our expectation is
that we would be able to increase significantly the number of
allotment management plans each year, from about 400 probably
up to around 750 allotment management plans each year, with the
use of the categorical exclusion.
So that would be about 300 additional each year for the
next 3 years. If we are able to complete those even faster than
the 3 years and we got the total of 900 completed that we have
the authorization for, we would be back asking you for some
additional help. But categorical exclusions are going to go a
long ways toward achieving what you are concerned about, I
believe.
Mr. Rey. That reduction is a reflection of our expectation
that our unit cost to do grazing lease renewals will be reduced
slightly through the use of the categorical exclusion. So that
was a reduction we took, not to reduce outputs, but in
recognition of the fact that we could produce a higher level of
outputs more efficiently, given a very tight budget.
We do understand and appreciate that grazing plays an
important role in fuels reduction. In fact, in some of our
national forests, particularly the ones in the Los Angeles
Basin, we let grazing leases out to maintain fuels levels in
fuels breaks for that purpose. It is a fairly inexpensive way
to maintain fuels at a certain level in a fuel break, and
grazing animals help us in our fuels reduction and fire
reduction risk purposes, with one exception. We had an
escapement on a wildfire 2 years ago in the Angeles National
Forest where one of our goats was indirectly involved, because
it was an escapement from a pagan worship ceremony where they
were sacrificing a goat and the fire got away. So in that case
the goat did not help, but normally they do.
Senator Burns. Well, I would think that maybe you would
hang onto this $3.4 million and accelerate the number of
permits that you could work. I would hope you could do that.
But to cut back if you are more efficient--I do not have any
problem with being efficient. Therefore, we ought to see the
increased numbers of permits being worked and issued. That is
what I am getting at.
I would say, I got the biggest kick out of--I drove on the
back side of the University of Montana a couple years ago and
there were two big truckloads of sheep being unloaded out
there. They were going up on Mount Jumbo. Well, these people
standing around, these little environmental people who have
been trying to get livestock off of public lands all these
years, said: We found a new way to control leafy spurge and
spotted knapweed, and we are paying the people that own the
sheep to graze this off.
I said: By golly, wish I had thought of that. I did not
want to throw any dampness on what they were trying to do, but
we know that it works, and it has to be part of our activities
to prevent forest fires. If one occurs, the suppression is much
easier. We have seen up in the Big Timber area where a fire
just got all the way up to a grazing lease and then it quit
right there. So we think it is pretty important.
I am pleased with your leadership on the audit. I think
that was very important because we had a long time here trying
to figure out what in the world was going on down there and how
we were using the money. I applaud you for integrating your
systems of accounting and also the moving, using broadband,
centralizing your bookkeeping, and all of that.
So that tells me that we ought to be a little more
efficient when we start dealing with grazing, forest
stewardship, and forest health. With the categorical exclusion
that we have got in place for you, those should move along a
lot faster than I think they are moving along right now.
I would yield to my good friend from North Dakota.
NOXIOUS WEEDS
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank the
witnesses for their testimony. I indicated previously that I
would submit some questions for the record. As the Chief knows,
I will once again want to inquire about leafy spurge and weed
control on lands that I believe we have a responsibility to
control weeds on. I also want to provide some other questions
for which we can get some answers.
Because of the debate on the floor at the moment on this
live cattle issue from Canada, I am going to go over and
participate in the debate and I know my colleagues, including
the chairman of the full committee now, who has joined us will
participate. So let me defer at this point and, Mr. Chairman,
thank you very much for this hearing this morning.
Senator Burns. I will be over to join you in just a little
bit. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
convening this hearing to review the Forest Service budget for
the next fiscal year.
HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE
I notice in your statements both the Chief and the Under
Secretary refer to the President's Healthy Forests Initiative.
We were really pleased that we were able to support the
President's initiative and get legislation passed implementing
many of the suggestions that the Administration had made.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
I am concerned about one aspect of the budget request,
though, and that is the fact that there is no funding provided
for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program. This was part of the
Healthy Forests Initiative and we are hopeful that a way can be
found to reallocate some funds so that that program can be
funded.
What is the reaction that you have to that problem? Has
there been any conversation within the Forest Service or in the
Department about reprogramming or in some other way making
available funds for the Healthy Forests Reserve Program?
Mr. Rey. There have been some conversations. They have not
involved the Forest Service. They have been held at the
departmental level. The reason for that is that in the
delegation that occurred after the Act was passed the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program was delegated to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service because of its similarity to a number of
NRCS programs like the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program
and the Grassland Reserve Program.
We are in the process of writing the regulations--that is,
NRCS is in the process of writing the regulations--for the
Healthy Forests Reserve Program. We expect that they will be
out in proposed form shortly. It is our expectation that we
will complete those regulations contemporaneously while we are
working on this 2006 budget and at some point as that occurs we
would be happy to sit down with the committee and talk about
some reallocations of funds to provide funding in the Healthy
Forests Reserve Program.
Senator Cochran. Good. We would appreciate very much your
assistance in helping to find a way to see that funds are
allocated to that program, even though it may not be within
your budget. Your influence could help.
Mr. Rey. Actually it is, because the NRCS is the other
agency I oversee. So you are complaining to the right person.
Senator Cochran. Okay. We also know that under the law we
passed, we encouraged more resources be made available for pest
infestation problems research, particularly into better ways to
combat diseases in our forests. This not only applies to our
Forest Service lands, those under your direct jurisdiction and
responsibility, but also private forests. I think insects do
not know whether they are on private land or public land when
they start their work. There is a lot that can be done by our
Government agencies to help private landowners. In our State,
most of the land is in private ownership and so I am hopeful
that the Forest Service and the Department will continue to
keep that in mind and help lead the way in developing new
management and treatment methods that they can share with
private landowners.
Mr. Rey. We have several of those under way now, mostly in
the Southeastern States. I know we have some in Georgia and
some in Arkansas. I do not recall offhand whether we have any
projects in Mississippi. But what we would be happy to do is
submit for the record a complete list of the projects so far
that were developed under I think it is Title IV of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act.
[The information follows:]
Title IV--Silvicultural Assessments and Accelerated Information
Gathering
Using authority provided under Title IV of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act of 2003, Forest Service Research & Development (R&D),
National Forest System (NFS), Forest Health Protection (FHP), and State
and Private Forestry (SPF) are working together and partnering with
several universities and State forestry agencies to conduct landscape-
scale applied research projects to address insect infestations and
diseases that threaten the health of many of our forests and grasslands
in the United States. The applied research projects aim to conduct and
evaluate different land management practices that reduce problems
associated with the current outbreaks of insects such as the red oak
borer and southern pine beetle, and to translate that information for
practicing professionals, landowners, and the public. These projects
will be instrumental in mitigating the damage caused by these
destructive insects. There are currently six silvicultural assessments
underway.
Title IV also includes projects on accelerated information
gathering on insects and diseases. There are currently six of these
projects planned or underway, and one has been completed.
A complete list of Healthy Forest Restoration Act research and
development projects, under Title IV--Silvicultural Assessments, and
Accelerated Information Gathering, is below. A detailed description of
each individual research project may be obtained at http://
www.healthyforests.gov/applied_research/index.html.
Silvicultural Assessments:
--Research and demonstration areas of silvicultural treatments for
minimizing gypsy moth effects
--Hemlock woolly adelgid in the southern Appalachians at Otto, North
Carolina (SRS-4351)
--Applied silvicultural assessment of upland oak-hickory forests and
the red oak borer in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains of
Arkansas at Monticello, Arkansas (SRS-4106)
--Maintaining habitat diversity, sustaining oak systems, and reducing
risk of mortality from gypsy moth and oak decline on the Daniel
Boone National Forest: silvicultural approaches and their
operational dimensions
--Applied silvicultural assessment (ASA) of southern pine beetle
(SPB) in southern pine stands west of the Mississippi River
(SRS-4106)
--Silvicultural thinning treatments for hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA)
damage mitigation (NE Station)
Accelerated information gathering projects include:
--Response of bark beetle populations to wildfire and prescribed
burning at Athens, GA (SRS-4505)
--Hemlock woolly adelgid in the southern Appalachians at Athens, GA
(SRS-4505)
--Trapping systems for early detection of exotic beetles at ports-of-
origin and ports-of-entry, and for detection and control of
exotic and invasive beetles in urban landscapes and managed
forests at Athens, GA (SRS-4505)
--Blacks Mountain interdisciplinary research project--Cone Fire
assessment
--Stand and landscape visualization systems and remote sensing of
forest vegetation structure
--Rapid response treatment strategies for public and private
landowners in the South to recover from Red Oak Borer in the
Ozark Mountains of Arkansas at Monticello, Arkansas (SRS-4106)
--Genetic diversity of western white pine (Pinus monticola Dougl.)
revealed by genetic markers: Improving the white pine blister
rust resistance breeding program and understanding the
importance of natural regeneration after biotic and abiotic
disturbances.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing and the good job
you are doing as chairman of this subcommittee.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
address you back as ``Mr. Chairman'' also.
FOREST HEALTH
I think the chairman raises a good question on our research
and the maintenance of our forests, especially with regard to
insects. They do not know whether the trees are privately owned
or owned by the Federal Government. No matter what the private
people do in order to take care of their problem, if we do not
take care of ours, theirs is an endless job and we never will
get our arm around this.
So I think he raises a good question there and we should
take a look at that.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LITIGATION COSTS
One of my main hobby horses that I continue to ride is the
impact of litigation costs, both in the Forest Service and the
BLM. We have had testimony from the BLM that litigation costs
eat up something like 50 percent of their administrative
budgets, and people keep filing delays, filing appeals, doing
everything they can to use the courts to prevent what I
consider to be sound management.
The Government wins something like 99 percent of all of
these appeals, but the amount of administrative time spent
dealing with them and legal fees spent handling it are great.
The folks who file the protests really do not care about the
merit of their position. They simply want to snarl up the whole
process.
Do you have a sense or can you give us a summary of where
these litigation costs are in the Forest Service?
Mr. Bosworth. Senator Bennett, I do not think I can give
you a specific cost regarding our litigation costs. The
situation for us is that every one of our projects in one way
or another is affected by litigation, because we have to go
through additional analysis, additional work, checking, double-
checking--getting an administrative file that may be 6 feet
tall if you stacked it on end--assuming we may get litigation.
So every project ends up being affected because we have
people doing work and analysis and documentation that otherwise
is not really necessary for a sound decision. They go through
it in order to make sure that if they get litigated, they will
have an opportunity and a chance to win.
So if you just took the actual cost of litigation per se,
the specific amount of time we spend on it, it would not be a
high percentage of our budget, but probably 50 percent of our
time goes into planning and doing analysis and documentation in
the event of that litigation. Then we often get appealed; we go
through the appeals process and then we get litigated on a
proportion of those.
So our concern has been how to reduce that level of
analysis and work that we do so that we can make sound
decisions and involve the public, but not have to have 10 boxes
worth of administrative record to defend ourselves in court. It
is very impacting in the end.
Mr. Rey. I think that the costs break into three broad
categories. There is the one we can quantify for you and submit
for the record and that is the actual cost of the time spent in
appeals and litigation. The second, which the Chief mentioned,
is the collateral cost of working backwards for all the
projects that are affected by litigation, adding additional
analysis and process in the interest of litigation avoidance.
The third is the opportunity costs associated with projects
that are time-sensitive that are delayed and ultimately changed
as a consequence of the delay associated with litigation. In
southern Oregon, for instance, we are in the middle of a matrix
of lawsuits, which is probably the best way to describe it, on
the recovery project for the Biscuit Fire, that burned in 2002,
which was the largest fire in Oregon's history.
LITIGATION COSTS
Ultimately, by the time we sort our way through all the
litigation--and so far we are winning the lawsuits; we are not
losing them--much of the salvageable timber that we would have
salvaged is going to be substantially less useful, if not
worthless. The proceeds from that salvage were going to
partially pay for much of the other restoration work that was
going to be done on those sites to stabilize those watersheds
on a long-term basis.
So as we lost that potential revenue source as an
opportunity cost associated with litigation that we will
ultimately win; at least we are winning so far, even in the
Ninth Circuit. We are going to have to either forego the
restoration work or pay for it out of appropriated dollars. So
that opportunity cost is not inconsequential, particularly in
projects that are time-sensitive by their nature.
Senator Bennett. We are the Appropriations Committee and we
have to come up with the money that you need to carry out your
mission, and it is just very frustrating to me that such a high
percentage of the money we come up with goes into what is
essentially a totally nonproductive kind of activity. If you
were losing your lawsuits, that would indicate that you were
doing something wrong and that these people are watchdogs. But
the fact that you win so often indicates, I think, that they
are not watchdogs; they are dogs in the manger who simply do
not want you to do your job and they are using the courts as a
way to try to prevent it.
ENERGY
Let me turn my attention to the question of energy
resources. There is a great deal of energy available in the
Intermountain West, where I come from, and increasing attention
is being paid to the potential of energy coming from Forest
Service lands. There is some sense of frustration that land
managers on the ground do not pay attention to energy
development, they put it very much on the back burner. Do you
want to address that and agree or defend or vigorously deny or
whatever else you might have in mind with respect to this
question?
Mr. Rey. Well, I think I would offer an alternative
perspective. If you look at our 2006 request from among the
National Forest System accounts, what you will see is that one
of the largest increases is for our minerals program. A good
part of that is a reflection of the fact that we know that we
have a backlog of opportunity there and a desire to be more
efficient in reviewing the applications that we get for new
development. We are trying to process those in an efficient
fashion so that we can produce energy in an environmentally
sensitive way.
Mr. Bosworth. If I could add just one thing to that, we are
also putting significant effort into biomass and utilization of
biomass, both in terms of research and finding places where we
can utilize some of that material to help reduce energy needs
for this country.
PLANNING RULE
Senator Bennett. Land management plans. We have talked here
before about the Dixie National Forest and how again, back to
the first subject, protests and petitions and so on have
prevented us from saving the Dixie Forest from devastation by
the beetles. People say: Gee, if human beings go in there,
somehow they will taint the forest. The fact is, the beetles
are there destroying the forest and human beings, if they were
there, could do something about it, somehow that is okay. If
nature kills the trees, the trees deserve to be dead, but if
human beings kill the trees and turn them into houses, somehow
that is evil. I do not support that view, but there is that
view.
Can you talk about improvements to the LMP that are coming
as a result of the new rule you adopted in December 2004?
Mr. Bosworth. Yes, I would be happy to do that. As you
said, in December we finalized our planning rule. We have been
operating under the old planning rule that was developed in
1982, so you can tell that is quite outdated and it was time to
make some significant revisions, in our judgment. So the new
planning rule that we have does several things.
First, I believe it will allow for better public
involvement. It is going to be shorter. We will get it done
quicker. We estimate that under the new planning rule we will
be able to complete a forest plan revision in 2 to 3 years.
Under our existing time frame it has taken us 8 to 10 years to
complete a 15-year forest plan.
By having it shortened, I believe that it will allow people
to be much more engaged and much more involved. The average
person cannot be involved in a forest plan if it is going to
take 8 or 9 years to get it done. The people who are being paid
can. The people from the timber industry or the livestock
industry or the environmental industry can be involved in it.
But the person down the street who wants to go out with his
family and enjoy the national forests cannot stick with it.
So I believe that is one major change I think will help. It
will also cost less money if we get it done quicker.
I believe it will also provide for better environmental
protections. The reason I say that is because we have an
Environmental Management System that we will put in place that
requires an independent audit of the forest each year and that
will show whether or not we are doing what we said we would do
and whether or not we are getting the outcomes that we said we
will get. We will increase the amount of monitoring that we are
doing, so that will allow us then to make adjustments based
upon what we have learned.
So the whole notion would be, instead of trying to guess
what might happen by doing an analysis up front, we will do
adequate analysis, but we will put our emphasis into after we
have implemented for a year; then we look and see what actually
happened and learn from that and make adjustments. That makes
more sense to me. I think that will provide for better
environmental protections.
I think it will also increase the visibility of our
projects by having independent auditors looking at what we are
doing and involving the public in that.
In the end, all of our decisions will be science-based. The
planning rule requires using the best available science. Our
analyses will be reviewed by our scientists to make sure that
we are actually interpreting the science correctly.
So those are the major changes that I think will end up
with a much better process that will be more acceptable to the
public.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RED CEDAR EXPORT POLICY
I am concerned about a few things here that I read in the
budget. For instance, there is a request that we change the
prohibition against export of Alaska's red cedar to give the
right of first refusal to the timber industry and then to allow
its export. Just how would that work? Are you going to set the
price and if they take it they can buy it; if not, are you
going to export it? I do not understand that mechanism.
Mr. Rey. That is basically how it would work. This would be
an opportunity to----
Senator Stevens. Well, you have got a timber industry on
its knees because of the work of extreme environmentalists in
our State and they cannot afford to meet the bid of people in
foreign countries that do not have the environmental
restrictions that we have. That is a no-brainer. I do not
understand who came up with that.
Mr. Rey. No, this is an attempt to help the industry in
Alaska to market the red cedar, which they do not manufacture
in Alaska, but to also give the opportunity for the industry in
the Puget Sound to get access to those logs. The way that the
system is supposed to work is----
Senator Stevens. All we did was prohibit the export, Mark.
We did not say you could not sell it to Seattle. They can still
sell it to Seattle if they want to buy it. I do not understand
that language at all. I would urge you to look at it and give
us a paper on what it really means. I have been around that
industry for a long time and I never saw such a proposal, that
our people can buy it if they meet your price, is what you are
saying.
Mr. Rey. No. What we are saying is that the producers in
the Puget Sound area get a right of first refusal at a set
price.
Senator Stevens. No. The language says first refusal to the
Alaska timber industry. Check it, will you?
Mr. Rey. Okay, we will check on that.
[The information follows:]
Senator Stevens is correct, since the Alaska timber industry would
be making the initial purchase.
KAKE LAND EXCHANGE
Senator Stevens. Second now, we provided $2 million to
facilitate what was known as the Kake Land Exchange. You want
to strike that language. Why?
Mr. Rey. I think the exchange is complete, is it not?
Senator Stevens. Again, take a look at that. I do not
understand that either.
[The information follows:]
Kake Land Exchange
In October 2000, Congress enacted the Kake Tribal Corporation Land
Transfer Act (Public Law 106-283, Kake Act), an amendment to the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The statute provides for the
reallocation of lands and selection rights among the State, Kake Tribal
Corporation, and the City of Kake in order to protect and manage the
Kake municipal watershed.
The Kake Act provided that if the State relinquished its selection
rights to 1,389 acres of Federal lands in Jenny Creek, and if Kake
Tribal Corporation and Sealaska conveyed 1,430 acres of non-Federal
lands to the City of Kake, then USDA would convey the surface estate of
the 1,389 acres at Jenny Creek to the Kake Tribal Corporation and the
subsurface to Sealaska.
The lands conveyed to the City were encumbered by a conservation
easement granted by Kake Tribal to the Southeast Alaska Land Trust to
provide for the perpetual protection and management of Kake's
watershed. Thus, the Act authorized ``such sums as may be necessary to
carry out this Act, including to compensate Kake Tribal Corporation for
relinquishing its development rights [in the lands encumbered by the
conservation easement] and to provide assistance to Kake Tribal
Corporation to meet the requirements of subsection (h) [the timber
export restriction].''
In fiscal year 2001, the appropriations legislation provided $5
million for this purpose. The Alaska Region determined the value of the
timber rights Kake Tribal Corporation relinquished to be worth at least
$5 million and transferred the funds. Kake Tribal Corporation
commissioned a market analysis that indicated the Corporation lost $18
million in revenues. This amount was not verified or accepted by the
Forest Service using standard market value estimates. In subsequent
fiscal years (fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005), Congress
appropriated additional lump sum payments to Kake Tribal for
implementation of the Act. A total of about $13 million has been
allocated to Kake Tribal (subject to rescission percentages). The
Forest Service believes that the Kake Act has been fully implemented.
TIMBER SALE PIPELINE
Senator Stevens. We proposed that there be $5 million be
put in to funding for the EIS's on Alaska timber sale to ensure
that there would be a stable supply of timber, the so-called
pipeline amendment, to put some timber in the pipeline so it
would be there and the EIS's would be cleared in advance so
people knew what they were bidding on. Right now you bid on it
and then the EIS comes along and it is stalled for 2 years.
Your money is tied up for 2 years and your industry dies.
Now, what is wrong with our approach?
Mr. Rey. The problem is litigation, but not the funding of
the EIS's.
Senator Stevens. Well, you strike the money, $5 million for
the pipeline money. Again, I want you to look at that. I cannot
believe you would strike that $5 million. The Forest Service
concurred with us that we should find a way to get the EIS's
completed before a timber sale.
Mr. Rey. We can take a look at that.
[The information follows:]
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget includes up to $4 million
specifically for allocation to the Alaska Region for the purpose of
preparing timber pipeline volume which is in addition to its normal
allocation.
ALASKA RAILROAD
Senator Stevens. One was provided for--$1 million for the
activities on the Chugach that relate to the partnership
between the Chugach people--as you know, it is a regional
Native corporation--and the Alaska Railroad. Why did you strike
that money?
Mr. Rey. It was our understanding that that was a 1-year
project. If there is a continuing need to carry that forward,
that is something we should talk about.
Senator Stevens. What this finances is stops made in Forest
Service area, by the Alaska Railroad. Maybe you should
understand what it is about. It was in order to increase the
recreation opportunities in the forest area by financing the
stops that are necessary. You understand? We have an Alaska
Railroad. It does stop. It is like a Toonerville Trolley. It
stops in advance if you tell it where to stop.
If the people know it is going to stop in the forest, they
will build the recreational facilities for those stops in your
Forest Service area. Again, I look at this, I cannot believe
that the people who prepared it--I hope this is part of OMB's
additions to your proposal and not the Forest Service. If not,
I suggest you station some people up in Alaska to learn a
little bit about my State, okay?
Mr. Rey. Okay.
Senator Stevens. I will tell you, a kind letter will follow
this.
ALASKA FIRE SEASON--2005
As you know, the last year was about the worst fire season
we have ever seen. At one time there were 6.6 million acres
burning. For 15 days the EPA rated the air quality in Fairbanks
as dangerous and hazardous--at 10 micrograms per cubic meter.
People were told to stay indoors, to avoid exertion. Older
people had to be moved out of the city.
I received reports that these fires could have been
diminished, but you lacked resources to fight fires in my
State, whereas you were fighting fires of 100,000 acres in the
lower 48. Now, tell me, who makes that decision that you can't
fight fires in Alaska?
Mr. Rey. Those decisions are made by the incident
commanders on site in charge of the fires, and no incident
commander in Alaska was denied any resource request that he
posed.
Senator Stevens. This was reported in the paper now and was
reported to us in my offices in Alaska that the Federal
agencies lacked the resources, manpower, and equipment to
handle these fires because they were so large. They could
handle minor fires, but they could not handle large fires. Now,
you know, some time ago the environmental community came to me
and said: God made the fires and God made the forests, so you
should not interfere with God. Is that the proposal now, we are
going to let fires in Alaska burn?
Mr. Rey. No, not at all. We trust the incident commanders
in charge of fires, whether they are Alaskan fires or whether
they are fires in the lower 48, to decide what the attack
strategy on those fires is going to be and call for the
resources that they need. And in Alaska this year----
Senator Stevens. Well, then I shall call, ask the committee
to call the people who made the decisions in Alaska to come
tell us why they did not fight those fires. 6.6 million acres
of Federal forest burned and the fires went on for 20 days.
Mr. Rey. It was a record fire season in Alaska.
Senator Stevens. They tell me, because all the winds are
bringing all the snow down this year, it is going to be a
record fire season again.
Mr. Rey. It is setting up to be another one.
Senator Stevens. There are 2.2 million acres of beetle kill
in the Anchorage region. We have not been able to cut it and if
it is as dry this year in Anchorage as it was in Fairbanks last
year, it could well consume the area that has half the
population of my State. You know I live right in the middle of
it, right?
Mr. Rey. I think the difference here is that if cities like
Anchorage or Fairbanks or even small communities are
threatened, our incident commanders will adopt a much more
aggressive and resource-intensive strategy.
Senator Stevens. Now you are saying that if there are not
any people around you let the timber burn?
Mr. Rey. We do that in the lower 48 as well. We let it burn
under prescription if we know that there are no property or
human lives that are threatened. That is not unique to Alaska.
Senator Stevens. Over 6.6 million acres of timber can burn
and you just sit by?
Mr. Rey. We do not sit by.
Senator Stevens. You did not try to contain it.
Mr. Rey. We make sure that we can extinguish when it is an
immediate threat to human life or property.
Senator Stevens. Well, you know it was right to the edges
of the National Missile Defense area at Fort Greeley, do you
not?
Mr. Rey. There were contingency plans to make sure it did
not----
Senator Stevens. I remember going down to New Mexico where
it came right up on Los Alamos because of a decision not to
fight it about 12 miles away and the fire got away.
I tell you, I do not think you understand. Someone has got
to take a look at this. You just cannot let fires burn because
you never know where they are going to go if they really get
bad.
Mr. Rey. We do not just let fires burn. Where we have fire
management plans that we can let them burn with some confidence
under prescription----
Senator Stevens. Well, I ask you to check it.
Mr. Rey. We can do that.
Senator Stevens. Last, I was told that we do have the Fire
Jumper School in Alaska in Fairbanks and during this period,
those fire jumpers were out of the State fighting other fires
elsewhere.
Mr. Rey. If that is the case that is because they were not
called for by the incident commanders that were in charge of
fighting the Alaska fires.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to call that
person to come testify before this subcommittee this year.
Senator Burns. We will track him down.
Senator Stevens. I do not accept the position that fires
should be left totally to go and just rage in an area like ours
just because we are so big. We have one-fifth of the land mass
of the United States. Half the Federal lands of the United
States are in our State. You are making the decision those half
are subject to different conditions than you would make in
other States.
Mr. Rey. No, we are applying essentially the same standard
in Alaska that we are applying in the lower 48.
Senator Stevens. But if the resources are not there to
fight them, how are we going to fight them?
Mr. Rey. That is the issue I think we are still trying to
assess, as to whether the resources were there to fight them.
Senator Stevens. That is the issue I would like to set. I
tell you, 6.6 million acres burning in a period of 20 days has
got to be examined. It may be that current needs of the United
States do not need that timber, but it takes a lot, lot longer
to grow timber in Alaska than elsewhere. You agree to that?
Mr. Rey. In that part of Alaska, sure.
Senator Stevens. Particularly in that part of Alaska, in
the Interior. It is a slow growing season. We have a long
season, but it is slow growth because of the shallowness of the
roots. Once they burn, it takes years. That whole area now is
just stark. It looks like you are going through a part of hell
when you drive through it.
I really urge you to get him up here because someone has
got to answer why there was not a greater attempt to stop those
fires.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
As one of the co-sponsors of the Senate Healthy Forests
bill along with you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran, Senator
Craig, and Senator Wyden, I am very concerned by cuts in this
budget. It is my understanding that the budget proposes a 54
percent cut in cooperative fire assistance, a 30 percent cut in
forest health management on State and private lands, a 13
percent in cooperative forestry, and elimination of the
economic action plan which helps businesses economically remove
hazardous fuels.
HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION FUNDING
In contretemps to this, funding for hazardous fuel
reduction on Forest Service lands increases from $263 million
to $281 million. It seems to me that the way this is imbalanced
gives short shrift to what we, Mr. Rey, tried to accomplish in
the Healthy Forests bill, and I want to ask a couple of
questions.
It is my understanding that the Forest Service has the
capacity for an additional $41.4 million in hazardous fuel
reduction on private lands, four or five times as much as the
approximate $8 to $10 million in the fiscal year 2006 budget
for these purposes. In addition, there is capacity for an
additional $15 million in hazardous fuel reduction on State and
private lands. So my question is, this reading would indicate
that the budget falls far short of the amount needed to move
ahead at full speed to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires,
certainly in southern California.
Mr. Rey. I am not sure where the capacity numbers come
from, but clearly there is greater need for fuel reduction work
on non-Federal lands than the 2006 budget provides funding for.
I think we can agree on that. As I said in my opening
statement, as we moved to put together our budget under the
Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act, we put together a budget request that focused more heavily
on Federal lands than on non-Federal lands, and we did that for
three reasons.
First, we are the only ones who treat Federal lands. We are
the only ones who can treat Federal lands. There is no other
unit of government that is going to provide money to treat our
Federal at-risk lands, either in the wildland-urban interface
or outside it.
Second, if you look across the country, I think it is a
fair assessment to say that by and large the Federal lands are
in worse shape than the non-Federal lands. Our fuel loads are
heavier.
Senator Feinstein. Except, let me stop you here. It is my
understanding from my staff that what you have done is
essentially move the activity to the cheaper areas and away
from the wildland interface areas.
Mr. Rey. No, we are actually increasing the amount of
treatment done in the wildland-urban interface as compared with
previous years. But we are focusing on the Federal lands within
the wildland-urban interface, as opposed to the non-Federal
lands within the wildland-urban interface. And wildland-urban
interface acres are on the average more expensive to do, so you
get less acres per a set investment than you would outside the
wildland-urban interface because you have to go more heavily to
the mechanical treatment.
The third reason that we focused on Federal lands may be
the most important, and that is as we worked with our partners
in the firefighting community at both the Federal and State
level, we identified other funding streams that are available
to our non-Federal cooperators, in some cases with better
delivery systems than our own.
For example, the USDA Rural Development program had a $300
million or so grant program last year using Farm bill funds to
provide assistance to first responders. That is money that we
are going to try to get to our rural firefighters. FEMA has a
$700 million program to assist firefighters at the State and
local level.
Senator Feinstein. I guess what I see, Mr. Rey, we gave a
lot of attention--Senator Conrad was there, Senator Burns was
there--as to how we set up this bill to be able to move
aggressively in certain areas on fire. We had big discussions.
It seems to me that what you are doing is shorting part of our
problem and moving the money to other places, and that concerns
me.
Mr. Rey. I think I agree with the disproportionate
distribution of revenues over the whole of the problem, because
we are emphasizing Federal lands over non-Federal lands. It
does not follow, however, that in making that emphasis we are
moving the treatments away from the wildland-urban interface
and into other areas. The treatments are still proportionately
focused in the wildland-urban interface. About two-thirds of
our treatments in 2006 will be in the wildland-urban interface.
But even on a forest with as much non-Federal land as, say,
the San Bernardino----
Senator Feinstein. That is what I was going to mention.
Mr. Rey [continuing]. What we are saying is we are going to
put our initial emphasis--our proposal to you, I guess I should
say, is that we put our initial emphasis on treating the
Federal lands on the San Bernardino, because we are the only
ones who can and will do that.
Now, that is obviously a discussion we are going to
continue to have over the appropriations process. Last year you
reduced what we requested for hazardous fuels, so in that sense
you reallocated to hit non-Federal lands.
Senator Feinstein. Not me, not for reducing.
Mr. Rey. No, you did not reduce the overall effort, but you
made us switch from Federal lands to non-Federal lands. Not you
specifically, but the Congress generally.
Senator Feinstein. Well, take for example the bark beetle
forest that is dry and deteriorating very rapidly, which is
part on Federal and part on non-Federal land in the San
Bernardino National Forest. Does this mean you treat the
Federal land and you do not treat the rest of it?
Mr. Rey. No, what it means is we think there are other
mechanisms for funding the non-Federal portion of the treatment
and we want to make sure as we allocate our priorities that we
can do our part of it. So on the San Bernardino or on another
forest in a similar situation, what we would try to do would be
to work with the local communities, identify what funding
streams they have available, but make sure as we did that, we
have enough to do our part of it.
In some of these forests, they are using funding streams
from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act to do the non-Federal lands treatment. We do use hazardous
fuels dollars to help with the development of community-based
fire plans that cover both Federal and non-Federal lands. So we
are not walking away from the non-Federal lands. What we are
trying to do is to strike the right balance to make sure that
if you look across all of the funding streams available that we
can do a treatment that is effective because we treat both in a
strategic fashion and not get to the point where all of the
non-Federal land is treated and the private landowners then
look to us and say: Well, what have you guys done?
Senator Feinstein. I guess my concern--and let me just say
this to my colleagues who were there. If you will recall, we
spent a lot of time trying to work out a balanced formula and I
think we did. We took a lot of flak from environmentalists who
said, they are just going to turn this thing around. I do not
want that to happen.
I think that what the intent was and what we did should be
carried out by the Department. I think it is a real point of
major integrity that we work, that the cooperative fire plans--
I attended a meeting in August in the Tahoe Basin with all of
the fire communities. I am going up there again. They have all
worked very hard to do their cooperative fire plan and to see
that the funding remained so that that can get done.
I think it would be really very tragic if what some people
said would happen with that healthy forest plan happens,
because we tried to see that it was a balanced approach and
that we did the right thing by the urban-wildland interface.
Mr. Rey. I think we are all committed to making sure that
approach works and what we have to do as we go through each
budget cycle is try to make sure we get the right amount of
funding in each program area.
Senator Feinstein. All I know is what my people tell me and
they tell me that the way this is worked out shorts California
and it moves the money to cheaper areas to do forestry work.
Mr. Bosworth. I would like to respond to that, Senator. As
Chief of the Forest Service, I get a number of different
recommendations from my folks saying, well, here is how we
ought to allocate it around the country. When they are looking
at these recommendations from time to time, they say: Well, you
know, it costs more money to do business in California; we
ought to put it in the wildland-urban interface than some other
place.
So often when they are making those considerations, those
considerations become available for other people to look at.
All I want to tell you is they are not decisions until I make
them. I am happy to have those considerations, but in
California, even though we had some recommendations to do some
different things based on cost per acre, we put the dollars in
California where they were needed and we kept the program at
the level and will continue to be giving a high priority for
California.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I had whispered in my left ear,
where I am a little bit hard of hearing, that they did this
year, but what about next year?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, I am sure that I will get
recommendations from folks again with a variety of different
choices in how we ought to do it. But I am still going to be
the one that makes the decision and I am very concerned about
those wildland-urban interface areas in California. They are
more expensive. It costs more to do business.
Senator Feinstein. I understand that. But I cannot help
that in any way. That is the way it is.
Mr. Bosworth. Neither can the Forest Service folks that are
in California, because it is just a higher cost of doing
business. So we are going to continue to find the right
balance, but I just do not foresee ending up shorting the areas
there that have the critical wildland-urban interface with
national forest land all around them.
Again, we will continue to always look at different
choices, but I just cannot foresee a decision that would make
significant reductions in California.
Mr. Rey. The good news, I guess, in terms of this is that
our regional foresters are arguing passionately to get more
money to do this work, and your regional forester is among the
most aggressive and passionate.
Senator Feinstein. Good, we like that. Thank you very much.
COMMUNITY FIRE PLANS
Let me go to the community fire safe councils. It is my
understanding that communities get about $40 million I requests
from the fire safe councils and that there is some additional
money available through the county payments legislation which
Senators Craig, Wyden, and I are working on to try to get
reauthorized. How are we going to implement the fire safety
councils plan in the face of these budget cuts or proposed
budget cuts?
Mr. Rey. Well, we do fund some of the fire planning work
through hazardous fuels dollars, which has not been cut. It has
actually been increased. So there is some assistance there. The
money that is provided under the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self-Determination Act is from a mandatory account,
so that money will continue to flow as well.
So we have been so far able to keep up with the community
fire planning process. There are about 600 that have been
developed so far, which is actually pretty impressive because
it has only been 13, 14 months since the bill's enactment, and
those are up and running. I think so far we have been able to
keep up with the desire of the communities for assistance with
their plans.
Senator Feinstein. All right. Well, we will watch and see.
That is for sure.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT--SIERRA NEVADA FRAMEWORK
Let me just say that I understand you were instrumental in
working out an agreement between the Forest Service and the
University of California on an adaptive management plan for the
revised Sierra Nevada Framework. I just want to congratulate
you on that. I think it is important to have that independent
review.
Can you explain to us how you envision this working?
Mr. Rey. Sure. I will take the first cut at that, but the
Chief and, more notably, the regional forester will probably be
much more articulate about the details.
It is being set up as a three-part agreement between the
State, the Forest Service, and the University of California at
Berkeley. In the Forest Service there are two entities
involved. There are the national forests of the Sierra Nevada
region and then there is the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station at Berkeley.
The University of California will do monitoring of the
treatments that we apply for fuels reduction purposes in a
number of sites that are going to be selected by the university
in conjunction with the State and the Forest Service, and that
will be part of our active monitoring program that we do as we
move forward to implement the Sierra Nevada Framework.
As the results of that monitoring are made available, the
university will analyze it. It will be available for public
review. The primary purpose of it, I guess to state it as
simply as I can, is that we will be evaluating whether the
treatments that we have specified accomplish the results that
we desire and just those results. We want to evaluate whether
they are effective in fuel reduction and that there are no
unanticipated or unintended consequences as a result of
implementing.
If we find that either they are not effective or there are
unintended consequences of a negative nature, then that work
will form the basis for subsequent amendments to the Sierra
Nevada Framework. The University of California and the State,
for that matter, but primarily the University of California,
will provide an independent certifying capability to see that
the Sierra Nevada Framework works as we hope it will.
Senator Feinstein. I think that is very interesting. It is
going to be interesting to see how it works out. Let me just
commend you.
Do you have anything to add, Mr. Bosworth, to that?
Mr. Bosworth. The only thing I would add is that it is
critical for us to have a monitoring system that has public
credibility. When you look at a plan like the Sierra Nevada
Framework, it is fairly controversial, so there are differences
of opinion on all sides. The future for us is going to be in
effective monitoring, and often using independent outside
parties to help us do that monitoring and evaluation, to do the
kind of adaptive management that we need to do in the future.
That is really what this is about. So this approach has the
potential to be a model for some other places if it works. I do
not have any reason to believe that it would not work well.
Senator Feinstein. Well, it is certainly a hot issue. Let
me just commend both of you. I think it is a very interesting
project.
QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP
Let me ask the last question on the Quincy Library Group.
What actions has the Forest Service taken to ensure that the
QLG project will meet the intent of the law in future years?
Really what I am getting at is the planned program of work in
the remaining years of the project.
Mr. Bosworth. The budget proposal would maintain the base
level of funding for Quincy Library Group. Every opportunity we
get, we put more money into it if we can. So in fiscal year
2005, this fiscal year, we were able to scrape up even some
additional dollars to put into QLG to do some additional work.
The funding proposal for 2006 would be the same level as it
was for 2005 and that was enacted for 2005 and the same that it
was for 2004. As I said, if there is excess money somewhere--
which there is not usually a lot, but from time to time there
will be dollars that will not get spent as effectively in
another forest or another region--whenever we have the
opportunity we will put some of those dollars into Quincy
Library Group to ensure that we get the outcomes there that you
had intended.
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Senator Feinstein. Just one other quick question. In places
of real road devastation, particularly in southern California,
caused by the fires, are you going to be able to help with
those roads? As has been stated, this is going to be another
big fire year, I suspect, for southern California.
Mr. Bosworth. Right now we are assessing primarily the
flood damage that occurred from the huge rain storms in
southern California. We know that there was somewhere in the
vicinity of $35 million worth of damage to roads and trails,
but we have not completed the analysis or the assessment. So
what it will require is, at least to some degree, given the
dollars that we have currently, that we would redirect where we
can and do what we can to respond to that with the dollars that
we have.
Mr. Rey. Similarly on non-Federal lands, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service is starting to get initial
assessments of flood damage in the form of requests for
emergency watershed protection money.
BARK BEETLE DAMAGE--SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Senator Feinstein. I am sorry. I said the last question.
Just one more. I am really concerned with the San Bernardino
Mountains and the bark beetle forest. The longer you leave the
trees there, it seems to me, the worse it gets. How much of
that infested acreage do you think you are able to treat this
next year? Can you give me a percentage?
Mr. Bosworth. I do not think that I--well, let us see. I
guess I can. Well, at least for fiscal year 2006, based on
the----
Senator Feinstein. Assume it is 1 million acre area.
Mr. Bosworth. Well, approximately 56,000 acres would be
treated with hazardous fuels funds. The 2006 President's budget
proposal would allow for about 56,000 acres. Now, the total
area I think that has insect damage on the San Bernardino
National Forest I believe is around 350,000 acres or 400,000. I
could be wrong on that, though, and I would have to get you
better information to be sure. Is it 400,000? That is in the
neighborhood.
Senator Feinstein. Then the rest of it. Are you saying that
the rest of it is going to remain untreated?
Mr. Bosworth. Well, it really depends on where you locate
the treatments. You do not have to treat every acre. If we
locate our treatments in a strategic way, then that helps
protect other areas from fire or insect disease. So it is
critical that we locate our treatments in the right places.
For example, in a certain drainage, you may have a 100,000
acre drainage, but you may only need to treat 25 or 30,000
acres if you do it right, rather than every single one of the
acres.
Senator Feinstein. I guess the reason I am asking this is,
as you know, there are homes all in the middle of this. I mean,
it is the most complicated thing. I would like to ask that you
work with us on how you are going to do this, to try to get the
most bang for the dollars in the interface areas where private
property is really at risk.
Mr. Bosworth. I would be very, very happy to work with you
on that. I have flown over the area. I have been driven through
the area. I have hiked through some of it, several times in the
last 2 years. It is a very, very difficult area that is in a
very, very terrible condition.
Mr. Rey. I think most of the treatments are being laid out
with the local communities through a task force that has been
in existence for about 4 years down there. The best thing to do
might be, if you are going to be in that area at some point
this spring, to just sit down with the task force people and
have them lay out what the program of treatments are.
Senator Feinstein. I will do that, but just generally,
57,000 acres out of nearly 1 million acres of infested forest
is just a little bit. That is what I am most worried about,
where we are going to get the funds to really be aggressive.
Mr. Bosworth. It is 56,000 out of 400,000. So it is still a
small percentage.
Senator Feinstein. Of Federal land.
Mr. Bosworth. Yes.
Senator Feinstein. Okay, and not the non-Federal land.
Mr. Bosworth. Correct.
CONDITIONS IN MONTANA
Senator Burns. If you would like to visit Montana we will
show you some of that, you do not know what a problem is. Ours
is bigger and we have got it up there. With that, your flood
damage down there we would take a little of it. We need
moisture. We have no snow and we just do not have a lot of
moisture.
I am going to only take up one more question. We lost
another sawmill this year, you know. Owens and Hurst went down.
When we talk about her problems, we are losing our
infrastructure and people who know how to work the forests. We
lose 90 jobs up there and some allied jobs around that, that
help us deal with the people who know how to operate in the
forests, even on our fires and anything else.
So we have a big problem. Up there where they have
diseases, we cannot get those trees out, or the small diameter
trees. We retooled our mills to handle smaller diameter logs
and now they cannot get them. It goes through the appeals
business and all of that, even with hazardous fuels and healthy
forests and forest stewardship.
So I am at a loss on how we are supposed to handle all of
these things. I think probably when you start taking some of
those trees out down there, you will probably run into some of
the same problems we run into up in Montana. It sure gets in
the way of good forest management.
They have just about covered all the questions I have up
and down the line. I have a few more, but we can address those.
We are going to see a little bit of a change in funds as we
work our way through this budget, but we will come to agreement
on that, I think, fairly quickly, and I appreciate all your
work.
Senator Cochran, have you got other questions for this
panel?
APPROPRIATION PROCESS
Senator Cochran. I was going to ask, Mr. Chairman, a couple
of questions about the organization of the Forest Service in
the Department of Agriculture and the challenge that that
presents to you in responding to requests to testify at
hearings of the Appropriations Committee. We just went through
a reorganization of our subcommittees and made some changes in
jurisdictional responsibilities in our subcommittees. You are a
part of the Department of Agriculture and you are here
testifying before an Interior Appropriations subcommittee. Do
you also get called to testify before the Agriculture
Appropriations subcommittee as well during the consideration of
the budget request?
Mr. Bosworth. I do not get called for the Forest Service
budget. I do not testify at Agriculture Appropriations. On
occasion we participate in oversight hearings, but not from the
Appropriations Committee on Agriculture.
From my perspective, it works very well working with the
Interior Appropriations subcommittee.
Senator Cochran. Which subcommittee actually approves your
budget request or provides funding for your activities every
fiscal year?
Mr. Bosworth. Interior does, the Interior subcommittee.
Mr. Rey. I typically appear before the Agriculture
subcommittee, but for the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
Senator Cochran. Right, because you are also--you supervise
the Director of the NRCS, do you not?
Mr. Rey. Right.
Senator Cochran. Well, I am curious to find out how all
this works in practice. When we start reorganizing things,
sometimes it has an impact that we do not fully appreciate
while we are moving responsibilities around among different
subcommittees. I wanted to be sure we had not made some
decisions here that made it harder for you to do your business
or less efficient in terms of the time you have to spend up
here on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Rey. I do not think your reorganization will affect us
either way.
Senator Cochran. Good. It suits you to continue the way
that we are handling your budget request each year in terms of
the committees that have jurisdiction over your hearings and
writing the bill for you?
Mr. Rey. I think so. The Forest Service and the Department
of the Interior land managing agencies have enough comparable
programs that it probably is a benefit to look at them as a
whole. So I think it probably works just fine.
Senator Cochran. Good.
We thank you for the good job you are doing. We hope that
the implementation of the National Forest Initiatives through
the law that we passed is moving along the way we anticipated.
You were very active in that, Mr. Rey, and we appreciate your
personal involvement in coming up here to the Hill to meet with
Senators as we were working our way through that.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT
Is the law living up to our expectations? Is it really
giving you the tools to better manage our forests and make sure
we achieve our goals?
Mr. Rey. I think it has been so far.
Mr. Bosworth. I would like to respond to that. In fiscal
year 2004, the amount of work that we got done far exceeded
anything that we had done in the past in terms of fuels
treatment, for example. I think that as time goes on and our
folks get more adept at using the new tools and opportunities
that we have through the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, they
will get even better. Those kind of things help us a lot, and
we are going to continue to always look for more improvements
and ways that we can modernize our processes. We may need help
in the future on some other things, but so far, so good.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rey. Probably one other insight to share with you about
that is that, aside from the words in the statute and the
programs that emanated from it, one thing that I did not
anticipate is how much more enthusiasm we found at the field
level in the Forest Service and, while I cannot speak directly
for them, the Department of the Interior land managing
agencies, as a consequence of Congress speaking affirmatively
in enactment of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
That has had a material effect on how people at the ground
level have felt about their activities and about their mission.
Senator Cochran. That is good to hear. Thank you for giving
us that information.
Senator Burns. That, Senator, would reflect pretty good
leadership here at the top end. So I think Dale has done a
great job and all of you have done a great job. In some areas
we will always have conflicts. We will work our way through
this budget and this appropriation. With your help, I think we
will come to a very successful conclusion.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
There will be some additional questions which will be
submitted for your response in the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
financial accountability
Question. The Forest Service has received a clean audit opinion on
its books for the last three fiscal years. The agency was also taken
off the GAO's list of agencies at high risk of waste, fraud and abuse
this year. The Forest Service is now drastically reorganizing its
financial management systems by consolidating these functions in one
location rather than having this work done throughout the Regions of
the Forest Service.
Please explain how this reorganization will make your financial
management systems better?
Answer. We were on the high risk list because we lacked
accountability over billions of dollars in two major assets: Fund
Balance with Treasury and property, plant and equipment.
We believe these efforts, when implemented effectively, will
provide stronger financial management, sustain positive audit results,
and ensure compliance with federal financial reporting standards. We
will be able to sustain this improved, more efficient, and more
accurate operating model.
Beginning in December 2001 and continuing throughout 2002 we
developed a corrective action plan, brought in contract resources to
supplement agency staff, made system improvements, performed property
appraisals on major real property assets, reconciled all asset and
liability accounts and adjusted the agency's accounting records to
reflect the results of this work. As a result of this effort, the
agency received an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2002
financial statements; however, we had not yet proven we could sustain
this outcome in future years. We had not reached the end goal of
routinely producing timely, accurate and useful financial information.
In the past two years we made additional progress, especially with
respect to addressing several long-standing material internal control
deficiencies. We resolved material deficiencies related to fund balance
with Treasury, and in property, plant and equipment, thus increasing
accountability over billions of dollars in assets. We received
unqualified audit opinions on our financial statements for fiscal years
2003 and 2004 thus demonstrating sustainability for three consecutive
years.
Management has demonstrated a strong commitment to efforts that, if
effectively implemented, should help to resolve many of our remaining
financial management problems and move us toward sustainable financial
management business processes. We have a corrective action plan that we
are executing and we have demonstrated progress in addressing our
financial management deficiencies. These efforts are designed to
address internal control and noncompliance issues identified in audit
reports, as well as organizational issues. For example, during fiscal
2004 we began re-engineering and consolidating our finance, accounting
and budget processes to a central processing center in Albuquerque, NM.
We previously operated in a decentralized model with over 150
accounting/budget centers located through out the regions (9), forests
(130), stations (8) and area. The centralization effort began in March
2004. We have redesigned financial/budget processes to operate in a
central processing center. The Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) opened
on February 22, 2005. As of April 4 we have approximately 230 employees
in the ASC with work and staff migrating thru January 2006.
Question. How much money does the agency expect to save through
this reorganization?
Answer. The business case for this effort indicated a one time
investment of approximately $45 million to be spent mostly in fiscal
year 20h some small amount being spent in the 1st quarter of fiscal
year 2006. The expected annual cost savings from this centralization
effort are projected to be $36 million. The investment payback period
is approximately 1.7 years. We are well on track at this stage of the
project at achieving these cost savings for the investment indicated.
Question. What will be the personnel impacts on the Regions by
moving all these people to one location?
Answer. There were approximately 1,175 full time employees of whom
approximately 1,055 were located in the regional offices (9), forests
(130), stations (8) and area (1). There also were approximately 800
full time equivalent employees performing budget and finance work part
time at the R/S/As. At the conclusion of this centralization effort
there will be 305 field budget personnel and 47 field personnel engaged
in operating the new Integrated Acquisition System. These 352 personnel
will be located at the R/S/As. Thus there will be an approximate
reduction at the Regions of 600-800 personnel depending on how many of
the part time FTEs are reduced. The Albuquerque Service Center for
Financial Management will employ approximately 400 people.
planning rules
Question. In December of last year the Forest Service released its
final rule revising the forest planning regulations. The forest
planning process has become far too costly and time consuming. Under
the old rule, the agency was spending millions of dollars on forest
plans that were taking 5-6 years just to prepare.
Please describe how these new planning rules will streamline this
process?
Answer. The new forest planning rule will improve the way the
Forest Service does forest planning. Land management plans under the
new planning rule will be strategic in nature, and more timely and cost
effective. The goal is to shift resources from extensive up-front
planning, to a more balanced planning program where plans are revised
quickly, and resources are shifted from planning to monitoring. With a
more efficient revision process, we hope to get our resource
specialists out of the office, and into the field.
The process will be streamlined mainly in three ways. First, the
new rule promotes strategic plans. The planning process recognizes that
effects cannot be meaningfully evaluated until the project stage.
Therefore, the forest plan analysis doesn't typically need to be as
detailed as in the past. Second, Forest Supervisors are encouraged to
use an interactive, collaborative process to iteratively develop the
proposed plan. This means not only is public involvement more
meaningful, but the interdisciplinary team no longer needs to carry
through three, four, five, or more full ``alternatives'' though the
entire planning process. Rather analysis is needed only for the
proposed plan and what narrower options remain after initial public
involvement is concluded. Third, because new science, assessments, or
other new information can be used immediately, plans will only need to
be amended when the new information points to a need to change a plan
component.
Question. Will the public still have a full opportunity to provide
input to the Forest Service during the planning process?
Answer. Yes. Public involvement is emphasized in the 2004 rule. The
Forest Service intends to continue working closely with our public to
address any concerns that might arise with regard to the planning rule
and during forest plan development.
Question. How much will the agency save in terms of time and money
by implementing these new planning rules?
Answer. Although the agency will save time and money on plan
revisions, the overall costs to the agency will not decrease because
time and effort will be redirected to plan monitoring and plan
amendments. Agency time and money will be used more effectively. The
plan revision process under the 1982 rule has generally taken 5-7
years. Under the 2004 rule, we estimate that forest plan revisions will
take approximately 2-3 years. This will enable the eventual shift of
planning funds to activities which will keep the plans current.
montana timber issues
Question. There is a real problem in Montana with being able to
provide a stable supply of timber from the national forests. In
January, it was announced that the Owens & Hurst mill in Eureka is
going to close and 90 jobs will be lost. When timber mills close it is
not only devastating to the people who lose their jobs and the
economies of the towns they live in, it also damages the Forest
Service's ability to deal with forest health issues, particularly
hazardous fuels reduction. If there is not a market for the small
diameter wood that is the main component of hazardous fuels on our
nation's forests, we will never be able to afford to remove all these
fuels with appropriated dollars.
What can the Forest Service do to improve this situation in Montana
and other states where the supply of wood from our public lands is
critical to keeping mills open?
Answer. Currently almost all regions have the capability to expand
their timber sale programs, depending on the availability of funds. In
fiscal year 2005, appropriated Forest Products funds were moved among
some regions, in part to help address timber industry infrastructure.
However, our ability to move funds among regions is limited by the fact
that there are widespread priorities and community needs across the
country. Moving limited funds to help one region affects our ability to
address priorities in another region. Current Salvage Sale fund
balances are limited and do not provide options for additional timber
harvest.
Forest Products is not the only affected funding source, as
increasing emphasis on timber activities in any place also generates
additional needs for commensurate roads and land survey support.
The agency is discussing a change in the measure of success in
delivering the timber sale program, using timber volume sold instead of
timber volume offered, to put more emphasis on results.
Question. How many board feet do you expect to be able to offer
this year compared to last?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004 the Northern Region offered a little
more than 232 million board feet of timber for sale. The target for
fiscal year 2005 is about 226 million board feet, which is a result of
slightly less total appropriated Forest Products funds plus Salvage
Sale Funds being available for the Region. The Region currently has
about 262 million board feet of timber involved in appeals and
litigation, and we are seeking solutions to move this volume forward to
sale.
A nearly $3 million increase in fiscal year 2005 appropriated funds
for the Northern Region is being used to offset less Salvage Sale Funds
being available due to lower collections.
The agency's fiscal year 2004 accomplishments showed an increase in
volume offered for sale and volume sold over our estimate in the fiscal
year 2004 President's Budget. This increase occurred in both live and
dead volume. We anticipate a similar increase in both fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2006.
Question. Does the agency believe that it is critical that we
maintain a robust timber mill infrastructure in order to deal with our
hazardous fuels problem on the national forests?
Answer. Yes, a viable timber infrastructure is essential for
accomplishing our agency's vegetation management objectives and
restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.
grazing permits
Question. There is a real problem with a backlog of expiring
grazing permits that need to be renewed. Congress put a schedule in
place for the renewal of these permits in the 1995 Rescissions Act. The
agency's budget justification says that the Forest Service is only
getting done 50 percent of the work that you need to do each year. In
the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill the Committee
provided additional funds to address this problem and also provided a
Categorical Exclusion from NEPA for grazing allotments that met certain
conditions.
Has the Categorical Exclusion helped to increase the number of
grazing allotments you expect to complete in fiscal year 2005?
Answer. The Forest Service will be able to accelerate the
completion of allotment planning beginning in fiscal year 2005 through
fiscal year 2007 due to the Congressionally authorized use of up to 900
categorical exclusions outlined in the Consolidated Appropriations Act
of 2005 (Public Law 108-447). This helps the agency to a large extent,
although at the present pace, the agency would complete about 85
percent (including the 900 under the categorical exclusion) of the
scheduled allotment analyses and plans by 2010, the original scheduled
end date.
Question. I see the fiscal year 2006 budget proposal reduces the
program by $3.4 million and the number of grazing allotments processed
declines by 33 percent. Why is that when we have such a large backlog?
Answer. In addition to completion of grazing allotment NEPA
analysis, the Grazing Management budget line item accomplishes other
important work, including the management of grazing allotment acres to
standard in accordance with forest plan standards and guidelines,
development of new allotment management plans in concert with NEPA
analyses, and performance of necessary implementation and effectiveness
monitoring. The agency's initial focus on completion of NEPA work on
approximately 317 allotments in fiscal year 2006 considered the need to
balance overall grazing management program requirements with the 1995
Rescission Act schedule and other critical resource needs. With the
grazing allotment categorical exclusion (CE) authority as provided in
Section 339 of the fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
the agency is refocusing its efforts in order to accelerate the number
of allotments processed and decrease the backlog. A total of 400-600
allotments are expected to be analyzed with plans amended by the end of
fiscal year 2005.
maintenance cuts
Question. According to the proposed budget for fiscal year 2006,
the agency has a backlog of deferred maintenance of over $8 billion.
But the budget proposes to cut the Capital Improvement and Maintenance
accounts by $134 million which is a 26 percent reduction.
Why is the agency cutting this account when the backlog of deferred
maintenance needs is so high?
Answer. To balance National programs while reducing the overall
Forest Service budget, some reductions to Capital improvement and
Maintenance were necessary in fiscal year 2006.
The Forest Service expects to partially offset reductions to
administrative site maintenance and construction with the enactment of
the proposed Facilities and Land Management Enhancement Act. The Act
will provide for the use of revenues from the sale of surplus
administrative site properties. Another aspect of the legislative
proposal is the creation of a working capital fund for administrative
facility maintenance, whereby some maintenance costs would be funded
through assessment to other programs. These proposals are not expected
to fully make up for the difference between the fiscal year 2005
enacted facilities funding and the fiscal year 2006 request. Most of
the reduction would come from capital investments.
Within the trails program, we plan to partially offset program
reductions through the increased use of partnerships and volunteers.
Question. How are you planning to address this enormous backlog of
deferred maintenance?
Answer. We anticipate that maintenance backlog will continue to
grow; however, we have multiple efforts underway to help positively
address backlog maintenance.
--Through proposed Facilities and Land Management Act, which would
provide for the conveyance of administrative sites, we will
eliminate the deferred maintenance liability on those
facilities conveyed to other owners. At the same time those
revenues would replace other deficient facilities or perform
needed rehabilitation work on existing facilities.
--Developing a working capital fund (WCF) for all administrative
buildings provides a direct incentive for local staff to reduce
facilities and optimize their space requirements, because funds
not used in maintaining facilities are available for other
program needs.
--Through facility master planning and developed recreation site
master planning efforts, we are identifying the optimum
location, size and number of facilities we can sustain into the
future.
--Through the Road Analysis Process, we are taking a realistic look
at budgets and identifying roads that can be closed or
eliminated, or the road standard downgraded.
hazardous fuels funding
Question. The agency has increased the hazardous fuels reduction
budget by $19 million. Over the long term, the only way to reduce the
severity of our fire seasons is by removing the excess fuels that we
have in our forests. Recently, the GAO issued a report that stated that
the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior had not issued
sufficient guidance for prioritizing hazardous fuels reduction
projects.
Given that the hazardous problem is so large and resources are
scarce, the agencies must have a way of prioritizing the most important
acres for treatment.
How would the agency respond to GAO's criticism that the Forest
Service has not prioritized these projects nationally?
Answer. Hazardous fuels activities under the Healthy Forests
Initiative, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and the National Fire
Plan are coordinated between the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior through the Wildland Fire Leadership Council. This
coordination covers prioritization and overall general management
objectives including accountability for activities and oversight of the
development of measures of fuel condition. Fuel characteristics, fire
regime, and vegetation are being assessed to assist in identifying
areas where activities need to be prioritized. This information is used
in addition to the criteria associated with wildland urban interface
needs and needs for treatment associated with other critical areas such
as municipal watersheds and protection of endangered species habitat.
In addition to the above criteria and management direction, our
national fuels treatment program priorities are developed annually to
utilize the latest science and information in cooperation with
Department of Interior staff, and transmitted to regions, forests, and
districts. That guidance shapes prioritization decisions at the
individual National Forests and Ranger Districts, where fuel treatments
are evaluated on a site specific basis. In addition, other resource
treatments for wildlife habitat improvement, watershed, vegetation
management, and recreation are also being designed to address fuels
treatment needs. Those combined objectives can help address fuel
reduction and condition class improvement goals. The timing and
placement of these treatments on the landscape are evaluated with our
partners at state, tribal, local, and other federal agencies. Many
states have formal inter-agency groups to assist in this process and we
actively promote such collaboration. Projects covered by a Community
Wildfire Protection Plan are also given a priority and emphasize the
diverse partners that play a role in the prioritization process. These
collaborative partnerships are very well established and successful in
some areas, and in other locations some of these relationships are
still being formed. Allocation of funds to individual National Forests
for these projects is at the discretion of the Regional Foresters.
Further approaches are being developed and field-tested that
integrate all of the criteria and risks in an attempt to use the
diverse data, needs, and objectives in a repeatable and methodological
fashion.
Question. How many acres do you plan to treat in 2006 compared to
2005?
Answer. We plan to treat 1.8 million acres in both fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2005 we plan to treat at least
1,281,000 acres in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The remaining
acres will be treated outside of the WUI with an emphasis on highest
departure from a reference condition for vegetation, fuels and
disturbance regimes. Additionally, an estimated 700,000 acres will be
treated as a secondary benefit of other land management activities.
In fiscal year 2006 we plan to treat at least 1,450,000 acres (80
percent) in the WUI. Additionally, the agency plans to have a fully
integrated fire-adapted ecosystem restoration program that would
generate an additional 1,000,000 acres from other land management
programs.
Question. Can you explain your proposal to move the funding for
hazardous fuels reduction from the Fire account to the National Forest
System account?
Answer. The transfer of the hazardous fuels budget line item to the
National Forest System (NFS) appropriation would provide better
alignment with current Forest Service efforts to integrate all
vegetation treatment activities. The majority of vegetation treatments
and other related terrestrial and aquatic activities are funded with
NFS appropriations.
Question. Why is this transfer necessary?
Answer. Currently, a high priority for the use of NFS funds and
other related appropriations is ecosystem restoration, including
restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems both previous to and after
significant disturbance events (wildland fires, insect and disease
epidemics, storm damage, etc.). An integral part of restoration
includes identifying desired future vegetative conditions and designing
treatments to achieve those conditions.
This proposed shift in appropriation would allow for better
internal agency alignment of programs. As a result, we anticipate more
integrated and efficient program management leading to the achievement
of common vegetation objectives.
forest health program cuts
Question. The Committee is concerned about the large cut ($29.5
which is equal to 29 percent) that is proposed in the fiscal year 2006
budget for the Forest Health program in State and Private forestry.
This program helps to monitor and treat millions of acres of state,
federal, and private lands for insects, diseases and invasive weeds.
How many fewer acres will be treated as a result of these cuts?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, we plan to treat approximately 918,000
acres for control of insects, diseases, and invasive plants. In fiscal
year 2006, our target is 656,000, a reduction of about 28 percent.
Question. How many acres nationally need treatment for insects and
disease?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the national request for treatment
projects for forest insects and diseases totaled 1.2 million acres and
we were able to fund approximately 76 percent of that request. We
expect the treatment needs requests in fiscal year 2006 to be as high
or higher than those we received this year. The continuing drought in
areas of the West will also increase demand for projects to treat acres
at risk to western bark beetle attack. The treatment need for invasive
plants control projects on state and private lands is on a steep upward
trend; in fiscal year 2005 we were able to fund programs in 27 states.
state and volunteer fire assistance cuts
Question. The state fire assistance program is very important in
providing grants for equipment and giving technical assistance to local
fire departments. The fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes to
reduce this program by over $22 million, which will almost cut in half
the number of communities assisted by the program.
Is this a wise cut when frequently it's the local firefighting
forces that are first on the scene of a wildfire?
Answer. Although the proposed funding in State Fire Assistance
decreased the proposed funding for Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)
remains the same as appropriated in fiscal year 2005. VFA funding is
aimed specifically at building and maintaining fire fighting capacity
in fire departments serving communities of less than 10,000 people.
Rural and volunteer fire departments provide a first line of defense in
coping with fires and other emergencies in rural areas and communities.
These departments provide nearly 80 percent of initial attack on
wildfires in the United States. We anticipate that maintaining current
funding levels in Volunteer Fire Assistance will help maintain rural
fire fighters capability to respond to National Forest fire emergencies
as they have in the past.
Question. Isn't it true that other grant programs for firefighters
through agencies like FEMA are not specifically for wildland
firefighting so this is the only grant program for this purpose?
Answer. Although FEMA programs are not specifically aimed at
wildland fire fighting capability and rural fire departments, those
departments are not excluded from FEMA grant programs. They compete for
grant funding with other fire departments.
fire readiness capability
Question. Over the last several years, the Committee has had some
difficulty working with the agency on funding for the Fire Preparedness
budget. This is the program that puts in place firefighters, engines,
and other basic firefighting assets at the start of the fire season. In
fiscal year 2005, the Committee had to add $20 million to the request
for preparedness in order to maintain the same number of firefighters
and engines as the agency had in the previous year.
In the budget for fiscal year 2006, you have reduced the program by
roughly a half million dollars, but your budget justification claims
that you will hire more firefighters and deploy more engines. How is
this possible with less money?
Answer. The agency will maintain a level of readiness approximate
to that attained in fiscal year 2004. This level will be achieved
through efficiencies implemented in the program leadership functions
and agency-wide overhead.
Question. Can the agency assure the Committee that at the level of
funds requested for fiscal year 2006 you can maintain readiness at
current levels?
Answer. Yes, the Forest Service is committed to maintaining
firefighting readiness comparable to the fiscal year 2004 level without
sacrificing firefighter safety. An errata sheet was submitted
identifying the Forest Service's resource capability consistent with
the President's Budget and actions relative to the agency's airtanker
fleet capability. The updated errata sheet specifies a capability
comparable to the previous year. The content of that errata sheet is as
follows:
--Employ 10,480 firefighters.
--Employ 399 prevention technicians.
--Employ 277 smokejumpers.
--Maintain 66 Type I crews (hotshot crews).
--Maintain 995 engines.
--Maintain 63 water tenders.
--Maintain 123 dozers.
--Maintain 29 tractor plow units.
--Maintain 86 Type I, II, and III helicopters for local mobilization.
--Maintain 7 Type II efficiency helicopters for national
mobilization.
--Maintain 6 Type I helitankers for national mobilization.
--Maintain a fleet of up to 20 airtankers. However maintain the
overall production capability of our prior fleet of 33
airtankers through the use of single engine airtankers (SEATS),
Type I helicopters, and Type II helicopters.
air tankers
Question. In 2004, the Forest Service and the Department of the
Interior were unable to use the majority of the large air tanker fleet
for aerial fire suppression operations. The agencies replaced these
aircraft with single engine air tankers (SEAT's) and helicopters.
Eventually eight P-3 Lockheed aircraft were returned to the air tanker
fleet and the agencies were contracting to review the service life of
the remaining air tanker fleet.
What is the status of the reviews of the large air tanker fleet to
determine their operational service life?
Answer. An operational service life for the P2V is currently being
developed by Avenger Aircraft and Services. Contracts for the Douglas
aircraft (DC-4, DC-6, and DC-7) are currently being negotiated.
Question. If the aircraft reviews have been started, when do you
expect a final report on the operational service life of the aircraft?
Answer. A preliminary operational service life is scheduled to be
available on June 1, 2005. This preliminary operational service life
will provide enough information to determine if some aircraft can be
returned to service. A final report will be available when operational
loading data in the wildfire environment has been collected and an
operational service life for the wildfire environment is determined.
Question. Will the final reports on the aircraft service life be
completed before the start of the 2005 wildfire suppression season?
Answer. No.
Question. If the aircraft are not accepted, what are the plans for
replacing the large air-tanker fleet and at what additional cost?
Answer. Short term plans for the 2005 wildfire season call for
replacing large airtankers with helitankers, type I helicopters, and
single-engine airtankers. We anticipate the cost of these resources
will be comparable to 2005 airtanker costs.
Question. What are the long-term plans to modernize the air tanker
fleet?
Answer. Long term plans to modernize the fleet include:
--Contractor-owned and operated aircraft such as the BAe 146 and
Boeing 747.
--Government-owned ex-military aircraft such as the P-3 Orion and the
S-3 Viking operated by contractors as government furnished
equipment.
--Development of a purpose-built airtanker operated by contractors as
government furnished equipment.
Question. What aircraft are being reviewed, what is the timeline to
replace the existing aircraft, and what role will the existing aircraft
companies on contract have in this future organization?
Answer. Aircraft currently under review are ex-military P-3 and S-3
aircraft. Replacement timelines vary from 6-14 months depending on the
aircraft. Roles for existing airtanker companies may include possible
contracts for airtanker conversions, maintenance, and pilot services.
fire suppression costs
Question. The Committee is concerned about the rising costs for
firefighting. The average annual cost of fire suppression for the
Forest Service over the last 5 fiscal years (fiscal year 2000-fiscal
year 2004) has been $958 million. By way of comparison, in the 5 years
prior to that it was only $352 million. In the fiscal year 2005
appropriations bill the Committee included several measures to address
these rising costs, such as putting in place an independent panel to
review expenditures on large fires, and devoting personnel to analyzing
the most efficient means to procure the hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of supplies that are needed by the fire program each year.
Please provide the Committee with an update on how you have
responded to these instructions from the Committee?
Answer. The answer is under review by the USDA's Under Secretary
for Natural Resources and the Environment.
Question. Please describe what level of savings the agency might
expect to achieve by putting these measures in place?
Answer. The agency is not prepared to make a definitive cost saving
estimate, except for individual fires that have been reviewed. Because
all fires are unique, projecting savings from a small sample across all
large fires would not provide the information needed to target specific
cost saving opportunities. However, completion of the cost benefit
analysis and associated implementation strategy, the Office of the
Inspector General's Large Fire Cost review, and the method of supply
analysis should provide the foundation for such an estimate later this
calendar year.
wildland fire outlook for this year
Question. The Committee is very concerned about the drought
conditions that persist in Montana and much of the Interior West and
what that will mean for this year's fire season. Mountain snowpack is
at or near record low levels in parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and
Montana.
What do the agency's fire models predict for this year's fire
season in the Interior West?
Answer. The Wildland Fire Outlook--February through August, 2005 is
per the National Interagency Fire Center's Predictive Services Group,
and was issued January 26, 2005.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The outlook for this year's fire season shows above normal fire
potential in the Pacific Northwest, Northern Rockies, the lower
elevations of the Great Basin, and over much of Florida. Some key
points of the upcoming season include:
--Mountain snow packs are at or near record low levels in portions of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and northwest Wyoming. This
situation, combined with long term drought and vegetation
mortality from insect damage, will increase fire potential in
portions of the West.
--Winter storms have brought heavy rain and snow in California,
Colorado, and the Southwest. This weather will help moderate
the fire season in the mountains but will increase fire
potential in the lower elevations of Nevada, Utah, and the
California deserts, due to heavier concentrations of fine
fuels.
--Florida has been drier than normal so far this winter. This
situation, combined with downed trees from the 2004 hurricanes,
will lead to the potential for an active fire season.
Question. Nationally, does the Forest Service expect a severe fire
season in 2005?
Answer. Alaska.--Snowpacks are currently running near to well above
normal over most of the state. However, snowpack plays only a small
part in determining the intensity of the summer fire season. At this
time, the fire season outlook calls for equal chances of an above,
below, and normal fire season. If the late spring through June
temperatures turn out to be warmer than normal, then the potential for
an active fire season would increase.
West.--The abundant winter precipitation should result in a later
start and the potential for a less severe fire season in the Southwest.
The areas with the highest fire potential extend from the Cascades
across Idaho and into Montana and northwest Wyoming. This prediction is
primarily due to the very low snowpack and a warmer than normal spring
forecast. However, there are still many unknowns; such as the character
of the snowmelt and summer lightning pattern.
South and East.--In the South, the main area of concern is in
Florida where a dry winter, downed fuel buildup from the hurricanes,
and localized insect mortality have lead to the potential for an active
fire season. The fire season in the East is expected to be normal to
below normal, but may begin earlier than normal. This prediction is due
to below average snow cover in north-central states which could make
fine fuels available for ignition earlier in the season than usual.
off highway vehicle rulemaking
Question.The Chief has identified unmanaged recreation as one of
the four major threats to our national forests. The agency plans to
issue a new national policy dealing with the use of Off Highway
Vehicles (OHV's) in national forests. Obviously, this is an issue which
is very important to many of our constituents who use OHV's.
When does the agency expect to issue a final rulemaking on this
issue?
Answer. The Forest Service hopes to issue a final travel management
regulation in spring 2005.
Question. Does the Forest Service expect the rule to place much
greater restrictions on the use of OHV's?
Answer. The proposed rule would require designation, at the local
level, of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use. Once
designation is complete, the proposed rule would prohibit use of motor
vehicles off the designated system. The proposed rule provides a
national framework for local decisions--which routes and areas are
designated for motor vehicle use would be determined at the local
level, after public involvement and coordination with state, local, and
tribal governments.
The proposed rule represents a shift to a designated system of
routes, rather than open cross-country travel. This shift is called for
due to the expansion of OHV availability and technology. The agency
expects that some existing unauthorized routes would be designated,
thereby increasing the system of managed motor vehicle trails. The
agency anticipates that other existing unauthorized routes will not be
designated, and use on these routes will be prohibited. Determining
which routes fall into each category is a local decision.
Question. What has the agency been hearing from OHV user groups
about the need for a national policy on OHV use?
Answer. The Forest Service received over 81,000 comments on the
proposed regulation, reflecting a wide range of interests and points of
view. Some respondents called for a ban on OHVs on national forests and
grasslands, while others objected to any limits on OHV use. Many
respondents, including several national OHV user groups, endorsed the
concept of managing OHV use on a designated routes basis. Concerns were
expressed about the agency's funding, commitment, and ability to
enforce designations.
need for special firefighting allocation
Question. Last year, the Committee was able to provide a special
allocation of $400 million to deal with the skyrocketing costs of the
firefighting program and the impacts of heavy borrowing. These funds
were available only after the agency had expended all of its regularly
appropriated funds. The agency needed to tap this allocation for $150
million in what was a pretty light fire season compared to what we have
experienced over the last 5 years.
Was having this special allocation effective in terms of preventing
the need to borrow from non-fire accounts?
Answer. The emergency supplemental funding for fire fighting
allowed the agency to execute emergency fire suppression
responsibilities without disrupting other agency programs. As you know
we spent $726 million in fire suppression, which exceeded the amount
appropriated by $125 million. We were able to make use of the emergency
contingency rather than transfer from other appropriated accounts and
helped lessen inefficiency and program disruptions caused by mid-season
fire transfers.
Question. When the agency doesn't have to borrow funds from other
programs is it able to determine how much more of the regular program
of work can get done? For example, was the Forest Service able to offer
more board feet for sale, or treat additional acres for hazardous
fuels?
Answer. To underscore the benefits of avoiding fire transfer we
note that we significantly exceeded key performance targets including
Timber Volume offered (+110 percent), Hazardous fuels acres treated
(+113 percent), Noxious weeds acres treated (+154 percent), Grazing
allotment NEPA (+110 percent), and miles of Roads and Trails maintained
(+152 percent). We do not believe we could have experienced this same
level of performance if we had to transfer funds for Fire Suppression.
Question. Does the agency believe that a similar mechanism is
needed for fiscal year 2006 to prevent the massive borrowing that has
happened in recent years?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006 the President's budget is $700 million
for suppression. The Forest Service will also have any remaining
unobligated balances available for fire suppression. If a severe fire
season occurs in fiscal year 2006 resulting in suppression costs that
exceed available funding, additional funds will be redirected from
other agency programs. The agency is working aggressively to contain
suppression costs by developing effective and efficient wildfire
suppression methodologies that provide for public and firefighter
safety, while striving to minimize the need for transfers from other
programs.
back country airstrips
Question. The Committee has heard concerns that our nation's parks
and forests are being closed off to visitors from the air who utilize
airstrips on public lands known as back country airstrips. These same
airstrips are also critical for pilots flying over rural areas like
Montana, who either encounter an emergency or have to wait out less
than desirable weather.
What is the Forest Service's position as it relates to protecting
aircraft access and for preserving back country airstrips?
Answer. Backcountry airstrips are generally managed for ``emergency
use only'' with the understanding that sporadic use will occur. Over
the years, the Forest Service has recognized that some level of
maintenance is necessary at these airstrips for them to continue to
function as emergency airstrips. Annually, Forest Service staff
inspects each backcountry airstrip to assess current conditions and
determine any maintenance needed to keep them serviceable. Forest Plan
direction provides for continued maintenance of these airstrips in
order to keep them functional.
For example in the State of Idaho, the Forest Service is currently
working closely with the state in several areas. We are working with
the Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Aeronautics and the
Idaho Airstrip Network Steering Committee on an Idaho Airstrip Action
Plan, part of the transportation plan for the entire state, that
includes all backcountry airstrips administered by the Forest Service.
We are working with the Idaho Division of Aeronautics on a landing
strip classification system which will provide the public with basic
information on each landing strip in terms of facilities, maintenance,
and adjacent facilities and activities. We are also working with the
Division of Aeronautics in development of an ``Operations and
Maintenance Plan'' format for landing strips located in the Frank
Church River of No Return Wilderness, leading to a consistent and
collaborative approach in management of these backcountry airstrips.
Question. How many of these airstrips have been closed in the past
5 years?
Answer. The Forest Service has not closed any backcountry airstrips
to public access in the past five years.
Question. Do you have any plans for closing airstrips in the
future?
Answer. At this time, the Forest Service does not have any plans to
close backcountry airstrips.
new fire technologies
Question. The Committee is aware of several new kinds of
technologies that are being tested and considered for wider use by the
fire program. One of these is an enhanced infrared sensor system called
FIREWATCH. Please provide the Committee a more detailed discussion of
the technical aspects of the FIREWATCH system. In particular, describe
the enhanced vision capabilities of the infra red sensors during
moderate to heavy smoke conditions.
Are the mapping capabilities compatible with other software systems
already deployed by the USFS/BLM?
Answer. The FIREWATCH aerial supervision/remote sensing program was
developed to fulfill aerial supervisory needs and improve incident
management situational awareness. The aircraft is a Bell 209 Cobra
helicopter that has been completely rebuilt, rewired, and has all
weapons systems removed. The aircraft is equipped with many integrated,
technologically advanced systems. These systems will assist the Air
Tactical Group Supervisor (ATGS) in supervising aircraft over an
incident, and will also gather and transmit real-time information for
incident management to enhance operational efficiency.
The aircraft is equipped with state-of-the-art high tech systems:
--Two separate infrared sensors
--Digital low light color camera
--Laser range finder
--Laser illuminator
--Type 1 ATGS communication system
--Live infrared sensor, color camera video. And audio are transmitted
through a television quality airborne microwave transmission
system
--ARCGIS (ESRI shape file) interagency fire program compatible
mapping data system
--Real-time satellite map data transmission capability and/or USB
Mass Storage Device
--Geographically referenced inertial navigation system
The FLIR is integrated to work with an Avalex moving-map program
that can display street, topographic, and aeronautical maps. The
infrared sensor provides the capability to see fires through smoke and
haze day or night. Since the infrared imager is integrated with the
onboard mapping system, it is able to very accurately determine the
position of items of interest, which are observed on the ground. By
directing the sensor along the perimeter of a fire the system can
accurately map the fire. Immediate delivery of map data is made
possible through a data transmission kit equipped satellite phone.
Video and infrared data and all cockpit audio are also recorded on an
Avalex system digital video (DVD) recorder. The aircraft is equipped
with a multi-channel microwave transmitter capable of down linking real
time color or infrared camera images to a portable microwave receiver
and/or data recovery van.
FIREWATCH Benefits to Incident Management
Visibility.--The Bell 209 seating arrangement allows the ATGS a
full 300+ degree horizontal and unlimited vertical field of vision.
Maneuverability.--Capability of hovering and slow flight provides
the aerial supervisor a superior platform for analyzing critical
situations. Target determination, reconnaissance, and situational
interpretation are greatly enhanced, therefore allowing more accurate
interpretation of situations for firefighters.
Human Aiding Technology.--First identified by the Tactical Aerial
Research Management Study (TARMS) as a future component to enhance the
aerial supervisory mission, advanced technology provides incident staff
real-time information critical for situational awareness and cost
effective decision-making. Live video (color camera or infrared sensor)
and audio can be sent via microwave to an incident command post for
immediate interpretation by incident staff. Infrared capability allows
the image of a fire's perimeter to be viewed regardless of smoke.
Transmission of map data can be emailed in flight or delivered by
removable hard drive (USB Mass Storage Device). FIREWATCH can deliver a
portable ``briefcase'' downlink receiver; this monitor enables tactical
ground firefighters to receive FIREWATCH live video transmissions while
actually ``on the line''. DVD recordings and map data can be delivered
to incident planning staff for interpretation to determine effective
and efficient fire planning.
Direct Communications.--The helicopters ability to operate locally
and land at an incident provides the opportunity for aerial supervisors
to meet directly with incident staff. Eye-to-eye discussion and
delivery of real-time intelligence can be an invaluable strategic
asset.
Speed.--The Cruise speed of the Bell 209 Cobra is similar to many
fixed wing air tactical aircraft in use today (cruise speed 160 statute
miles per hour), and mission flight endurance of up to 3.3 flight
hours.
Crew Comfort.--A fully functional heating and air conditioning
system reduces fatigue and provides the flight crew a very comfortable
working environment for extended flights.
Cost.--The Bell Model 209 FIREWATCH helicopter provides
capabilities normally provided to incidents by two aircraft for the
cost of one. Normally an aerial supervisory aircraft is ordered for an
incident, and then a second aircraft is ordered to provide remote
sensing information (Aircraft equipped with infrared sensor and/or
mapping capability). Intelligence gathering missions normally do not
require the commitment of an aircraft for a full day, but often, full
day costs are incurred. FIREWATCH is staffed and operated by fully
qualified Air Tactical Group Supervisors (ATGS) that can provide relief
Aerial Supervisory coverage between intelligence gathering missions,
consequently reducing the requirement for a relief ATGS. Occasionally,
smoke inversion may limit aircraft operations, but FIREWATCH helicopter
operations may continue. FIREWATCH can reduce incident costs by
fulfilling helicopter coordinator duties.
Question. In testing, did the real time mapping capabilities meet,
or exceed, expectations?
Answer. In initial testing and in the first season of fielding the
FIREWATCH system, it clearly exceeded expectations. Furthermore,
acquired system improvements will increase speed, integration, and
capabilities of the mapping system. The agency is presently working on
a system that will allow FIREWATCH information to have real time
computer-online capability. This capability will be on web-sites to
fire managers as well as public service for emergency information.
Question. Please provide the Committee a detailed discussion of
other platforms besides helicopters to which the FIREWATCH suite could
be applied and whether the system could be ``modularized'', or shared
between various platforms?
Answer. The FIREWATCH system initially used a military surplus AH-1
Cobra airframe as a surrogate. The AH-1 airframes were readily
available, inexpensive, and could be rapidly outfitted. The focus
throughout the initial fielding was, however, to design a system that
could readily be installed and fielded on any other airborne platform.
As a result, the FIREWATCH system is totally modularized and can be
fielded on practically any other airborne platform. Installation design
provides for readily transferring the system from one aircraft to
another. While installation on a specific aircraft may require FAA
approval, numerous aircraft and airframes will be able to accommodate
FIREWATCH.
Question. What are the comparative costs and cost savings
associated with deployment of the FIREWATCH system on multiple
platforms?
Answer. The comparable equipment cost for the technology suite
installed in the FIREWATCH aircraft will be similar for any aircraft
platform. The conceptual design of the FIREWATCH technology suite
included the objective of compatibility for installation in any future
aerial platform. Cost for research and development have already been
borne in the engineering of the first FIREWATCH aircraft. No further
major development costs would be necessary on other aerial platforms.
Question. To date the FIREWATCH system has only been deployed in R-
5 California but it appears this coming year the heavy fire incidents
are likely to fall in other parts of the west, primarily the Northern,
Intermountain, Pacific and Northwest Regions. Does the agency plan to
test the FIREWATCH system in these other parts of the country?
Answer. Yes. FIREWATCH is considered to be a national resource
available to any Federal, state, or local agency. FIREWATCH recently
responded to a request from the Department of the Interior, Office of
Surface Mining, to determine locations of underground coal seam fires
with its infrared sensor and mapping systems.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
forest legacy
Question. In fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005, how many
applications did the Forest Service receive for Forest Legacy proposals
and what was the total dollar amount requested? For each of these
years, how many applications was the Forest Service able to fund?
Answer. Below is a table identifying the number and funding level
for all proposed and funded projects for fiscal year 2003, 2004, and
2005, including new state start-ups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Year Amount of Number Amount
proposals proposals funded appropriated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................... 129 $229,371,725 43 $64,682,000
2004.................................................... 119 265,375,541 44 \1\ 67,298,000
2005.................................................... 81 162,026,975 39 \2\ 59,496,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of which $6,914,000 is from prior year funds.
\2\ Of which $7,198,000 is from prior year funds.
northern forest lands council--northeast state foresters association
reporting
Question. Last year was the tenth anniversary of the publication of
the Northern Forest Lands Council's ``Finding Common Ground: Conserving
the Northern Forest.'' The Forest Service was instrumental in convening
the Council and publishing the report. It also has been the key federal
partner in implementing the report's recommendations. The Northeast
State Foresters Association published a report assessing the region's
progress in meeting those recommendations. Is the Forest Service
following up on that assessment and how can the Forest Service help the
region address recommendations that NEFA identified as unmet?
Answer. The Forest Service's Northeastern Area (NA) office has been
integrally involved in the efforts spearheaded by NEFA (North East
State Foresters Association) at the ten year anniversary of the
original Northern Forest Lands Council report. In these efforts NEFA
analyzed changed conditions in the Northern Forest region, assessed how
well the original 37 recommendations had been implemented, and
recommended what still needed to be done.
In the last two years NA provided NEFA 4 grants totaling $89,900 to
do the assessment and the subsequent follow-up work. That $89,900 was
matched with $89,900 in nonfederal contributions. In addition NA has
provided a liaison on the NEFA team, the field representative from its
Durham, NH Field Office. NEFA has not yet published the final
assessment but will shortly. The most recent grant provides NESFA
$35,000 in funds, matched with an equal amount of nonfederal support,
to publish, distribute, and spread the word about the assessment,
including briefing the 4 governors (Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, and
New York) who named team members to the assessment ``Forum'' working
group. The Forest Service's Durham Field Office public affairs
specialist will assist NEFA in designing and implementing an outreach
strategy to notify the public that the assessment is complete.
As the draft NEFA report notes, the assessment efforts at the 10th
year anniversary were done with a tiny fraction of the dedicated $5
million in federal, state, and other resources that attended the
original Northern Forest Land Council's work. NA will continue to
support the work of NEFA, within the limits of its annually
appropriated funding in programs such as Forest Stewardship, Economic
Action Programs, Forest Health, and Urban and Community Forestry.
The draft assessment report recommends that the governors of Maine,
New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York embark on an initiative that
provides a sustained focus on the challenges and opportunities common
to the Northern Forest geographies of the 4 states.
Recommendation 1.--Invest public and private resources to develop
and implement community and economic development strategies across the
region to reinvigorate the rural economies of the Northern Forests.
Recommendation 2.--Continue public and private investment in
conservation and forest stewardship efforts.
Recommendation 3.--Support private forest landowners in practicing
sustainable forest management while encouraging public access to
private land for recreation.
Recommendation 4.--Create a collaborative regional effort to ensure
the implementation of the initiatives in the assessment report with the
governors initiating a continuing coordinating mechanism to provide a
sustained focus on the challenges and opportunities common to the
Northern Forest geographies of the four states.
The scope of such an initiative far exceeds the expected program
funding the Forest Service receives in the applicable programs.
However, we will continue to address unmet needs identified in the
Northern Forest Lands Council 10th Anniversary Forum Final Report a bit
at a time as provided by our current levels of program funding.
green mountain national forest land acquisition
Question. The Forest Service has recommended that $400,000 be
reprogrammed from the Green Mountain National Forest's land acquisition
account for other projects outside the Forest. How will this
reprogramming affect the Green's land acquisition program? In
particular, are there pending projects that will be delayed because of
the reprogramming or lack of funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2005, Public Law 108-447, reduced the Land Acquisition program's
unobligated balances by $11million. The Eastern Region's share of this
reduction was $1.9 million. The Region analyzed each Forest's carryover
balances and proportionately assessed those forests that could not
expend all of their carryover balance during fiscal year 2005. It was
determined that the Green Mountain National Forest's contribution to
the reduction would be $400,468 based on equitable forest shares of
available carryover within the Region. It is not expected that this
assessment will delay any pending projects in fiscal year 2005 on the
Green Mountain.
northeastern research station budget
Question. What is the impact of the President's fiscal year 2006
budget recommendation for the Northeastern Research Station,
particularly in the area of recreation research?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for the
Northeastern Research Station proposes no recreation research. Funding
is directed to higher priority programs such as Forest Inventory and
Analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
leafy spurge
Question. In fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, the Interior
bills contained $300,000 for leafy spurge control in North Dakota in an
effort to address the weed problem on the grasslands. Last year, for
fiscal year 2005, that amount was increased to $350,000.
Please tell the committee what progress has been made thus far with
these funds? For example, how many acres have been treated? Which
entities have been doing this work? And how many more acres remain to
be treated?
Answer. Along with Forest Service staff, the following entities
have participated in the treatment of noxious weeds: Sheyenne Valley,
Little Missouri, McKenzie County and Grand River Grazing Associations;
Billings, McKenzie, Slope, Golden Valley, Ransom and Richland County
Weed Control Boards; Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, State of North
Dakota, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Most of the treatment of
noxious weeds through chemical application has been by the Grazing
Associations and County Weed Control Crews. The Forest Service has been
most heavily involved in the movement of leafy spurge beetles and other
methods of weed control.
The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) noxious weed program is an
integrated approach to weed suppression and eradication, and includes
herbicide control, biological control, goat and sheep grazing,
mechanical and re-vegetative treatments, and education and prevention.
In 2002, 13,694 acres of noxious weeds were treated across the DPG. In
2003, 16,536 acres were treated, and in 2004, 10,958 acres were
treated. Future treatment needs cannot be accurately described in terms
of acres remaining to treat. The target species is aggressive and
persistent, and a long-term treatment strategy involving successive
treatments over an extended period is most effective. The DPG is
working on a definitive weeds inventory; but it requires time and
funding to implement. The benefits of fully implementing this type of
inventory needs to be weighed against diverting funds from immediate
treatment needs.
Question. I am also concerned that this work is not going to be
continued in fiscal year 2006. Under the President's request, the
Vegetation and Watershed account is up by $4.1 million, but your budget
justification doesn't specify any set amount for leafy spurge control
on the grasslands. Does the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request
contain the $350,000 needed to continue this work?
Answer. The war on weeds will be a part of our program in fiscal
year 2006 and well into the future. Leafy spurge is a very difficult
species to eradicate. Older plants will be the focus of non-chemical
suppression efforts, such as goat grazing, while young/new infestations
are targeted for aggressive herbicide control. Biological control will
also be used to reduce and control spurge populations.
grazing allotments
Question. The Forest Service is in the process of completing its
scientific review of grazing allotments on the Dakota Prairie
Grasslands (DPG). The Scientific Review Team's final report is due out
in the near future and early estimates predict grazing activities on
the grasslands could be cut by 15 to 35 percent.
One of the reasons associated with the sharp cuts is that the
management planning strategy has moved from livestock emphasis to
ecosystem restoration. The management plan emphasis is included in the
Dakota Grassland Plan and the move from a livestock emphasis to an
ecosystem restoration plan has already been appealed by the ranchers
and the ranchers lost. I believe we can have both and that developing
an appropriate management plan is not an either/or proposition.
Often ranchers get unfairly criticized for what those in some
sectors refer to as ``abusing the land.'' However, as someone familiar
with ranching, I think the ranchers themselves are the best people to
ensure that the land they graze remains environmentally sound because
it directly affects their livelihoods and economic situations.
Recently the Forest Service proposed a new rule that would put
social and economic interests on the same level as environmental
interest when developing management plans. I believe this common-sense
approach is needed because too often we dismiss economic and social
consequences that impact local towns and communities.
My question is this: Will the Forest Service review the DPG
Management Plan, taking into account social and economic impacts, as
described in the new rule? And if not, why not?
Answer. The National Forest Management Act requires consideration
of social and economic aspects in planning. The current Dakota Prairie
Grassland (DPG) Management Plan was completed under the 1982 planning
rule. At the time of the DPG's plan revision these elements were
considered and displayed.
The new planning rule provides an option for national forests and
national grasslands to amend a plan under the 1982 rule for three more
years. Therefore, any conditions that may precipitate a plan revision
or amendment on the DPG would take into account social and economic
impacts regardless of which planning rule is followed.
As a final point, any future project-level planning would need to
consider social and economic impacts on a site-specific basis,
regardless of which rule the plan was written under.
firefighting borrowing
Question. For several years in a row, Congress has not appropriated
enough money for fighting fires. As a result, the Forest Service was
forced to borrow money from its non-firefighting accounts to supplement
the firefighting budget. Congress was then forced to come back and
reimburse the Service for its extra costs. Not only is that an
extremely inefficient way of doing business, but since we have not
reimbursed the full amount that was borrowed, some of the Service's
programs were being cut to absorb the difference.
This past year, fiscal year 2005, Congress addressed the problem by
adding $394 million for fire suppression activities, in addition to the
$649 million in the base account. The president's budget is seeking an
increase of $51 million in suppression funds for fiscal year 2006, but
that still puts the request at only $700 million. That's at the 10-year
average, but I'm concerned with what happens if next year turns out to
be another $1 billion plus fire year. What other proposals does the
Forest Service have to help alleviate this problem?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005 the agency has approximately $1.2
billion available for emergency suppression. This amount includes an
annual appropriation of $649 million; supplemental appropriations of
$394 million; and carryover from fiscal year 2004 of $313 million, less
a $149 million pay back to K-V. We anticipate this amount will be
sufficient for fiscal year 2005. In fiscal year 2006 the President's
budget is $700 million. The Forest Service will also have any
unobligated balances available following the fiscal year 2005 fire
season. If a severe fire season occurs in fiscal year 2006 resulting in
suppression costs that exceed the funding available, additional funds
will be redirected from other agency programs. The agency is working
aggressively to contain suppression costs to developing effective and
efficient wildfire suppression that provides for public and firefighter
safety, and striving to minimize the need for transfers from other
programs.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Burns. I thank the members for attending this
morning. I thank the panel for appearing this morning. The
subcommittee will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m.,
Thursday, March 10, in room SD-124. At that time we will hear
testimony from the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the
Interior.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., Thursday, March 3, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday,
March 10.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:29 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Cochran, Allard, Dorgan,
Leahy, and Feinstein.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS
Senator Burns. We will call the subcommittee to order.
We have got a lot of work going on this morning. We have
got a couple of members here who are in the middle of markups,
and we have got markups along with those fellows over there.
I am going to forego my opening statement right now. The
chairman of the full committee is here. I guess not the full
committee. But Mr. Stevens is here.
Because he has a markup starting over in Commerce, where
Senator Dorgan and I are supposed to be in a little bit, and
then you have got a markup in Budget, and I understand that is
taking up your time for Senator Allard.
So I will call on Mr. Stevens, if you have an opening
statement and want something for the record, you are free to do
that at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I accept your
yielding to me on a matter of age. All right?
Senator Burns. I was afraid to say that.
Senator Stevens. Madam Secretary, I will see you later this
afternoon, but I have come over to specifically put in the
record some questions I would ask you to respond to. I am
really very seriously worried about the budget and how it
affects my State. As I told you, we had 703 fires totaling 6.5
million acres that burned last year, and the effort to fight
those fires was just absent. So I would hope that you respond
to that.
The other thing that worries me considerably is--you know,
most of my friends here do not understand this, but I was one
of the original co-sponsors of the Endangered Species Act. We
have listed the spectacled eider and the Stellers eider. These
two species have now been listed as threatened, but the money
for dealing with endangered species and threatened species in
Alaska is reduced by $1 million. I just do not understand that.
I do not ask you to answer now, but I just hope you would
answer for the record and work with us as we try to correct
some of these things.
We are besieged this year more than ever before with
attacks because of our pork, the add-ons, the changes we make
in the budget. I think we need to reprioritize the budget and I
hope you will assist us in this regard to take care some of the
meaningful problems in our States.
I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Senator Allard, you are in the middle of a
markup upstairs right now, I guess.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. We are and actually we have moved it over
to the Capitol because we have a lot of votes this morning too
on the floor.
I just want to personally welcome the Secretary here. We go
back a ways in Colorado. I just want to state for the record I
think she is doing a great job and have appreciated working on
many issues very important to Colorado and the western States.
There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to be a
very tight budget year. While we go through this budget on
Interior, I think we have to be very deliberative and very
careful the way we move forward on that. I want to be a
positive force in our efforts to make sure that we can restrain
spending. We need to do that because of the deficit
accumulation, but also we need to do it very thoughtfully.
So I just wanted to welcome her briefly and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. This is my first subcommittee and I am looking
forward to working with you and the other members, Mr.
Chairman, and I will submit my full statement for the record.
Thank you very much.
Senator Burns. Without objection, that statement will be
made part of the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Wayne Allard
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today. I am
pleased to have a chance to discuss the projected budget for the
Department of Interior. I'd like to extend a special welcome to
Secretary Norton. Gale and I go way back, and I think that she has done
an exceptional job in handling an agency that is very important to
Colorado, and the nation.
Specifically I want to thank you for the work that you, and the
rest of the Administration, have done to protect state water rights,
and to foster an atmosphere of cooperation--rather than oppressive
mandates--with regard to the potential listing of ``endangered
species.''
We all know that this is going to be a tough budget year. The
President had difficult decisions to make in his projected budget
request. While I realize that difficult adjustments must be made, I
think that we must be careful and deliberative when making these
adjustments.
I am going to have to leave early to participate in the Budget
Committee mark-up, but I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the rest of the Committee, to see that worthy projects
and programs continue to be funded in a responsible manner.
Senator Burns. I have got a short statement here that I
will open up with this morning and I will turn to my friend
from North Dakota.
Good morning and welcome, Madam Secretary, to this
subcommittee.
The budget, it looks like, presents several challenges, as
you have heard from two members of this committee. Like most
agencies in Government, you have been charged by your President
and his eyeshades over at OMB to write a budget that helps
reduce the size of the deficit. I do not envy your task, even
though it is an important one. Neither do I envy the task that
lies before this subcommittee, as we begin to put the
appropriations bill together.
The bottom line is that the request under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction is about $600 million below last
year's discretionary spending, and that is without factoring in
hundreds of millions of dollars that it takes just to keep pace
with pay increases and other fixed costs. Maybe we better start
looking down there and see how much dead wood you have got
around the Department of the Interior to find some savings. If
you can find some, I would appreciate any information that you
could forward to this subcommittee. But our fixed costs total
about $159 million in the Department of the Interior alone.
All of this translates into some pretty stark math within
your request. You have elected to zero out the Land and Water
Conservation Fund State assistance program for a savings of
around $90 million. You have reduced Payments in Lieu of Taxes
by $27 million. You have reduced funding for a variety of
Indian education programs, such as Tribally Controlled
Community Colleges and the Johnson-O'Malley grants. And you
have proposed to terminate the rural fire assistance program,
cut in half the Save America's Treasures program, and reduce by
$28 million the Mineral Resource programs within the U.S.
Geological Survey.
I do not say all this to imply that cutting or terminating
programs is necessarily bad. Obviously, we have to make some
tough choices in order to control Federal spending and weed out
the programs that are not working so well. I think what we are
interested in is what is behind the choices that you have made.
Your budget also made room for a number of significant
increases. Funding for historical accounting of Indian trust
accounts is up $78 million. Let me sort of have a little word
about this. I do not know whether we are getting anywhere or
not. This looks like we are just pouring money down a black
hole, and between you and judges and everything else, it has
got most of us up here on the Hill sort of confused.
You have asked for an additional $21 million for Private
Stewardship and Landowner Incentive programs, $58 million for
abandoned mine lands, and $20 million for the troubled LANDSAT
program. You have requested $12.5 million for a new Preserve
America program.
What we hope to achieve today is a better understanding of
why some of these items were viewed as higher priorities than
those that were cut. I do not anticipate that the budget
resolution that Congress will soon adopt will provide any great
relief to this committee. So I will have to wrestle with many
of these same questions and tradeoffs. We hope that you can
help us with your testimony and as we work in the weeks ahead
to come down with a budget and appropriation that we can live
with. So I would appreciate your being as candid as you
possibly can in this area.
I want to thank you again because I certainly appreciate in
the past that we have worked together on many programs and we
have worked our way through them. I appreciate that
cooperation. But we seriously have a huge challenge ahead of us
today.
By the way, I will give you some idea of what is ahead of
us today from a time standpoint. These are the questions. There
are four questions on each page. So I hope you have maybe
packed a lunch or something. We will work our way through it.
Now I would turn to my good friend and ranking member on
this committee, Senator Dorgan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, welcome.
The chairman has raised a number of issues that I would
also echo. I think funding for tribal colleges, the
recommendation really just retracts the last 2 years of
progress that we have made, zeroing out the funding for the
United Tribes Technical College, a college which you visited in
Bismarck, and also Crownpoint in New Mexico is something I
certainly do not support.
The cuts in funding in a number of areas. Payments in Lieu
of Taxes, for example, I think is difficult and troublesome.
There are just a number of areas I think that we need to work
through.
I do not understand this historic preservation fund called
Preserve America. You are cutting heritage area funding. You
are cutting Save America's Treasures funding, and then to
create a new essentially non-Federal program with Federal money
to accomplish the same goals. My guess is, my hope is that we
will strike that as we did last year.
We want the Agency to do well. I notice in your testimony
you anticipate opening ANWR to drilling. Let me just make an
observation about that. Every 25 years or so we go through this
angst about an energy plan and our response to it is to dig and
drill. So every 25 years, we will select some other pristine
spot and drill there and dig someplace else, and we will not
have enhanced our country's energy future at all. We need to
move to a different construct for energy.
But I think, as you know, the issue of drilling in ANWR is
controversial. I respect those who support drilling in ANWR,
but I personally think all that does is just repeats the same
old, tired arguments that we do every 25 years that never
actually makes America less vulnerable. We are more vulnerable
than ever. Now 60 percent of our oil comes from off our shores,
much of it from troubled parts of the world. The solution is
not to drill in ANWR. The solution is to go to a hydrogen fuel
cell economy and stop running gasoline through carburetors. The
President has taken a baby step in that direction which I
support. I would support a much more aggressive and bold step.
There is a lot in this budget to chew on, as the chairman
indicated. We want to work with you. We want the Department of
the Interior to do well, to function effectively and
efficiently. I hope that perhaps we can spend a little time
talking about our trust responsibility with respect to Indian
education as well at this hearing.
But as the chairman indicated, we are going to have
probably an abbreviated hearing because of a markup going on in
the Commerce Committee.
But, Madam Secretary, you have been doing this now for some
long while. We are glad you are back with us and look forward
to talking to you about these issues. Ms. Scarlett, and is it
Mr. Trezise?
Mr. Trezise. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you for being with us as well.
Senator Burns. Thank you very much.
Senator Leahy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I will have questions. I could
not help but think when Senator Dorgan was talking about
opening up the Arctic Refuge, they are assuming $2.4 billion
from lease sales. I will be interested in hearing how much you
are going to sell it for. We did a quick calculation. To make
that, you would have to be selling these leases for around
$4,000 to $6,000 an acre on the North Slope. I think they have
averaged around $50 per acre. So I will ask the specific
question just how you reach that amount.
Also I will have questions on the fisheries budget because
I notice that, notwithstanding a very clear congressional
requirement, you have cut back very considerably from what the
Republicans and Democrats on this committee and the Congress
had voted for. But I will hold those for the questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Madam Secretary, we look forward to hearing your statement
and, once again, welcome to the subcommittee.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON
Secretary Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I am happy to be here this morning
along with Lynn Scarlett who is our Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget and our nominee for Deputy
Secretary, as well as John Trezise who heads our budget
operations.
COBELL LITIGATION
Before highlighting our priorities, I would like to provide
some information about the Cobell litigation. We received a
ruling on February 23 from Judge Royce Lamberth. He
reinstituted the injunction that he issued in September 2003.
It ordered the Department of the Interior to perform an
expansive accounting of individual Indian trust accounts and
assets. This order requires us to go back to 1887 to verify
every single transaction that has taken place since that time.
This undertaking involves finding and indexing millions of
canceled checks, invoices, leases, ledgers, and other
documents. It is the equivalent of going back to your great
grandfather's financial accounts and trying to find every piece
of paper that underlies those transactions.
Many of the necessary documents are currently housed in
Federal archive facilities. Many other records are held by
those who have leased Indian lands like oil and gas companies,
timber companies, farmers, and ranchers. The judge has ordered
us to develop a plan for subpoenaing these records from the
private sector.
Other records are held by Indian tribes or individual
Indians. These records will presumably also need to be
acquired.
We would need to index and electronically image these
documents so they can be effectively used by the accountants.
The Department has estimated that the total cost of this
accounting work would be $10 billion to $12 billion. That
includes no payments to anyone. That is just purely for the
accounting work. To put that in perspective, the entire annual
budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs is $2.2 billion. Though
our budget contains an increase to carry out the Department's
plan for historical accounting, the Department's budget was
obviously not constructed to address these requirements for
2005 or 2006.
As you may recall, the September 2003 order from Judge
Lamberth was stayed by the Court of Appeals and by a
congressional appropriations rider. The Court of Appeals later
held that the congressional action invalidated Judge Lamberth's
2003 order, but it declined to address the underlying merits of
Judge Lamberth's order.
We are working with the Department of Justice on the
courses of action that are available to us. It is my
understanding that we have filed a motion for stay with the
Court of Appeals.
TRUST MANAGEMENT AND HISTORICAL ACCOUNTING
Our efforts to improve trust management and to do
historical accounting have necessarily been a high priority. We
have a chart that shows the Department's combined
appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office
of Special Trustee which have increased 8 percent during our
term, compared to 2 percent growth in the Department's overall
budget. Within these agencies, programs directly related to
trust have increased by 97 percent.
The chart we have here shows that the unified trust budget
is now 24 percent of the combined spending in Indian country,
as compared to 1996 when it was 9 percent.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The 2006 budget proposes $591 million for Indian trust
management. Interior is aggressively pursuing historical
accounting activities. Our results to date indicate that there
are differences involving both overpayments and underpayments,
but they tend to be infrequent and small. A net of about $1.5
million in differences has been found, involving a throughput
of over $15 billion, which includes both tribal and individual
funds. That is considerably less than the amount of funding we
have spent to identify those discrepancies.
There is a vast gap between our findings in looking at the
historical accounting and our legal positions about what types
of accounts and how far back in history we should go, compared
to the plaintiffs' allegations that we owe $176 billion. The
vast difference has made ordinary settlement elusive.
The litigation focuses to a large degree on what
instructions Congress gave Interior in the 1994 Indian Trust
Fund Management Reform Act and earlier statutes. This situation
perhaps presents an historic opportunity to address this
problem by fixing some longstanding problems in Indian country
like fractionated land ownership that hampers economic
development. We perhaps have the opportunity to modernize
antiquated arrangements that cause us to spend over $100 to
manage an account with 50 cents or spend an average of $5,000
per probate for probate accounts with as little as 11 cents.
I am pleased that Chairmen McCain and Pombo are making this
a high priority and I hope that the appropriators will also
continue their interest so that we can reach a bipartisan
solution.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Beyond Indian trust responsibilities, Interior's mission is
multi-faceted and complex. Our overall 2006 request for
programs is slightly less than 1 percent below the 2005 level.
Our proposed budget continues the funding provided for park
operations in 2005 and funds fixed costs. At the level proposed
in our 2006 budget, park operations funding will be 25 percent
higher than in 2001.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HERITAGE TOURISM
In addition to enjoying outdoor recreation on public lands,
more and more Americans are visiting historical and cultural
sites. The National Park Service offers several programs that
focus on historic preservation and heritage tourism. The 2006
budget contains $66 million for historic preservation and
heritage tourism including $12.5 million for Preserve America.
Initiated by the President and First Lady, Preserve America
recognizes community efforts to develop sustainable uses for
their sites and to develop economic and educational
opportunities related to heritage tourism. To date, over 200
communities in 34 States have been designated as Preserve
America communities.
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Interior is one of the few Federal agencies that takes in
more money than it spends. The key generator of revenue is
responsible energy development. In 2006, Interior will help
meet America's energy needs by providing appropriate access for
exploration and development on Federal lands and portions of
the Outer Continental Shelf, expediting permitting and rights-
of-way processing and encouraging development and use of clean,
renewable energy. The 2006 budget provides $530 million for
energy programs through appropriations and user fees, an
increase of $22 million.
The budget assumes enactment of legislation to open the
1002 area of the coastal plain in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. The U.S.
Geological Survey estimates that the entire ANWR assessment
area contains a mean of 10.4 billion barrels of technically
recoverable oil. That is a very significant amount.
We have a chart that shows the estimate for the ANWR area
in comparison with other onshore areas. The ANWR area is the
column that is furthest to the left. It is far larger than any
of the other areas, and yet the geographic area is far, far
smaller. The potential daily production from this area alone is
larger than the current daily onshore oil production of any
other State. The currently available estimates project that
$2.4 billion in revenue will come from the first bonus bid
lease sale in 2007. The Congressional Budget Office recently
did its own calculations and estimated that sales would produce
bonus bids of $5 billion between 2007 and 2010.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
USER FEES
Consistent with the Government's policy to charge for
Government services where the direct beneficiaries can be
identified, the 2006 budget for the Minerals Management Service
includes $19 million in new fees charged to offshore energy
producers.
The Bureau of Land Management will also increase its fees
to energy companies for onshore permit processing from $2
million in 2005 to $11 million in 2006. The proposed BLM energy
budget would enable them to reduce the backlog of applications
for permits to drill pending over 60 days from nearly 1,700 to
120 by the end of 2006.
COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION
Protecting wildlife and habitat is one of Interior's most
important functions. Over the past 4 years, Interior has
promoted cooperative conservation by joining with citizen
stewards to conserve open space, restore habitat for wildlife,
and protect endangered and at-risk species. We are supporting
these conservation efforts through grant and cost-sharing
programs that emphasize local initiatives and partnerships.
From 2002 through 2005, our conservation partnership programs
have provided $1.7 billion for conservation investments, and
that is shown on this chart. As you can see, we have
significantly increased the grant programs for conservation.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
In the first 3 years of President Bush's administration,
for example, we restored, protected, or enhanced over 1.4
million acres of prairie and upland habitat through just two of
these conservation programs: our Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program and our Coastal program.
The 2006 budget includes $379 million for cooperative
conservation grant and challenge cost-share programs. These
grant programs help us protect wildlife and habitat alongside
productive farming and ranching. They support conservation
efforts that help avoid the need to list species as endangered
or find cooperative ways to recover endangered species.
ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION
The Department of the Interior also does restoration work
to reclaim abandoned mine lands. Today more than 3 million
Americans still live less than 1 mile from dangerous abandoned
coal mines. We want to work with Congress to update the Surface
Mining Act. Our 2006 budget facilitates congressional action by
providing money to expedite cleanup of high priority sites, but
also providing $58 million to fairly address longstanding
commitments to States and tribes that have already achieved
their reclamation goals. The administration's approach would
remove risk to 140,000 people annually.
WILDLAND FIRE
Interior is also reducing risks to communities adjacent to
public forests and rangelands that face potential for
catastrophic wildfires. Through the President's Healthy Forests
Initiative and the bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act,
we are reducing hazardous fuels, thinning trees and brush, and
removing dead wood and invasive plants. Over the past 4 years,
together with the Forest Service, we have thinned about 12
million acres of public lands. The 2006 budget provides an
increase of $10 million for hazardous fuel reduction projects.
Working with the Forest Service, we expect to complete more
than 4 million acres of projects in 2006.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Stewardship contracting provides a new kind of partnership
enabling those working with us to retain wood products in
exchange for the service of thinning trees, underbrush, and
other vegetation. This public/private partnership helps us
expand our ability to address hazardous fuels.
SCIENCE
Science is a foundation for the Department's land
management decisions, supporting all of our activities. The
U.S. Geological Survey budget includes an increase of $20
million in land remote sensing to continue to collect and
archive satellite imagery of the United States. The 2006 budget
proposes $5 million for the USGS to work in partnership with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enhance
our tsunami early warning system to protect U.S. coastal
residents in the States and territories.
MANAGEMENT EXCELLENCE
I want to conclude my discussion by briefly addressing our
efforts to manage Interior more effectively and efficiently.
Behind all of our programs, out of the limelight, rests a
management foundation through which we strive to improve
program efficiency. The Financial Business and Management
System will integrate financial management, procurement,
property management, and other systems. Today we have over 120
different property databases and 26 different financial
management systems. Our managers often operate with dozens of
different information management systems, each needing
different passwords and training. The 2006 budget includes $24
million for the new system, an increase of $10 million.
Ultimately we anticipate being able to eliminate some 80
different information systems, saving us time and money.
Through this and other innovations, our bureaus work hard to
achieve management excellence.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Our 2006 budget supports our vision of healthy lands and
waters, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. We look
forward to working with Congress to advance these goals. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gale A. Norton
Good morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss the fiscal year
2006 budget for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals.
The Department of the Interior's mission is complex and
multifaceted. Our 70,000 employees contribute to the Nation's
environmental quality, economic vitality, and the well being of
communities. Our mission encompasses resource protection, resource use,
recreation, and scientific, educational, and other services to
communities.
The Department's geographically dispersed responsibilities are
inspiring and sometimes challenging. Through our programs, we have
close connections to America's lands and people. We protect some of the
Nation's most significant cultural, historic, and natural places. We
provide access to resources to help meet the Nation's energy and water
needs, while protecting natural and cultural resources. We provide
recreation opportunities to over 477 million people annually on our
parks, refuges, and other public lands. We serve communities through
science, wildland firefighting, and law enforcement. We fulfill trust
and other responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska natives, and the
Nation's affiliated island communities.
Four principles shape our 2006 budget. First is the power of
partnerships to leverage resources and achieve results. Second is the
imperative of fiscal constraint to maintain a dynamic economic context.
Third is an emphasis on investments that will help Interior work
smarter, more efficiently, and more effectively. Fourth is the
importance of funding activities and programs linked to core
Departmental responsibilities.
budget overview
Performance lies at the center of the President's 2006 budget
request. The President's proposal also demonstrates the fiscal
restraint necessary to halve the deficit by 2009 and maintain the
Nation's dynamic economy.
The 2006 budget request for current appropriations is $10.8
billion. Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of
existing legislation without further action by the Congress will
provide an additional $4.2 billion, for a total 2006 Interior budget of
$15 billion.
For programs funded by this Subcommittee, the 2006 request includes
$9.8 billion, a decrease of $69.7 million, or 0.7 percent below the
2005 level. Excluding contingent emergency fire funding provided in
2005, the 2006 request is an increase of $28.9 million or 0.3 percent
over 2005.
The budget projects receipts collected by the Department in 2006 to
be $13.8 billion, an increase of $914 million and equivalent to 141
percent of the Department's current appropriations request to this
Subcommittee.
Interior manages over 500 million acres and some 40,000 facilities
at 2,400 locations. These responsibilities engage Interior as a
principal manager of real property and other assets that require
ongoing maintenance, direct services to public lands visitors, and
ongoing activities to ensure public access, use, and enjoyment. As a
result, a key goal of the Department's 2006 budget is to fund pay
increases and other nondiscretionary cost increases for health
benefits, workers and unemployment compensation payments, rental
payments for leased space, and operation of centralized administrative
and business systems. Providing for these costs will allow the
Department to maintain basic services while continuing to improve
efficiency and effectiveness to better serve the public.
The budget includes $158.6 million for nondiscretionary, fixed-cost
increases. Of this total, nearly three-quarters, or $115.7 million,
funds higher pay costs. The budget assumes a January 2006 pay increase
of 2.3 percent.
Our budget also includes a number of key initiatives that will help
us achieve our goals. Key activities include our efforts to:
--Pursue responsible energy development;
--Expand opportunities for cooperative conservation;
--Enhance recreation opportunities on Interior lands;
--Increase forest and rangeland health;
--Continue the clean up of abandoned mine lands;
--Advance trust reform; and
--Reduce risks resulting from natural disasters.
In his February 2 State of the Union Address, the President
underscored the need to restrain spending in order to sustain our
economic prosperity. As part of this restraint, it is important that
total discretionary and non-security spending be held to levels
proposed in the 2006 budget. The budget savings and reforms in the
budget are important components of achieving the President's goal of
cutting the budget deficit in half by 2009 and we urge the Congress to
support these reforms. The 2006 budget includes more than 150
reductions, reforms, and terminations in non-defense discretionary
programs, of which four involve Interior programs. The Department wants
to work with the Congress to achieve these savings.
energy development
ANWR Exploration and Development.--Our 2006 budget continues our
quest to achieve healthy lands and water, thriving communities, and a
dynamic economy. Predictable, readily available supplies of energy at
reasonable costs underlie both community well-being and economic
action.
In 2006, with Congress' assistance, Interior will help meet energy
needs by providing appropriate access for exploration and development
of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
portions of the Outer Continental Shelf; expediting permitting and
rights-of-way processing; and encouraging development and use of clean,
renewable energy.
Interior's 2006 budget provides $530 million for energy programs
through annual appropriations and user fees, an increase of $22
million.
The budget assumes enactment of legislation to open a portion of
the coastal plain in the ANWR to oil and gas exploration and
development, with the first lease sale planned for 2007. The U.S.
Geological Survey estimates that a mean expected volume of 10.4 billion
barrels of technically recoverable oil can be expected if Congress
lifts the ban on development in ANWR. At peak production, daily
production from this area could be larger than the current daily
onshore oil production of Texas.
The budget assumes the first ANWR lease sale would produce an
estimated $2.4 billion in bonus bids in 2007, the same estimate we have
used for several years. It is based on conservative assumptions. The
Congressional Budget Office recently estimated the first lease sale
would produce bonus bids of $4 billion.
ANWR exploration and development would occur within a 1.5 million-
acre area of the 19 million-acre refuge. Actual energy development
would occur on no more than 2,000 acres, or one-hundredth of one
percent of the refuge. Through increased knowledge, experience, and
technological advances, the footprint of energy development will be
dramatically reduced from older development sites on the North Slope.
For example, use of seasonal ice pads for exploration will limit site
disturbance, and extended-reach drilling will reduce the number of
sites by allowing development of over 50 square miles of subsurface
resources from one single point on the surface.
The budget includes $1.6 billion for resource use to better meet
the increasing demands for water resources, to carry out the National
Energy Policy, and to maintain appropriate access to other resources on
public lands. Key initiatives include:
Minerals Management Service.--The 2006 budget proposes $290 million
for MMS, a $12.6 million increase over 2005. This total includes a
request for $167.4 million in annual appropriations and $122.7 million
in offsetting collections. The proposed budget will enhance services
and programs that protect the environment and offshore workers. It will
also enhance methods to collect, account for, and disburse revenue from
Federal and American Indian lands. The $12.6 million net increase
compared to 2005 includes a $19.0 million increase in offsetting
collections and a $6.4 million decrease in annual appropriations.
BLM Oil and Gas Processing.--The 2006 budget will increase the
Bureau of Land Management energy and minerals program from an estimated
2005 funding level of $108.5 million in appropriations and user fees to
a 2006 funding level of approximately $117.6 million. This net increase
will enable BLM to accelerate the processing time for applications-for-
permits-to-drill and reduce the permit application backlog pending for
over 60 days from 1,681 to 120 by the end of 2006.
resource protection
The 2006 budget calls for $2.6 billion for resource protection
programs that improve the health of landscapes and watersheds, sustain
biological communities, and protect cultural and natural heritage
resources. In August 2004, President Bush signed an Executive Order on
Cooperative Conservation requesting that agencies strengthen efforts to
work cooperatively with States, Tribes, local governments, and others
to achieve conservation goals.
Over the past four years, the Interior Department has encouraged
cooperative conservation through various grant programs, administrative
actions, and policies. These efforts emphasize innovation, local
action, and private stewardship. They achieve conservation goals while
maintaining private and local land ownership. They foster species
protection through land management and cooperative, on-the-ground
habitat improvements, complementing traditional funding of ESA
regulatory programs.
Key initiatives in resource protection include:
Cooperative Conservation Programs.--Through partnerships, Interior
works with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across
the Nation and to benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges,
and other public lands. The 2006 budget includes $381.3 million for the
Department's cooperative conservation programs. These programs leverage
limited Federal funding, typically providing a non-Federal match of 50
percent or more. They provide a foundation for cooperative efforts to
protect endangered and at-risk species; engage local communities,
organizations, and citizens in conservation; foster innovation; and
achieve conservation goals while maintaining working landscapes.
Our budget proposes funding for the Landowner Incentive and Private
Stewardship programs at a total of $50.0 million, an increase of $21.4
million from 2005. Through these programs, our agencies work with
States, Tribes, communities, and landowners to provide incentives to
conserve sensitive habitats in concert with traditional land management
practices such as farming and ranching, thus maintaining the social and
economic fabric of local communities.
Our budget proposes to fund challenge cost-share programs in BLM,
FWS and NPS at $44.8 million. These cost-share programs better enable
Interior's land management agencies to work together and with adjacent
communities, landowners, and other citizens to achieve common
conservation goals. The 2006 proposal represents an increase of $25.7
million.
The challenge cost-share program includes $21.5 million for
projects that are targeted to natural resource conservation. In 2004,
the Congress provided $21.2 million for these cost-share grants.
Leveraged with matching funds this provided a total of $52 million for
on-the-ground projects including more than $19 million for projects to
eradicate and control invasives and weeds.
For example, in New Mexico, the Bosque del Apache refuge is working
with the local community to restore riparian habitat along the Rio
Grande River by eliminating tamarisk on over 1,100 acres.
We also propose level or increased funding for a suite of other FWS
cooperative programs: the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, the
Coastal program, the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, the North
American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the State and Tribal Wildlife
grants program, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
Fund. These programs support a cooperative approach to conservation
that emphasizes voluntary partnerships with private landowners, local
governments, Tribes, and community organizations.
Sustaining Biological Communities.--Targeted increases in FWS and
BLM will focus new resources on the recovery of endangered, threatened,
and at-risk species and increase interagency efforts to curtail harmful
invasive species. We propose a programmatic increase of $1.9 million
for general activities in the Fish and Wildlife Service ESA recovery
program and $7.0 million in BLM to strengthen and expand efforts to
conserve and restore sagebrush habitat to maintain sage-grouse
populations. An increase of $2.3 million in FWS, BLM, and USGS will
support invasive species work on an eco-regional basis.
Klamath River Basin.--The 2006 budget commits $62.9 million toward
finding long-term solutions to water issues in the Klamath Basin and
proposes an 8.4 percent increase for Interior Department programs in
the basin. In the short-term, water-supply shortages will continue to
present challenges. As of mid-February, the snow pack in the upper
Klamath River basin was 47 percent below average. With depleted
groundwater supplies and expected continued drought conditions, the
risks to endangered and threatened fish in the basin persist. We also
anticipate impacts to the people and communities dependent on the
river, including upper basin irrigators and downstream Indian and
commercial fishermen.
The Bureau of Reclamation is currently putting together a water
bank of over 100,000 acre-feet to help meet water needs this calendar
year for coho salmon. Efforts are also underway to recover listed
species and improve conditions by restoring the water-retention
capability of the riparian and adjacent habitat. The budget request
includes $7.5 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife
program for these efforts; $6.0 million for land acquisition to acquire
the Barnes Tract, which will provide nursery and other habitat for the
endangered fish and increase water in Upper Klamath Lake in most years;
and $1.2 million to fund pumping necessitated by the removal of
Chiloquin Dam, which will improve fish migration and spawning. To move
this project forward, a reprogramming letter proposing to construct the
replacement water system for Chiloquin Dam will be submitted to the
Subcommittee soon.
Finally, the budget request includes $500,000 for a FWS prototype
program to acquire and transfer water rights to the wetlands in the
Klamath Basin refuges. These key wetlands on the Pacific Flyway depend
entirely on return flows from the Klamath Irrigation Project. The
wetlands need a reliable source of clean water as a hedge against
droughts and to provide a base amount of water to which the return
flows can be added.
Everglades Restoration.--Within the 2006 request for NPS
construction is $25 million for the Modified Water Deliveries Project,
a key to restoring natural flows in the Everglades. Under a new
agreement between the Department and the Corps of Engineers, the cost
to complete the project will be shared by NPS and the Corps. The 2006
budget for the Corps includes $35.0 million for the Mod Water project.
Over the period 2007 to 2009, the Corps will contribute an estimated
additional $88.0 million and the NPS an additional $41.0 million. The
2006 NPS contribution consists of $8.0 million in new funding and $17.0
million redirected from unobligated balances for Everglades land
acquisition not currently needed for high-priority acquisitions.
Abandoned Mine Lands.--Today, more than 3 million Americans live
less than 1 mile from dangerous abandoned coalmines. Consistent with
the Administration's 2005 reauthorization proposal for the 1977 Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act, the 2006 budget supports the
Administration's vision to reauthorize the AML program. The
Administration's approach would remove risk to 140,000 people annually.
Our budget provides $147.5 million in AML grants to expedite clean
up of high-priority sites and another $58.0 million in AML grants to
fairly address long-standing commitments to States and Tribes that have
already achieved their reclamation goals. Under the funding formulas in
the 1977 Act, AML funding is increasingly directed to States with
significant coal production, but few, if any, abandoned mines. The
Administration's approach would direct new AML funding to reclaim
unhealthy and unsafe abandoned mines and provide to States that have
already completed mine reclamation repayment of their statutory share
of AML fees collected under the 1977 law.
recreation and historic preservation
Lands and waters managed by Interior offer unparalleled outdoor
recreational opportunities. The bureaus of Land Management,
Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service
manage an inspiring and diverse collection of natural wonders. For
example, in 2003 our National Wildlife Refuges attracted 2.2 million
hunting visits and 6.6 million fishing visits. The FWS looks for
opportunities to add new or expand existing public hunting and fishing
programs. There are currently 308 national wildlife refuges that are
open to hunting and 270 refuges that are open to sport fishing.
Overall, the budget includes $1.3 billion in investments for
recreation programs that will improve visitor services and access to
recreation opportunities.
This total includes an increase of $33 million to respond to
growing demands for recreational activities on public lands, to provide
a safer environment for refuge visitors, and to ensure continuous
enhancements to visitor services at parks. In addition, the budget
provides $82 million in the operating accounts of BLM, FWS, and NPS to
cover increased pay and other fixed costs and maintain existing
performance and service levels to the public.
The Federal Lands Enhancement Recreation Act.--Passed by the 108th
Congress and signed into law by the President on December 8, 2004, the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act will enable Interior land
management agencies to improve recreation and visitor amenities on
public lands. The Act provides a 10-year extension of the recreation
fee program piloted with the Recreation Fee Demonstration program. The
Act establishes important parameters for the program to ensure that
fees are charged only in appropriate locations and revenues are
appropriately spent on infrastructure and services that directly
benefit the public.
The Department is working closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture on key implementation issues, such as development of long-
term, multi-agency fee guidance, and the creation of the new ``America
the Beautiful Pass,'' which will cover entrance and standard amenity
fees for the five agencies authorized under the Act. The Departments
are committed to creating a dynamic program responsive to the public
and Congress during the implementation process.
In 2006, the Department will continue to transition from the
Recreational Demonstration Program to the provisions of the new Act.
Working with the Congress, the Department has established a set of
principles to guide the program during the transition period.
Specifically:
--No new fee areas will be created.
--Agencies will conduct an interim evaluation of existing fee sites
based on the new criteria and prohibitions.
--The Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access Passes, and the
National Park Pass will continue to be sold until the America
the Beautiful Pass is available.
--Existing Golden Eagle, Golden Age, and Golden Access passes and
National Park passes will be ``grandfathered in'' under their
existing benefits and will remain valid until expired.
--Specific site, forest and regional passes, such as southern
California's Forest Service Adventure Pass, will continue to be
available.
The Act includes criteria and directions that address issues raised
by the public and members of Congress regarding recreation fees. For
example, the Act prohibits fees for BLM and the Forest Service for
general access to national forests and grasslands, access to overlooks
and scenic pullouts, and areas with low or no expenditures for
facilities or services. The use of Recreation Resource Advisory
Committees required by the Act will ensure public input on decisions
about expanding the fee program by providing the public and local
communities an opportunity to make recommendations to the BLM or the
Forest Service on specific recreation fee sites and fees. Public notice
and participation provisions will guide the Department's efforts to
conduct a program that is accountable and transparent. Under the Act,
the vast majority of recreation sites will continue to be free.
Park Maintenance Backlog.--Through President Bush's commitment to
address the maintenance backlog in parks, over the past four years more
than 4,000 projects were undertaken to maintain, repair or replace park
facilities. The 2006 budget includes $716.6 million for construction
and park facility maintenance, an increase of $29.0 million. Included
within the increase are an additional $22.2 million for NPS
construction and $3.4 million in the repair and rehabilitation program
to repair high-priority historic buildings. Including funds in the
President's proposal for reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century, total NPS deferred maintenance funding will
exceed $1.1 billion in 2006. The 2006 request will bring funding for
park maintenance over five years to $4.9 billion, as pledged by then-
Governor Bush in 2000.
Preserving Cultural Landscapes.--More and more Americans are
visiting historic and cultural sites across the Nation. In 2002, 81
percent of adults in the United States included at least one cultural,
historic, or heritage activity in their vacation plans. Linking
historic preservation to educational and economic opportunities ensures
sustained commitment to those places that bring alive our nation's
cultures and history.
Through its Preserve America initiative, the Administration is
recognizing and encouraging heritage tourism as a significant economic
development and educational activity. Over 220 localities have been
designated Preserve America Communities, serving as a focus for civic
pride and a catalyst for preservation. The Administration proposes
$12.5 million in competitive grants to encourage community preservation
of our cultural, historic, and natural heritage through education and
heritage tourism.
Overall, the budget proposes $66.2 million for the Historic
Preservation Fund, which includes funding for Preserve America, as well
as $15.0 million for Save America's Treasures, and $38.7 million for
grants to States and Tribes. The budget includes an additional $5.0
million for National Heritage Areas.
serving communities
With its broad-ranging responsibilities, Interior's activities
touch the lives of all Americans. For example:
--Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, the nation's premier earth
sciences agency, generates scientific information that helps
inform decisions about land and water management. Its hazards
monitoring helps reduce risks to communities associated with
earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, mudslides, and volcanoes.
--Through performing its responsibilities to Native Americans, Alaska
natives, and other communities, Interior helps educate children
and enhance the economic well being of these communities.
--Interior's implementation of the President's Healthy Forests
Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is enhancing
forest and rangeland health and reducing risks to communities
from catastrophic fires.
Interior's budget includes $5.1 billion to serve communities by
improving Indian trust management and services to Tribes and individual
Indians; providing resources for Indian education and other social
services, advancing the Healthy Forests Initiative and related wildland
fire activities; strengthening law enforcement; and enhancing
scientific and hazards warning information for our agencies and the
public. Key initiatives include:
Trust Programs.--The budget provides $591.4 million to continue the
Department's ongoing efforts to reform management of its fiduciary
obligations to Tribes and individual Indians, to continue historical
accounting efforts for trust funds, and to reduce the exponentially
growing costs of maintaining fractionated interests of Indian lands.
Within this total, the President's budget proposes to increase funding
for historical accounting from $57.2 million to $135.0 million. An
increase of $9.6 million would strengthen efforts to address the
current backlog of unresolved probate cases.
On February 23, the Cobell court issued an order reinstating the
historic accounting structural injunction previously issued on
September 23, 2003, directing the Department to conduct a far more
expansive accounting and requiring that it be completed under even more
constrained time lines than the Department had planned. Preliminary
estimates developed by the Department estimate the costs to comply with
the order at between $10 to $12 billion. The new injunction requires
extensive work beyond what is currently budgeted in 2005 or proposed in
2006 to be completed by January 6, 2006. In addition to the completion
of accounting for all judgment and per capita accounts back to 1887 and
the completion of the accounting for all transactions in land-based
accounts back to 1985, the court order directs the indexing of all
trust-related records located at federal facilities in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and Lee's Summit, Missouri, the collection of all relevant
trust records held by third parties, the systems tests related to
electronic data gaps, and the systems conversion from the Integrated
Records Management System to the Trust Funds Accounting System. The
Department's budget for 2005 or 2006 is not constructed to address
these requirements. The Department is in continuing discussion with the
Department of Justice on the course of action available to the
Department.
BIA Detention Centers.--The budget includes increases of $16.7
million for detention centers in Indian country. Of the total, $7.3
million will support detention operations at four new centers currently
under construction with Department of Justice funding and for facility
operations and maintenance at 19 detention centers built with DOJ
grants since 2001. The balance of the increase addresses substandard
facility conditions in older BIA detention facilities highlighted in a
recent report by Interior's Inspector General. The budget for detention
center improvement and repair will nearly double, with an additional
$4.4 million. An increase of $5.0 million will support contracts to
place arrested and convicted persons in non-BIA detention facilities
that meet national standards when adequate BIA facilities are
unavailable.
Indian Education.--To complement BIA efforts to implement the No
Child Left Behind Act, the 2006 budget proposes $2.0 million to pilot
leadership academies at four BIA schools. Leadership academies in
public school systems have been successful in raising the academic
performance of school children and motivating them to continue their
education.
To continue improving facility conditions at BIA schools, the
budget includes $173.9 million for education construction. This amount
will fund replacement of the Porcupine Day School in South Dakota and
the first replacement phase of the Crownpoint Community School in New
Mexico. It will also fund four major facilities improvement and repair
projects. In order to allow focus on the 34 school replacement projects
funded in prior years that are in design phases or under construction,
the education construction budget reflects a reduction of $89.5 million
from 2005.
Healthy Forests.--The 2006 budget supports the President's Healthy
Forests Initiative with a $211.2 million budget for hazardous fuels
reduction in the wildland fire program, a net increase of $9.8 million
over the 2005 enacted level. The hazardous fuels budget includes a
program increase of $10.3 million for fuels projects, partially offset
by a scheduled $2.5 million reduction in funding for development of the
LANDFIRE vegetative mapping and imaging system.
Funding in the wildland fire program, together with funds for
forest and range improvement in the land management agencies and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, will provide approximately $313.0 million in
2006 to reduce the build-up of hazardous fuels in the Nation's forests
and rangelands, reduce the risk of catastrophic fire to communities,
protect threatened and endangered species, and support other activities
under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003.
Wildland Fire.--In addition to funding additional hazardous fuels
reduction projects, the 2006 wildland fire budget includes increases of
$15.7 million to fund suppression operations at the 10-year average and
$5.0 million to maintain the 2004 aviation fleet reconfiguration. In
total, the 2006 budget for wildland fire management is $756.6 million,
a net increase of $23.9 million over 2005, not including $98.6 million
in 2005 contingent emergency funding.
Rural Fire Assistance.--The 2006 budget for Wildland Fire continues
partnerships with local fire departments, proposing an increase in the
Preparedness program to provide advance training to local fire fighters
to help build a ready reserve of local firefighters that can support
extended attack and thereby improve the effectiveness of Federal
cooperation with local firefighting agencies. Rural fire assistance
grants, which provided funds to local fire departments for equipment
and basic training, are eliminated as a separate funding source in
anticipation that equipment and training needs of local fire
departments will be met through the much larger Forest Service and FEMA
fire assistance programs.
Tsunami Warning System.--As part of a $37.5 million, two-year
commitment by the Administration to expand U.S. tsunami detection and
monitoring capabilities, the 2006 budget includes $5.4 million for USGS
facilities and operations to provide more robust detection and
notification of earthquakes that could trigger tsunamis. The President
has submitted a 2005 budget supplemental request proposing $8.1 million
for USGS to begin work on these enhancements. The balance of the
funding for the tsunami warning system is in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's budget.
Landsat.--The 2006 budget requests $7.5 million for USGS to begin
work on an upgraded ground-processing system to acquire, process,
archive, and distribute data from a new generation of satellite-based
land image sensors. The first of two Landsat Data Continuity Mission
sensors will be flown on a NOAA polar orbiting satellite scheduled for
operation in 2009. To continue the 30-year unbroken record of data on
the Earth's continental surface collected by the Landsat program, the
budget also contains a $12 million increase to support continued
operation of the Landsat 7 satellite in 2006 and to repay a planned
reprogramming for 2005 Landsat 7 operations. Although Landsat 7 data
remain valuable and usable, revenue from commercial sale of the data
that normally supports the Landsat program has sharply decreased as a
result of the failure of the satellite's scan line corrector.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes.--PILT payments are made to local
governments in lieu of tax payments on Federal lands within their
boundaries and to supplement other Federal land receipts shared with
local governments. The 2006 budget proposes $200.0 million for these
payments. The 2006 request is 60 to 97 percent higher than the PILT
payments during the 1990s, but is a reduction of $26.8 million from the
record high 2005 payment level.
program terminations and reductions
As part of the President's effort to halve the budget deficit by
2009, the 2006 budget for the Department makes difficult choices to
terminate or reduce funding for programs that are less central to the
Department's core missions, have ambiguous goals, duplicate activities
of other agencies, or require a lower level of effort because key goals
have been achieved. Terminations and reductions include lower priority
and one-time earmarks enacted in 2005. Other terminations and
reductions include:
LWCF State Grants.--The 2006 budget terminates funding for Land and
Water Conservation Fund State grants, a reduction of $89.6 million from
the 2005 level. LWCF State grants support State and local parks that
have alternate sources of funding through State revenues and bonds. As
the nation strives to trim the Federal deficit, focusing on core
Federal agency responsibilities is imperative. A 2003 PART review found
the program could not adequately measure performance. The 2006 budget
continues funding for the administrative portion of the grant program
at $1.6 million, which will be used to review the accountability and
performance of grants provided in previous years.
Jobs-in-the-Woods.--The budget proposes to discontinue BLM's Jobs-
in-the-Woods program, which was created in the early 1990s as a
temporary program to assist displaced timber workers in the Pacific
Northwest by offering resource-based job opportunities to improve water
quality and restore Oregon's coastal salmon populations. As most
workers have transitioned and timber sales are increasing, the budget
proposes to focus resources on programmatic priorities, including
offering the full allowable sale quantity under the Northwest Forest
Plan and supporting the Plan's requirement that late-succession
reserves be managed to stimulate old growth characteristics.
USGS Minerals Resources Program.--The budget reduces funding for
the USGS Minerals Resources program by $28.5 million. The budget
continues funding for minerals surveys and studies relevant to ongoing
Federal energy, land management, regulatory, and remediation
activities. Funding is reduced for studies and information gathering
for regional and local activities more oriented to the interests of
States, local governments, and universities, all of whom are
significant users of information generated by the Minerals Resources
program.
Johnson-O'Malley.--The budget includes a reduction of $8.8 million
for the Johnson O'Malley grant program. These grants for Indian
children attending public schools do not currently address a focused
goal for academic achievement and duplicate similar funding made
available by the Department of Education. The budget provides $7.8
million for grants to continue the highest-priority components of this
program.
NPS Statutory and Contractual Aid.--The budget does not continue
funding for $11.2 million in Statutory and Contractual Aid activities
that are secondary to the primary mission of the National Park Service.
mandatory proposals
Accompanying the 2006 budget are several legislative proposals that
affect receipt or spending levels in 2006 or in future years. These
proposals, which will be transmitted separately from the budget for
consideration by the Congress, include:
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.--The budget proposes
to amend the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 to
return 70 percent of the receipts from land sales under the Act to the
Treasury, where receipts from land sales have historically been
deposited. The Act, as amended by Public Law 107-282, authorizes the
disposal through sale of approximately 49,000 acres of federal land in
Clark County, Nevada. Five percent of the proceeds are provided to the
State of Nevada for use in the State's general education program and 10
percent are provided to the Southern Nevada Water Authority for water
treatment and transmission facility infrastructure in Clark County. The
remaining 85 percent of funds are deposited in a special account to
acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Nevada; make capital
improvements to areas administered by NPS, FWS and BLM in Clark County;
develop a multi-species habitat plan for Clark County; develop parks,
trails and natural areas and implement other conservation initiatives
in the county; and reimburse BLM for costs incurred in arranging sales
and exchanges under the Act.
The receipts generated by these land sales so far have been nearly
eight times higher than anticipated, with future revenue projections of
almost $1 billion per year. When SNPLMA was originally passed, proceeds
from land sales under the bill were estimated at roughly $70 million
per year. Sale proceeds were $530.5 million in 2004 and are estimated
to be $1.2 billion in 2005.
When the law was enacted, there was general agreement that a
substantial portion of the revenues generated would be spent to acquire
and conserve other lands around Nevada. However, as land sale receipts
under the Act have increased in the last few years, the available
funding has outpaced land acquisition needs. These funds are
increasingly being dedicated to local projects--and many more projects
than originally anticipated are being formulated without the
accountability of further consideration by the Congress.
The budget proposes that, beginning in 2006, 70 percent of all
revenues from these lands sales would be returned to the Treasury, with
the percent of receipts deposited in the special account set at 15
percent. The amount of revenue currently provided to the State and to
the water and airport authorities would not change. Total combined
revenues retained in the State would total 30 percent, with revenues
for 2006 for these purposes projected at $292.3 million, an amount four
times larger than original projections in 1998 at time of enactment of
the legislation.
BLM Range Improvement.--The budget for BLM proposes to discontinue
mandatory appropriations from the Range Improvement Fund totaling $10.0
million annually. Instead, revenues will be deposited to the Treasury.
To address rangeland improvement needs, the discretionary budget
request for BLM includes $6.0 million to focus on projects to improve
rangeland health conditions, such as weed control, essentially
replacing funding provided through the Fund. These projects are part of
the Department's cooperative conservation request and will be matched
by partners. Other operational increases for BLM, including $7.0
million for sagebrush habitat and sage grouse protection and $1.3
million for invasive weed control, will also support rangeland
improvement goals.
management excellence
As public demands for Interior services increase--from Indian
children who need schools to visitors who seek more outdoor
recreational opportunities on our public lands--Interior must continue
to enhance service and spend dollars wisely. Behind all our programs,
out of the limelight, rests a management foundation through which we
strive to improve program efficiency and effectiveness. The Departments
and its bureaus continue to implement performance improvements.
Our 2006 budget includes investments in tools to enable our
employees to do their jobs more efficiently and generate cost savings
by implementing standardized systems.
The Department currently uses 26 different financial management
systems and over 100 different property systems. Employees must enter
procurement transactions multiple times in different systems so that
the data are captured in real property inventories, financial systems,
and acquisition systems. This fractured approach is both costly and
burdensome to manage. We have underway an integration of our financial
and business management systems to streamline and modernize basic
administrative activities.
Our budget proposes an increase of $9.5 million to support
continued implementation of the Financial and Business Management
System that will integrate financial management, procurement, property
management and other systems. Through this effort, we will reengineer
administrative processes throughout the Department. As the new system
becomes fully operational, we will retire over 80 legacy systems and
replace their functions with standardized business processes within the
new, integrated system. In 2006, the National Park Service and Fish and
Wildlife Service are scheduled to transition to the new system.
The 2006 budget includes a $7.0 million increase for continued
implementation of the Enterprise Services Network. The network
leverages the existing BIA Trustnet, expanding it Department-wide, to
provide secure, state-of-the-art internet and intranet connections and
a fully functional operational center for data communications. In
addition to providing better services for many Interior offices, the
system will provide a uniformly secure environment, standardized and
efficient 24-hour/7-day operations, and improved technical support.
conclusion
The budget plays a key role in advancing our vision of healthy
lands, thriving communities, and dynamic economies. Behind these
numbers lie people, places, and partnerships. Our goals become reality
through the energy and creativity efforts of our employees, volunteers,
and partners. They provide the foundation for achieving the goals
highlighted in our 2006 budget.
This concludes my overview of the 2006 budget proposal for the
Department of the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Now we have been
joined by the chairman of the full committee. Senator Cochran,
do you have any statement or anything that you want to add to
this illustrious group?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
join you this morning and greet the Secretary of Interior,
commending her for her strong leadership at the Department and
congratulating her for her continued service as Secretary. We
appreciate your willingness to do this very difficult but
important job.
I look forward to hearing more about the budget request and
also any requests that you want to tell us about in connection
with the supplemental request that is coming up. I understand
there may be supplemental funds in the 2005 year needed by the
Department of the Interior, and since that is coming up pretty
soon, I would like to know what the specifics are about that
request.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have been joined by Senator Feinstein, a valuable member
of this panel, and we welcome you this morning.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
have a number of questions. I will hold for my turn, but I just
wanted to say two things.
The first is I want to thank the Secretary for her help
with CALFED and particularly Jason Peltier. I want to thank him
for his help and Bennett for his help as well. It is very much
appreciated. Thanks to members of this committee and other
places, we got the bill through both houses and signed. I am
really quite delighted. So thank you.
I also want to welcome Lynn Scarlett and I want her to know
because she is soon to be Deputy Secretary, that I would have
introduced you yesterday if I could have. You are from a great
city in my State, and I certainly want to welcome you and look
forward to working with you.
Those are my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
We will probably never make it through all these questions.
Secretary Norton. I think I am glad to hear that.
Senator Burns. By the time we do that, we will all be
vested if you just walked into the Congress, I will tell you
this.
WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM
But there is something that has been sort of my topic here
and the source of many of my phone calls is the Wild Horse and
Burro program. As you know, we have grappled with this program
many, many years. I know there were a lot of people who had
their reservations about this. Could you update us on the sale
program? Because I understand you have been through one now, I
think, maybe more. You might update us.
The Department has taken great steps and has worked very
hard that these horses be sold under the right circumstances
and for the right reasons. Could you bring us up to date on
what is happening in that particular program?
Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, we have been working hard
with the Wild Horse and Burro program to find creative ways to
address our wild horse population. Obviously,we have the horses
that are on the range and we are looking at things like birth
control for those, as well as trying to keep to appropriate
management levels.
For those that are in our adoption program or long-term
care, we are doing things like, for example, working with
Indian tribes to see if some of those would be interested in
having some horses for their lands. We are working with
ranchers. There was one that recently, it is my understanding,
took about 200 wild horses with the idea of working on further
adoptions through his own initiative.
We believe that there are people who would be interested in
horses both in expanded attempts to try and get the young
horses for gentling; as well as some people that just have open
lands and would be happy to welcome these horses.
We are working with some additional flexibility we have,
because of your actions, to see that the horses go to good
locations. We do recognize the sale authority that you have
provided. Our activities right now are focusing on trying to
find creative ways to avoid having those horses be in long-term
Federal care, which is very expensive.
Senator Burns. Well, it was my intention all along. I think
America's imagination will get these horses taken care of. This
old business of everybody thought they would all go to
slaughter was crazy. I know better than that. Those people who
would proclaim that know very little about the livestock
business, to be right honest with you.
RECREATION FEE PROGRAM
Recreation Fee program. Let us shift gears here a little
bit. Last year in the omnibus appropriation bill, the Congress
extended the Recreation Fee program on a long-term basis. I
fought this move along with other members of the subcommittee
because I believe authorizing committees of jurisdiction were
the appropriate bodies to deal with this legislation, but we
did not prevail.
You are aware, Madam Secretary, that there is still some
disagreement out in the land about whether these fees are
appropriate, on what activities they should be collected, and
how the collection should be spent.
Are there things in last year's authorizing bill that will
help address some of these concerns, and how will the new
program be different than the fee program that has existed for
the past several years?
Secretary Norton. We certainly, Mr. Chairman, did recognize
the concerns that were raised by a number of people about fees
being charged in inappropriate places or having fees be used
for things that were not really providing the visitor services
that we need. We learned from the demonstration project what
things work and what things do not.
In the new authorizing legislation, there are specific
requirements about what kinds of facilities need to be provided
to people to justify the charging of fees. I know we are going
through our specific areas to make sure that they are in
compliance with the new legislation. I understand the Forest
Service is also going through that exercise.
In addition to that, the legislation establishes recreation
resource advisory councils so that we have members of the
public reviewing any new fees being charged in new areas and
providing us direct feedback on whether those were a good ideas
or not. We would have to report if we wanted to charge a fee
despite the recommendation of that advisory committee.
This is a work in progress and we understand that public
support for fees can be very good if people feel like they are
getting their money's worth. It is very, very rare for this to
happen, I think anywhere in life for people to say you ought to
charge more. But I have had people stand up in public meetings
that we have done and say, ``you do not charge enough for your
public lands. I pay a whole lot more for any other form of
recreation for my family than when going to visit a national
park.''
We want to be sure, though, when we do that, to see that
the fees are being used for appropriate activities and to
demonstrate to people that they are being used appropriately.
We want to continue working with you, with Members of Congress
that might have complaints on a local level about fees to see
that we are carrying forward this very important management
tool in a responsible way.
Senator Burns. Well, I thank you. I will just answer, not
as a Senator but as an auctioneer, take the money.
For those who want to give more, let them spend more.
BLACKFOOT CHALLENGE
I will have one more question, and this is really important
in my State. This is probably one of the largest actions that I
have had the privilege of working on. The Blackfoot River
watershed is an extraordinary place up in Montana. If you have
not been there, I would certainly invite you, along with Ms.
Scarlett, to join me up there this summer.
The great strength of this valley is its community of
citizen stewards led by the Blackfoot Challenge. It exemplifies
the spirit of cooperation and conservation that you, the
President, and I are working to encourage and we support. We
have been working hard to help the challenge achieve its goal
of conserving this remarkable place and the community that
lives there. I have been pleased the President requested
funding to support this community-led initiative in both the
2005 and 2006 Forest Service budget.
I am concerned, however, that your Department has not been
supportive of this project as it should have been, despite the
participation of the local BLM and Fish and Wildlife officials
from the get-go. Can you explain to me why the Department has
yet to recognize the conservation opportunities that the local
community, the Forest Service, and the Congress have clearly
recognized? I am particularly concerned that the BLM, an agency
whose mission I strongly support, has not been acting in
support of this project?
Secretary Norton. I would be happy to look into that. It
sounds like an ideal project for many of our cooperative
conservation grants. So there may be some opportunities for
them to apply for competitive grants.
[The information follows:]
Blackfoot Challenge
Secretary Norton. The Blackfoot River Watershed Land and Water
Conservation Fund LWCF project is part of a multi-phase land
acquisition project. In order to implement the project, BLM is
conducting appraisals, land use planning, and environmental clearances
for the project. During fiscal year 2004, the Bureau carried over $2.9
million in funding appropriated for the project. The Phase I
Acquisition was completed in February 2005 with the acquisition of
2,500 acres. During fiscal year 2005, an additional $4.9 million was
appropriated for the purchase of approximately 4,000 acres. The BLM
will complete the appraisal on the Phase II Acquisition by the end of
fiscal year 2005, and has completed the appraisal on the Phase III
Acquisition.
Secretary Norton. Also, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service have
challenge grant programs that are essentially available to our
managers to apply for assistance to help fund projects that are
working in cooperation with local communities. We very strongly
support that type of multi-agency, public/private, Federal,
State, local kind of approach, and our grant programs are
really designed to encourage and facilitate those activities.
Senator Burns. Well, as you know, this was a homegrown
agreement and it has got a lot of moving parts to it. There is
no doubt about that.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS
Last fall your Fish and Wildlife Service Director, Steve
Williams, announced the start of planning for the conservation
easement programs to protect working landscapes and natural
resources along the Rocky Mountain front and also in this
particular place. I hope this program will be a fine example of
cooperative conservation by ranchers, conservationists, and the
Service.
When do you expect this long-delayed planning effort to be
completed? Do you have any idea?
Secretary Norton. I am sorry. We do not have that
information with us, but we will be happy to provide it.
[The information follows:]
Proposed Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to expand its existing
conservation easement program to include a new project area along the
Rocky Mountain Front, in north-central Montana. The proposed Rocky
Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program would authorize the
Service to use Land and Water Conservation Fund monies to purchase
easements from willing sellers on up to 170,000 acres of private land.
The goal of the Program is to work proactively with private landowners
to protect important habitat and maintain connectivity between core
blocks (``biological anchors'') of public and private conservation
lands.
The Program would not authorize any fee title acquisition. A local
landowner advisory council, consisting of ranchers, business owners and
government officials from Lewis & Clark, Teton, and Pondera Counties,
strongly support a conservation easement approach as a means of
conserving the historic ranching heritage on the Front.
The Front is a high-priority conservation area for the Service and
its partners in the conservation community, including the State of
Montana, the Boone and Crockett Club, and The Nature Conservancy,
because it is the only remaining landscape in the Continental United
States with a complete, intact and functional assemblage of large
mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine,
and lynx.
The Preliminary Project Proposal for the Program was approved by
the Service's Mountain-Prairie Regional Office in April, 2002 and
forwarded to the Director's office for approval. The Director approved
the PPP in October, 2004. This approval provided the Service's Regional
Office with the authority to proceed with detailed planning to consider
the establishment of the easement program. Since October, the regional
planning team has met with the Montana Congressional delegation,
conservation and sportsmen's groups, federal agencies, state and local
governments, tribes, and various local business interests. The team has
also held three public scoping meetings at various locations near the
project area.
The Regional Office is currently developing an Environmental
Assessment, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, to
analyze the effects of establishing an easement program on the Front.
The Region's goal is to complete the EA in the Spring of 2005. Per
current Service policy, the EA, FONSI and associated documents will
then be submitted to the Director for his concurrence.
Senator Burns. Oh, good. That is that big packet that is
going to show up on your doorstep.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
TRIBAL COLLEGES
Madam Secretary, let me ask, as you might expect me to ask,
about tribal colleges. As I indicated, the proposed cut in
funding for tribal colleges really will wipe out the 2 years of
progress that Senator Burns and I and other Members of the
Congress have made on tribal college funding. Can you describe
why these cuts are being proposed?
Secretary Norton. We have had to make some tough choices,
as we have looked through our Department for ways to handle our
Indian trust responsibilities, as well as to meet the overall
needs with a tight budget. What we have done is to look to
other Departments, in part, and the cooperation that we can do
with other Departments to see how those issues can be
addressed.
Since 1996, the student count at tribal community colleges
has increased by 41 percent. At the same time, our funding will
have increased by 61 percent through the 2006 budget. The
President's budget provides about $9,500 per student at
tribally controlled universities, funded by the BIA and the
Department of Education, and the average community college
receives about $6,600 in revenue from all sources.
We are working, first of all, with the Department of Labor.
They have a jobs program that provides about $250 million to
community colleges across the country. We met with them and
talked about how we can make sure that the colleges that we are
involved with are eligible for that and involved in that. The
Assistant Secretary that deals with those programs has agreed
to have our Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, or the
person acting in that capacity, to be on the selection
committee as grants are being made for those programs.
We also have talked with the people at United Tribes
Technical College to see if there are some opportunities for
using their facilities and working together on training that we
need for our employees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Office of Special Trustee; and to see if there are ways we can
work with their graduates because I think they have some skills
that we need.
Senator Dorgan. Madam Secretary, I wonder if my staff could
work with your staff. We have a very different view of support
of these students. You are suggesting the support is nearly
double the support of students in community colleges. My
figures show it is about 50 percent, half. So there is a very
wide disagreement here. I would like my staff to engage with
your budget folks and see if we can understand what the facts
are there.
Secretary Norton. I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
Tribal College Funding
The Department has provided information to the Senator's staff on
the per-student funding at tribal colleges. Additional information can
be provided upon request.
STATESIDE GRANTS PROGRAM
Senator Dorgan. Land and Water Conservation grants. Your
budget would eliminate the State-side assistance grants through
the LWCF. The Senate budget actually includes slightly over $1
billion for those same grants, but that is paid for by the ANWR
revenues. On the other hand, your recommendation for
eliminating the grants, I believe, is saying that that money is
more appropriately funded through State revenues or bonding I
guess. Is that correct?
Secretary Norton. Actually a variety of our conservation
grants that are funded through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. The State grants are just one aspect of that. We strongly
support having various programs that are funded through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund that all go toward open space,
environmental protection, and so forth.
As to the State assistance grants, there was a study done
by the Office of Management and Budget that reviewed that
program.
Senator Dorgan. Is this PART?
Secretary Norton. Yes, it is.
Senator Dorgan. The infamous PART study.
Secretary Norton. Yes. It is the PART study.
We have been enthusiastic about that program, but as we
looked at it more closely, we found that it did not do as good
a job in having clearly defined goals and in meeting those
goals as some other programs. Our other programs allow us to
see that environmental needs are really prioritized. It has
allowed us to deal with endangered species such as sage grouse.
It has allowed us to restore wetlands, things that are not
really captured within that State-side program.
Senator Dorgan. As you know, the PART studies have been
very controversial. Would you think maybe we should have a PART
study of the Office of Management and Budget?
Secretary Norton. I will let you all decide that.
BIA SCHOOL REPLACEMENT FUNDING
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask about BIA school replacement
funding. As you know, that is another situation that many of us
care deeply about. 184 schools are operated by the BIA, 48,000
kids. There is a very substantial cut in replacement funding.
My understanding is that it is because there are carryover
funds, and yet, for example, in the National Park Service there
are much greater carryover funds. Yet, their construction
funding is actually up when, in fact, BIA school construction
funding is cut rather dramatically. Can you describe the reason
for that?
Secretary Norton. Over the last 4 years, we have obtained a
total of over $1.1 billion in funding for construction of
Indian schools and have been working to see that those schools
are actually constructed. We now have 34 schools that have been
funded through our programs. Only nine have been completed. Our
focus right now is really working with the tribes on getting
the construction completed.
We, nevertheless, are continuing funding at a level that is
nearly three times as high as it was in the late 1990's. We are
providing very substantial funding for repair work at the
schools. It is not quite $1 million per school on average but
it is a very high level of funding. So we are going to be
working through time to address this issue and to try to be
sure that we continue to work towards better quality schools
for our Indian children.
Senator Dorgan. You know, one-third of those schools are
defined as in ``poor quality.'' So my concern, Mr. Chairman, is
that cutting the construction funding at a time when fully one-
third of those schools for young Indian children run by the BIA
are poor quality schools. I really think we need to try to
continue that funding process.
Well, Madam Secretary, my colleagues I know want to ask
questions. Senator McCain and I have a bill over in Commerce
that is being marked up, and I need to go over there.
I would like to submit some additional questions. Again,
while we might disagree from time to time on some issues, I
appreciate your service to our country, and I hope that you
will accept the questions that I will just submit in writing in
order to save some time this morning.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LEASE SALES
Secretary Norton, I had mentioned the Budget Committee's
language which says that we will get $2.4 billion in revenues
in 2007 from lease sales on the Arctic Refuge. How much will
the leases have to sell for to reach that $2.4 billion?
Secretary Norton. I do not have that number handy. I assume
your calculation is fairly correct.
If I can explain the process that we would go through and
also that resource.
Senator Leahy. And if you might also point out, if they
would have to sell for between $4,000 and $6,000 per acre, when
the average has been around $50 per acre, why that sudden jump,
or is it kind of smoke and mirrors as a way to use the budget
resolution as a way to get through ANWR in a way it might not
get through otherwise?
Secretary Norton. The figures you are using for comparison
are from the National Petroleum Reserve. There we have an area
of 23 million acres that has a resource estimated amount that
is smaller than the amount of oil that is predicted to be in
the 1.5 million acres of ANWR that would be considered for
energy exploration. So, in effect, you have more oil in one-
twentieth of the acreage than you have in the National
Petroleum Reserve.
Senator Leahy. Even if you made it 20 times, it still does
not get anywhere near the $4,000 to $6,000.
Secretary Norton. Actually we have areas in the National
Petroleum Reserve where we have received about $1,000 an acre.
Senator Leahy. Here you would have to get $4,000 to $6,000,
and a number of the companies have pulled out of the industry
lobbying firm that is pushing for this drilling. I just wonder
how these figures come. I really would like a very clear
answer. In doing that, what kind of a split does that assume
with Alaska?
Secretary Norton. First of all, the Congressional Budget
Office did its own analysis and their analysis reached a higher
number than ours did. My understanding is the split with Alaska
would be the 50/50 split that is the arrangement through the
Mineral Leasing Act with all of the other States in which----
Senator Leahy. Governor Murkowski said Alaska will sue the
Federal Government if they do not get 90 percent.
Secretary Norton. I understand that the 90/10 split is a
popular position in Alaska, but certainly everything I have
heard from the Congress is a 50/50 split.
Senator Leahy. Would the administration fight Governor
Murkowski on that?
Secretary Norton. Yes. Our understanding is the appropriate
approach is a 50/50 split, or whatever Congress designates in
the legislation, but that is what we assume it would be.
FWS FISH HATCHERIES
Senator Leahy. Well, I am glad to hear you say whatever we
designate in the legislation.
It raises another area. I am thinking back at the beginning
of the administration, one of the catch phrases your Department
used was it put the fish back in the Fish and Wildlife Service,
something I certainly agree with and I expect most of us would.
I was informed last year that region 5 faced such severe budget
shortfalls that the Pittsford Hatchery on the New Hampshire-
Vermont border would close. Salmon production at the White
River Hatchery in my State would be cut by more than 60
percent. Similar cuts are proposed for other hatcheries in the
region. It decimated efforts to restore Atlantic salmon to the
Connecticut River.
Now, Chairman Burns and Senator Dorgan put in extra funds,
and reprogramming language allowed the Service to avoid these
cuts, and I appreciate that. Then the Department ignored
congressional direction in the 2005 appropriations bill to
increase the base fisheries budget in 2006.
So do we have a commitment to keep these facilities running
at the 2005 level, as the appropriations bill had said?
Secretary Norton. Our overall approach on the fisheries
budget has been an increase. There was a $4 million increase
last year, and our budget for 2006 includes an additional
increase of $2.7 million for hatchery operations and
maintenance. The reductions in the fisheries program were in
congressional earmarks. Offsetting these reductions, we also
have significant increases in competitive wildlife grant
programs of $38 million and in partnership cost-share programs
of $37 million.
Senator Leahy. Does that mean you will or will not ignore
the congressional direction in the 2005 appropriations to
increase the base fishery budget in 2006?
Secretary Norton. I believe we have increased the base
fisheries budget, and I believe the answer I just gave you is
indicative of an increase.
Senator Leahy. So your commitment is these facilities will
keep running at the 2005 level?
Secretary Norton. I do not have information about specific
facilities and how the Fish and Wildlife Service is allocating
that.
Senator Leahy. Would you answer for the record then whether
they will be kept at the 2005 level, which is basically what
the congressional directive was?
Secretary Norton. Do we have information about the Vermont
facilities?
Mr. Trezise. Senator Leahy, we will have to submit specific
numbers for the record. A portion of the 2006 increase that we
have requested has not been allocated to individual hatcheries.
It is certainly, though, as I understand it, the intention of
the Fish and Wildlife Service to use that increase across the
system to maintain hatchery operations at least at the 2005
level.
Senator Leahy. So they would be kept running at the 2005
level?
Mr. Trezise. It is my understanding that is the Service's
intention, yes.
[The information follows:]
New England National Fish Hatchery Funding
Final fiscal year 2006 allocations to both Pittsford and White
River NFH's will be dependent on actual appropriation amounts received,
but assuming the Service receives the same level of base funding in
fiscal year 2006 as was received in fiscal year 2005, plus requested
pay uncontrollable funding, the Service intends to fund both Pittsford
and White River NFH's at the same levels as in fiscal year 2005.
The fiscal year 2006 President's Budget request includes a net
increase of $2.111 million in Hatchery Operations; within this amount,
$44,000 is requested to partially restore the across-the-board
rescissions received in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations, and $2.231
million is requested to implement 34 high priority FONS projects which
are identified in the budget request. Offsetting reductions include a
technical adjustment to shift $158,000 to Fish and Wildlife Management
Assistance and $6,000 in expected savings through improved vehicle
management. An additional $796,000 is also requested for pay and
uncontrollables. The funds requested to offset the fiscal year 2005
rescissions and for pay and uncontrollables will be used across the
system to maintain hatchery operations at the 2005 level to the extent
possible. The funds requested to implement the 34 high priority FONS
projects will be allocated to the specific stations implementing those
projects. Neither Pittsford nor White River National Fish Hatcheries
have been identified as receiving any of these funds.
Senator Leahy. Then we have the potential effects of cuts
to the fishery budget at the Lake Champlain management office.
One of the things they do is control sea lampreys in the lake,
something Vermont and New York have worked on. We have finally
turned the corner in controlling the invasive species that is
devastating our salmon and lake trout population. Vermont,
Governor Pataki, and others have worked hard on this. Governor
Douglas in Vermont, Governor Pataki in New York. Can we assure
them that the Department will not cut its support for this
program?
Mr. Trezise. Senator Leahy, base funding for the operation
of the office is continued in the 2006 budget at the same level
as in 2005.
Senator Leahy. And can you answer specifically for the
record whether there will not be cuts in this critical program?
Mr. Trezise. We will have to answer for the record.
[The information follows:]
Lake Champlain Fisheries
The Service is committed to its partnership with New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department in the Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management
Cooperative, which manages the fish and wildlife resources of Lake
Champlain. Sea lamprey management is central to the Cooperative's long-
term effort to restore native species and improve recreational
fisheries worth an estimated $200 million annually.
The Service and its State partners implement a multifaceted
approach to controlling parasitic sea lamprey populations by installing
barriers to spawning migrations, trapping migrating adults and applying
target-specific pesticides, known as lampricides. To guide these
control efforts, the Service conducts quantitative sea lamprey
assessment surveys and numerous presence/absence surveys in tributaries
and delta areas throughout the basin. In addition, the Service supports
extensive regulatory/permit requirements and places high priority on
the development and investigation of sea lamprey control techniques
that may provide useful alternatives to lampricides, engaging a variety
of stakeholders to further the science of sea lamprey management.
Approximately 70 percent of the Service's Fish and Wildlife
Management Assistance program budget on Lake Champlain is focused on
sea lamprey management and associated restoration of native fish
species. Direct management of sea lamprey accounts for approximately 50
percent of the Service's Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance
program budget, while related salmonid assessment and restoration
activities account for an additional 20 percent.
Final fiscal year 2006 allocations to the Lake Champlain Fish and
Wildlife Resources Office will be dependent on actual appropriation
amounts received, but assuming the Service receives the same level of
base funding in fiscal year 2006 as was received in fiscal year 2005,
plus requested pay uncontrollable funding, the Service intends to fund
this office and its sea lamprey management activities at the same
levels as in fiscal year 2005.
ANWR LEASE SALES
Senator Leahy. Madam Secretary, I am not trying to play
games on the lease sales and the amount. Obviously, your
Department is going to have to have specific figures of what
those lease sales are going to be. Can you supply for the
record, as soon as possible, specifically what your Department
estimates the lease sales will be?
Secretary Norton. That information is included within the
budget.
The other point that I should make is that before lease
sales would occur, there would be additional very high-tech
seismic work done in that area. So everyone would have a much
better understanding of exactly what resources are there and
where they are located. So that could make a difference either
positively or negatively.
Senator Leahy. And I understand that, and that is fair. But
somebody had to make some estimates to get to $2.4 billion.
Secretary Norton. Those are the same figures that have been
used for about a decade and have not been adjusted upward with
the new increases in the price of oil.
Senator Leahy. I understand. But you will keep us posted if
those figures are changing or if those figures are still valid
in your Department? Maybe I should ask the question this way.
Are those figures still valid in your Department today and will
you let us know if they change?
Secretary Norton. We believe those are valid figures, and
we would let you know if those change, but I do not anticipate
any change during this current year.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Senator Cochran.
NATCHEZ TRACE PARKWAY
Senator Cochran. Madam Secretary, we are very pleased that
in May we are going to celebrate the completion of the Natchez
Trace Parkway, which spans the distance between Natchez,
Mississippi and Nashville, Tennessee. There are a lot of living
history sites along the way, and it is a beautiful parkway. I
mention that in hopes that you may be able to come to the
celebration. There are going to be two events in Mississippi:
one in Clinton, Mississippi very near Jackson, which is one of
the areas that was last completed along the parkway; and at
Natchez, which, of course, is the southern terminus of the
parkway, but is also the site of the Natchez Historical Park,
which enhances the pleasure of those who visit that area of our
State. It is a great achievement.
It was started by authorizing legislation 67 years ago. I
remember it because that is the year I was born. It has taken
that long to finish the parkway. But it is due to the hard work
of a lot of people along through the years and many in the
administration have taken an active part in it.
I was just thinking about one of the highlights, the
establishment of the National Historical Park at Natchez.
Manuel Lujan was the Secretary of Interior at that time. He
came to Natchez and spoke at the dedication of one of the
facilities that had been included in the parkway, one of the
antebellum homes, Melrose, which provides visitors an
opportunity to understand a little bit about the way of life
back in the early days of that region of the country, one of
the earliest settled areas of the new United States, as a
matter of fact.
I bring that up to mention that the Department's continued
support for maintenance and the pleasure of visitors who come
to see that area would be deeply appreciated. The
superintendent of the parkway, Wendall Simpson, is an
outstanding individual whose has devoted a lot of time and
effort and hard work to the completion of the project, but also
to the enhancement of the beauty, maintaining the parkway. It
has really been a great thing to observe over the years, and it
is culminating in the final completion of the parkway.
I will get you the dates. So you will have a look at your
calendar. I hope you will be able to come down and help us
celebrate this great occasion.
One of the interesting things too about the northern area
of the parkway is, as you get up into Tennessee, you come to a
site where Meriwether Lewis, from the famous Lewis and Clark
Expedition, died. There is a marker there to commemorate his
death and his life, and his contribution to the exploration of
the new United States at the request of Thomas Jefferson. This
is an area that is rich in history and significance for many
reasons, and I am sure that at some point we will probably see
a request coming in for a facility to be located up there in
the Tennessee area so people can enjoy the significance of that
part of the parkway as well.
Well, that is enough of the parochial interests. I wanted
to bring that to your attention and let you know about how
proud we are of the work of the Department in that area. And
thank you and your colleagues at the Department for their help
in making this a reality.
Secretary Norton. Thank you very much. I recently read a
book that was set in that area, and I do look forward to seeing
it. I have heard so much about how beautiful that is.
MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Also, I want to personally thank you for your work on the
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. You are a very
dedicated member of the Commission and have put a lot of your
personal time into seeing the success of the work of that
commission. I appreciate that.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. It is a pleasure working with
you on that Commission. You chair it. You are the chairwoman.
HOLT COLLIER WILDLIFE REFUGE
We are also happy that recently we celebrated a new opening
of a wildlife refuge. We dedicated the Holt Collier Wildlife
Refuge, the first wildlife refuge to be named for an African
American. He is the fellow who took Theodore Roosevelt on the
bear hunt down in the Mississippi Delta where the bear was
lassoed because he was about to get away, and they said, shoot
the bear, Mr. President, and he would not shoot the bear
because they had a rope around his neck. Some cartoonist in New
York put that in the newspaper in a story about it, and hence,
the teddy bear. An enterprising toy store owner decided to
capitalize on the notoriety of Teddy Roosevelt.
So we had a great celebration the other day at the
Mississippi Museum of Natural History where we dedicated this
new refuge. But it is one of many throughout the country that
help serve the purpose of wildlife habitat protection, and part
of the funds that people pay for duck stamps and the privilege
of hunting migratory birds is to go into a fund where we set
aside certain amounts to protect wildlife habitat. This is one
of the newest areas in our State that joins the refuge system.
Fittingly enough, it is a part of the Theodore Roosevelt
Wildlife Refuge system in our State. We are very proud of that
connection with the former President.
TSUNAMI WARNING SYSTEM FUNDING
Let me ask you a question about the supplemental. I had
some notes from my staff indicating that there would be a
request for additional funds for supplemental funding for a
tsunami warning system, and that involves the USGS, U.S.
Geological Survey, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Is that something that the Department is
involved in in some way? Could you tell us what your needs are
in connection with this supplemental request?
Secretary Norton. The U.S. Geological Survey provides half
of the equation in trying to determine tsunamis. We are the
ones that monitor earthquakes all over the world and are able
to quickly determine the size, intensity, and location of the
earthquakes, and then that information is given to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that has wave monitors
and so forth that then can provide tsunami warnings.
Since the very tragic situation in the Indian Ocean, we
have focused on our activities, as well as those of NOAA, to
determine how we can be most effective both internationally but
also in protecting our own coastline.
From the Department of the Interior perspective, we want to
make sure that our National Earthquake Center, which is in
Golden, Colorado, is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and
that we are able to quickly provide information. We are also
looking at other enhancements to our system.
Lynn, would you like to add something on that?
Ms. Scarlett. Yes. As part of that effort, I believe in the
supplemental there is a proposal for the Department of the
Interior and USGS for about $8 million, with an additional $5
million in our 2006 budget request that would amplify that.
Senator Cochran. Is that fund that you are requesting the
$8.1 million--that is consistent with my information as well.
Is that needed in this fiscal year or should it be made a part
of the next year's appropriation? What is the urgency? How will
the money be spent if it is provided in the supplemental?
Mr. Trezise. Senator Cochran, most of that money is for
technology upgrades, both hardware and software, that need to
be initiated now so that we can get them in place as soon as
possible, and certainly in 2006, to have a higher level of
ability to monitor and disseminate information on earthquakes.
Senator Cochran. Will this protect the United States and
its territories, or will it protect other areas such as in the
Indian Ocean?
Secretary Norton. There are protections that will assist
with both. In many parts of the world, there are earthquake
monitors that exist that provide information to our system, but
they are not directly wired into our system to get information
in real time. You have to have somebody go out and check and
send in the information. So being able to have immediate access
to that will help worldwide.
We also want to look more closely at our own coasts and
especially in the Gulf of Mexico area to see that we are
enhancing our ability in those areas. The most vulnerable areas
are actually our territories as opposed to the U.S. coastline,
but we want to see that we are looking at the Gulf of Mexico.
HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT
Senator Cochran. My final comment is about your cooperation
and leadership in the implementation of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act, which we passed here in Congress. We thank you
for your leadership in implementing that legislation. We hope
that you will let us know about the levels of funding that you
may need to help ensure that we continue to do a good job of
stewardship not only with our U.S. forest lands but also to
assist private landowners in helping to protect their lands,
and that is part of this restoration act as well. Thank you
very much.
Secretary Norton. Thank you.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
In the area of contract support costs in the recent court
decision, the court ruled that tribes have not been fully
reimbursed for self-determination contracts that they have
entered into with the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Can you give us a short synopsis of the Supreme
Court decision and how that impacts the Department of the
Interior?
Secretary Norton. As you mentioned, that is a very recent
decision. Our lawyers in the Solicitor's Office are taking a
close look at that decision. Their preliminary analysis is that
the decision will not require significant retroactive payments
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
As the subcommittee is aware, for a number of years, the
Interior Appropriations Act has contained bill language that
caps the amount of funding available for contract support for
both BIA and the Indian Health Service. The Cherokee Nation
case involved claims for contract support from IHS for a period
before the legislative cap was put in place. The Office of the
Solicitor indicates that there are no pending cases against BIA
involving claims for contract support for years prior to the
legislative cap.
Senator Burns. Will this budget that we are talking about
here impact this 2006 fiscal year? And should there be any left
for the 2005?
Ms. Scarlett. I do not believe we anticipate an impact for
2006 nor for 2005.
PRESERVE AMERICA PROGRAM
Senator Burns. I, like Senator Dorgan, am concerned about
Preserve America. We have several programs out there right now,
as you well know, that deal with American heritage spots, and
now we have added another one here. Give me your idea. How come
we cannot assume that there is a lot of redundancy here, and
how will this new program be different than the ones that we
already have in existence?
Secretary Norton. Preserve America differs from our other
programs in a couple of ways.
First of all, the Save America's Treasures Program is a
very good program and we do continue that program, although we
would propose reducing funding. That program focuses on bricks
and mortar.
We also have the heritage area program which is somewhat
more akin to Preserve America in focusing on heritage tourism
and on local efforts to try to incorporate historic
preservation into tourism and into commercial activities.
The Preserve America program is a competitive grant
program. It does not create the kind of ongoing Federal funding
relationship that is created by the heritage area program. It
is something that is available to more communities and is more
focused on assisting community efforts. It does more to really
bring in a public/private partnership for protection of our
historic heritage.
Senator Burns. We may have a little discussion about that
later on, but we will try and work our way through it.
RURAL FIRE ASSISTANCE
In the Bureau of Land Management, rural fire assistance. I
am very concerned about this. You have proposed an elimination
of that program administered by the BLM. The budget justifies
this cut by arguing that the Forest Service and FEMA have
similar programs. I must point out to you that the Forest
Service account for State and local fire assistance was cut by
$22 million. We just had the chief up here the other day and
talked about that. The FEMA assistance grant has been cut by
almost $100 million. So what you have done here sort of impacts
this whole thing. So can you explain the rationale for
eliminating your program?
Secretary Norton. Our program was yet another grant
program, a very small one in comparison with the other
programs. It seemed like a duplication of effort with what the
other larger programs were already doing. We work very closely
with the Forest Service on all aspects of our forest fire
activities.
We are also working with FEMA very closely. As you know, a
lot of their program funds originally went to things that were
related to homeland security and they have put in place a lot
of activities and funding for that. We also have an MOU with
them and we are working to refine that to have their much
larger funding--this year the program is funded at $500
million--to have some of that be available for rural fire
assistance. So we felt like overall from the Federal
Government, it was a more efficient way to deliver those grant
funds.
Senator Burns. If you--I am sorry, Ms. Scarlett. Would you
like to comment?
Ms. Scarlett. I might add to that. We also have $1.9
million within the preparedness program that would also go
towards rural fire assistance directly from the Department of
the Interior, and then we would be augmenting that by working
with the funds that the Secretary noted from FEMA.
Senator Burns. If you could do a report on how you think
interacting with the other agencies such as FEMA and the Forest
Service and sort of lay that out for the concerns of the
committee. We are looking at probably the lowest snowpack that
I have ever seen in the State of Montana, and we are not any
better off in the plains where most of the BLM land is. And of
course, in Montana most of the forests are with the Forest
Service. If we do not have a very good April, May, and June, I
fear we are in deep trouble. So that is why I am concerned
about this. If you could give us some idea on how you will
interact, understanding the conditions of the northern high
plains.
I realize down in Colorado that is your home country, that
jet stream just went south this year and it stayed down there,
and when it does not whip up and down in your weather patterns,
some places get caught off about that. But if you could have
some sort of a report to us on how that interaction is going to
happen and the dollars involved, I think it would allay a lot
of concerns that this committee might have.
[The information follows:]
Rural Fire Assistance
The requested information on how the Department of the Interior's
Wildland Fire Management program will work with FEMA and the Forest
Service so that RFDs continue to receive federal assistance follows.
The National Fire Plan represents a long-term commitment and
investment to help protect communities, natural resources, and most
importantly, the lives of firefighters and the public from the risks of
wildland fire. Rural fire departments are a vital resource in assisting
the Department in meeting its fire management responsibilities. The
program will continue to support these critical relationships through a
variety of means.
The Rural Fire Assistance program was authorized in the Department
of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, Public
Law 106-291, to enhance the fire protection capability of rural fire
departments (RFDs). The program provides funds to rural/volunteer fire
departments that serve small, rural communities to purchase training,
equipment, and fire prevention activities. Funds are provided on a
cost-shared basis. Participating bureaus include Bureau of Indian
Affairs, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Since 2001, the program has provided $50 million
in grants that have been used to train more than 12,000 firefighters,
provide PPE to more than 100,000 firefighters, and conduct over 1,000
workshops in small communities.
The Department is committed to continuing to enhance RFDs' capacity
to protect communities from wildfire while increasing their level of
safety. The 2006 budget request includes $1.9 million in new
preparedness funding to further wildland fire training for RFDs. The
ready reserve proposal would strengthen initial attack and develop
extended attack capabilities by training 1,000-2000 firefighters each
year and equipping them with personal protective equipment (PPE).
Communities will benefit by having skilled cadres of local firefighters
available to reduce loss of property and natural resources.
The Wildland Fire Leadership Council (WFLC) was established in
April 2002 to implement and coordinate the National Fire Plan and
provide leadership to address interagency differences to ensure
seamless delivery of a coordinated fire protection program. Members
include senior officials from the federal fire agencies, bureau heads,
and state, tribal and county representatives. In January 2003, WFLC
members from DOI, USDA, FEMA and the National Association of State
Foresters signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to promote
consistent and systematic federal assistance to fire departments and
support national efforts to improve firefighter safety, protect
property, and save lives with respect to catastrophic wildland fire.
Under this agreement, partnering agencies developed a collaborative
approach to review competitive applications for grant awards as well as
discuss the various program parameters. While our relationship has been
enhanced, the partnering agencies have also provided the public better
information about our collaborative work.
The next step in furthering this collaboration is to enhance the
existing MOU. Talks between the partnering agencies are underway, and
have focused on means to emphasize the small rural departments that are
vital to wildland fire initial attack success. In particular, the large
FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program has a number of
components that would be suitable to serve RFDs that perform wildland
firefighting duties. This program seeks to support organizations that
lack the tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety
of the public and their emergency response personnel with respect to
fire and other hazards. Grants may also be used for training,
equipment, and PPE, as well as fitness and wellness, and structure
modifications not funded by RFA.
Discussions for MOU revision have included the following points:
--Provide additional information to FEMA on wildland firefighting
priorities and needs. This information could possibly be
incorporated into annual guidance issued for prospective grant
applicants or as website links.
--Further formalize DOI, Forest Service and FEMA peer review of FEMA
awards. The existing MOU encourages sharing information about
pending grant applications among the various partnering
agencies, as well as coordinating application reviews. Efforts
to further integrate all partners in the peer review process in
some cases are restricted by authorizing statutes. For example,
federal employees are prohibited from participating with
members of fire service organizations for the purpose of
determining criteria for awards. However, peer review panel
chairs must be federal employees. Final language refining the
level of federal participation appropriate in the criteria
development process will be carefully considered.
--Share additional website information. This exchange will likely
take the form of additional links between partners' websites,
and should be readily accomplished.
--Coordinate educational efforts for grant workshops. These efforts
will further ``one-stop- shopping'' so that grant workshops
provide more information about the breadth of resources
available to RFDs.
Within the larger AFG program are several smaller components that
could be suitable for RFDs seeking assistance for wildland fire
training and equipment. Fire Prevention and Firefighter Safety (FPS)
grant applications will be accepted in September 2005. This 5 percent
set-aside could be used for things like planning, coordinating,
community awareness and Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs).
The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant
program (new in 2005) will be open in June: guidance is still pending.
The Department recognizes constraints on the various federal grant
programs. Efforts to best utilize scarce resources, further community
protection and safety, and enhance RFDs' capacity to reduce the loss of
property and natural resources provide the opportunity to evaluate the
effectiveness of our overall interagency program delivery. We look
forward to continued discussions with partnering agencies and expect to
finalize an enhanced MOU by summer.
The following table summarizes agency fire grant appropriations
from fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2005.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Senator Burns. This is going to be my last question and
then I am going to send this whole thing down to you.
RANGE IMPROVEMENT FUND
In the area of range improvement funds, I noticed you
eliminate those monies. As you know, we work very closely in
range improvement with the Society of Range Management, which
is a rancher-funded organization, and use that. We still have
work to do in habitat and riparian areas. That is how we really
averted the sage grouse controversy because a lot of people
took it at its word up front and went to work on that. A lot of
States did, anyway, working with our grazers and our recreation
people. I have some concern about that.
Also, I know this is hard to understand here in Washington,
D.C., but you ought to go to some of these glitzy kind of
receptions and somebody walks up to you and says what are you
working on today, and you say weeds. See how fast you are
standing there by yourself.
A lot of folks do not know the invasive weeds or noxious
weeds that we have to contend with. That was part of this fund.
So I am kind of concerned about that because we still have a
weed problem.
Secretary Norton. Mr. Chairman, our proposal is one that
would continue our funding for those programs at the current
level, working through our challenge cost-share program and
deferred maintenance funding. What our proposal does is move
away from mandatory funding for those purposes. We certainly
recognize the importance of invasive weeds. I have my own share
of understanding about cheat grass and things like that. We do
recognize that is important. This is just a change in the way
in which the funding is structured.
Senator Burns. For years and years and years, groups have
sought to eliminate grazing on public lands. The other day we
saw where they actually paid a sheepman to come in and mob off
the side of the mountain in order to get rid of weeds. That is
the best control we have. They were so glad that they had come
up with that idea, that grazing those things off is better than
using chemicals or spray or hand eradication or anything like
that. They came up with this idea they were going to use sheep
to do it. Gosh, I wish I had thought of that.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
RURAL AND COMMUNITY FIRE FUNDING
Madam Secretary, I want you to know that I share the
chairman's concerns about the rural and community fire funding.
I too would like to see that report. I think we have got big
problems, not having to do with your Department, but certainly
the other Department with respect to seeing that those
hazardous fuels monies could really go where the need is,
particularly in the urban interface areas, which are more
expensive to treat. That is really not your problem, but it is
my problem.
LESLIE SALT PONDS
I wanted to talk with you about something you said, and
that is the subject of private/public partnerships. In my
State, I think one of the best private/public partnerships was
something that I had something to do with, and that was the
private/public partnership that we hope will result in the
largest wetlands restoration in our State. That is the
conversion of the Leslie Salt Ponds in San Francisco Bay back
into wetlands. The bay has lost 90 percent of its wetlands
We put together a private/public partnership of $100
million to buy those salt ponds from Cargill. My understanding
is that the conversion is going rather well. As a matter of
fact, as I fly home and we fly on the landing pattern over the
salt ponds, I see them bit by bit changing back into wetlands
and bay waters. It is indeed very exciting. We have had great
cooperation from the Hewlett, the Packard, the Gordon Moore
Foundation, the Richard Goldman Foundation, the State in
putting up the money, and the Federal Government put in $8
million of that $100 million.
DON EDWARDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
A problem has arisen with the Don Edwards National Wildlife
Refuge with the addition of 9,600 acres to that refuge. It is
my understanding that Fish and Wildlife has said that that
would cost another $540,000 in O&M. It is also my understanding
that the President's budget proposes to remove $532,000 fiscal
year 2005 appropriations for conservation work on the refuge. I
think these are important dollars.
So my question is, how will the Fish and Wildlife Service
make up this $532,000 cut?
Secretary Norton. I am enthused about the Don Edwards
Wildlife Refuge, having once been a resident of the San
Francisco Bay area.
Senator Feinstein. You have been out there and you have
seen what we are doing.
Secretary Norton. Yes. That is a spectacular piece of
property.
We view that as a prime place for the Partners in Fish and
Wildlife program and for some of our other conservation
programs. We are requesting a $12 million increase for the
general program activities in the partners program and believe
that the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge restoration would be a
great example of the kinds of things that we could do with that
program.
We also have funding that we are working through with the
U.S. Geological Survey for some research at the wildlife
refuge. So what we would propose to do is work with our
existing, funded programs to address the work in that area.
Senator Feinstein. So far you are batting 1,000. Let us see
if it continues.
USGS ASSISTANCE TO REFUGES
I also understand that two important sources of 2005
funding for USGS assistance to refuges totals about $900,000,
and that will no longer be available in fiscal year 2006. Now,
it is my understanding that these monies are used really to do
critical studies on mercury and other pollutants in refuge
areas. To be specific, this is $195,000 in USGS science support
funds and $750,000 from the California Coastal Conservancy.
Now, that is not your problem, but I understand those monies
are no longer going to be available.
So my question is, what will happen with some of those
critical studies that need to be done?
Ms. Scarlett. Senator, with the USGS we have what is called
a Priority Ecosystems program from which monies went to this
work. Also the State of California funded the research that you
are identifying. That program is funded in 2006 at the same
level as 2005, and we would anticipate that the science
projects at Don Edwards would, likewise, in 2006 be eligible
for funding.
The other portion of funds came from what is called a USGS
Quick Response program. That is funded at $350,000 in 2006. The
distinction there, we would need to look at whether the Don
Edwards Refuge would be eligible for the criteria set under
that Quick Response program.
Senator Feinstein. May I ask, Madam Secretary, then that
you work with us so that we know?
Secretary Norton. We would be happy to do that. I would
also point out that we have significantly increased the
operations funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service over the
last several years and view that also as being available to
help with that Don Edwards Refuge.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much.
LWCF FUNDS REPROGRAMMING
Now a question on the reprogramming of Land and Water
Conservation funds. It is my understanding that last year's
omnibus included a provision that rescinded $10 million in
unobligated BLM Land and Water Conservation funds. I am
concerned that an Interior plan to allocate to California a
disproportionate share of the rescinded funds, and by that I
mean that $7 million out of the $10 million would be taken out
of California projects. That could make acquisitions very
difficult, and specifically the Cathton property near Palm
Springs, which Representative Bono and I wrote to you about. I
do not know if you saw the letter but we wrote very recently.
So my question is, how does the Department plan to ensure
that these cuts are made fairly and the burden is shared
equally across other States?
Secretary Norton. I would like to ask Lynn Scarlett to
address that in some detail.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Ms. Scarlett. Yes. Thank you, Senator.
At issue was $16.8 million in specific projects earmarked
by the Congress but for which $6.8 million were provided. My
understanding is that the Bureau of Land Management looked at
its unobligated acquisitions across the Nation and looked at
its existing priorities and determined which of the $10 million
in unobligated balances it would then utilize for those
programs authorized in the 2005 budget.
I believe that reprogramming actually has already been
undertaken. I think it has already been approved, if I am not
mistaken.
Mr. Trezise. Notification has been submitted to the
subcommittees, yes.
Ms. Scarlett. With the particular property that you have
mentioned and the distribution of those unobligated balances
for the State of California. If, as Congress reviews our
reprogramming request, we need to go back and look at that, we
certainly would do so.
Senator Feinstein. I appreciate that. And you remember
where you are from.
Senator Burns. I will remind her.
Senator Feinstein. Good.
DESERT PROTECTION ACT
I am glad the chairman is here because I want to talk to
you just for a minute about the Desert Protection Act. That is
a bill that I wrote. We were intimately familiar with it. It is
a big park and wilderness bill. When the bill was written, we
were aware that there were certain grazing operations on
national park land. I went down and I looked at them.
This was really kind of the old West still existing in the
desert. I remember visiting the Blair family. They live 50
miles from the nearest school, 75 miles from the nearest store.
Kathy Blair took her children to school both ways. That is 100
miles a day driving. They had their own generator way out in
the middle of the desert. They had about 500 head of cattle.
His father, his grandfather had worked that.
I wrote the bill specifically with the intent that the
existing grazing would continue at the existing level. What I
have noticed now are efforts to do away with the water, make it
more difficult. There were only five ranchers left. Rob Blair
wants to move out. It is just too hard now. Senator Burns
helped me with some language on, one, to make it even clearer
as to what the intent was.
I believe that the Park Service should make every effort to
allow the existing ranchers who wish to do so to continue to
ranch within the confines of the bill's language.
Now, this language can come into conflict with the
Endangered Species Act involving the desert tortoise. I
recognize that.
But I guess what I want to ask you, offering a grazing
permit, but withholding water facilities is an empty gesture.
Will you commit to allowing the return of the previous water
facilities under this temporary grazing permit?
Secretary Norton. Senator Feinstein, I appreciate you
bringing this to my attention. I have a prepared response from
my staff, but I am concerned, as you are, about some of the
questions that are raised. I want to find out some more about
this and how much of this is necessitated by endangered species
requirements and how much might be just not having an
appreciation for the grazing heritage of the area. I do
understand that there is one particular permit that has--not
the individual you mentioned--that has some specific problems.
But I would like to take a look a little more closely myself at
the issues that you have raised.
Senator Feinstein. Yes. So you know the legislative
history, this was a tough bill to do. It was filibustered on
the floor. The desert is not like Yellowstone. It is not like
Yosemite. It is totally different. I mean, we have got millions
of acres in this bill, at least 7-8 million acres. It has got
everything there. The thrust of the bill was that no private
property owner be displaced, no eminent domain. Everything
would be willing seller/willing buyer. And existing grazing
could continue sort of in the tradition of the old West.
I know what happens. I understand it. I know the
environmental thrust is, well, get these grazers, make it more
difficult so they will move out, and there will be just
wilderness with nothing else. But that has not been its
history. I think there is a richness in its history. So the
bill was written to protect that historic richness, and that is
really what I want to share directly and publicly with you.
Secretary Norton. Thank you very much. I will look into it
some more.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, and would you let me know?
Secretary Norton. All right.
Senator Feinstein. Great. Thank you.
CALFED. One part of the CALFED water program----
Senator Burns. Will the Senator yield just for a comment?
Senator Feinstein. Certainly.
Senator Burns. I can remember that issue. I would advise
the Secretary that there are some things that go on out there
that you are unaware of. Using the endangered species, I think
it is a weak answer. I think those people just come up with
reasons to make it tough. I will tell you, if you find somebody
that is doing that and they cannot substantiate it, fire them
because some of these people in the Park Service are just
absolutely dedicated to a different idea of what makes this
country work than Senator Feinstein and I. So do not look at
nothing. Just do what the legislation says. I mean it. I get
upset when these people come up and give some damned
bureaucratic answer that does not mean a thing. Maybe I get
really upset about that.
I know what she was trying to do and we tried to do it just
exactly the way it should have been done in the first place.
Now we find other reasons. That is weak. Enough said.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your
support very, very much.
CALFED
Let me speak about CALFED. The one program that is within
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is the Fish and Wildlife
Service's programs. In restoring habitat for endangered salmon,
I understand there are proposals to concentrate funding on
projects that provide the greatest increases in fish
populations per dollar expended.
What I would like to ask is that you provide me with a list
of the most potentially promising ecosystem restoration
projects in California and how these projects will advance us
toward the fish doubling goals of the CVPIA. I think those are
good goals. When we put together the CALFED bill, again, we
were very serious in the ecosystems restoration and fish
restoration. So it would be helpful if I were to technically
know which are the most promising restoration areas for fish.
Secretary Norton. That seems like an excellent question,
and we will try to answer that as well as we can.
[The information follows:]
California Ecosystem Restoration Projects Relating to Central Valley
Anadromous Fish Doubling
Much of the restoration to date, conducted by the Fish and Wildlife
Service under the authority of the Central Valley Improvement Act
(CVPIA) and CALFED Bay-Delta program, has been focused on physical
restoration to improve habitat conditions within the system. While
these efforts have made significant progress towards the doubling goal,
the Service believes increasing instream flow for fish passage,
spawning and rearing is critical if the doubling objective is to be
achieved. Habitat restoration remains a critical component, and coupled
with instream flow for fish passage, can advance the goal of anadromous
fish restoration. Three programs within the Service are focused on
water acquisition for instream flow; the CVPIA 3406 b(3) Water
Acquisition Program (WAP), the CALFED Environmental Water Program
(EWP), and the CALFED Environmental Water Program. The CVPIA b(1)
Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (AFRP) serves as the primary
habitat restoration program. All of these programs undergo extensive,
stakeholder processes that identify priority projects and streams
targeted for funding.
current fiscal year 2005 projects
The Service receives money annually through the Bureau of
Reclamation to implement the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
The Bureau of Reclamation assesses a mitigation fee on water and power
beneficiaries of the Central Valley Project. Fee collections comprise
the Restoration Fund from which the Bureau of Reclamation allocates
funds to the Service for restoration purposes. The programs and funding
amounts described below will assist in advancing the anadromous fish
doubling goal during fiscal year 2005:
$5,181,000 was provided to the Service for the Anadromous Fish
Restoration Program. Section 3406(b)(1) of the CVPIA directs the
Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a program that makes
all reasonable efforts to at least double natural production of
anadromous fish in California's Central Valley streams on a long-term,
sustainable basis. The major resulting program is known as the
Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Since 1995, the AFRP has helped
implement over 195 projects to restore natural production of anadromous
fish.
$617,000 was provided to the Service for the Clear Creek
Restoration Program. The Clear Creek Fish Restoration Program was
established to implement restoration within the Clear Creek watershed
as provided for under section 3406(b)(12) of the Central Valley project
Improvement Act. The Service and Reclamation have worked closely with
California Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources, the
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, county and local
agencies and organizations, stakeholder groups, and the general public
to provide planning and implementation of restoration actions in the
Clear Creek watershed. The Clear Creek Coordinated Resource Management
Planning group and the Clear Creek Technical Team work directly with
local entities to achieve Clear Creek Fish Restoration Program
objectives.
$581,684 was provided to the Service for the Anadromous Fish Screen
Program. The primary objective of the Anadromous Fish Screen Program is
to protect juvenile Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, green and white
sturgeon, striped bass and American shad from entrainment at priority
diversions throughout the Central Valley. Section 3406(b)(21) of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act requires the Secretary of the
Interior to assist the State of California to develop and implement
measures to avoid losses of juvenile anadromous fish resulting from
unscreened or inadequately screened diversions on the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers, their tributaries, the Delta and the Suisun Marsh.
long term projects
The following projects are also high priorities, however they are
projected to take a decade to complete.
water acquisition for instream flow top priorities
Clear Creek.--Generate medium high flows to recreate basic
geomorphic processes and improve habitat quality and quantity for
spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. The ten year program includes
monitoring.
Deer Creek.--Combine water use efficiency and ground water exchange
to provide 50 cfs at critical times to allow unimpaired passage of
spring-run and steelhead. The ten year agreement includes monitoring.
habitat restoration top priorities
Habitat restoration projects are implemented through a competitive,
public request for proposals that includes extensive program,
scientific, and budget review. Public notification is required before
projects are funded, and environmental compliance (consistent with the
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, National Environmental
Policy Act; State and Federal endangered species acts, etc.) is also
necessary. A single entity cannot double natural production of
anadromous fish throughout the Central Valley, partnerships are needed.
Voluntary collaboration to achieve mutual goals and objectives will
accelerate accomplishments, increase available resources, reduce
duplication of efforts, encourage innovative solutions, improve
communication, and increase public involvement and support through
shared authority and ownership of restoration actions.
The habitat projects below have a high potential for contributing
to the CVPIA anadromous fish doubling goal.
Clear Creek.--Stream channel and flood plain restoration projects
to restore ecosystem function and increase spawning and rearing habitat
and thereby increase fish production.
Sacramento River--Improve passage at Red Bluff Diversion Dam for
salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
HEADWATERS FOREST RESERVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
If I may, just a couple more. The BLM's California office
believes that about $1 million annually for the next 5 years is
needed to implement the headwaters forest reserve resource
management plan.
What I would like to ask is, if you have a position with
respect to full implementation of the headwaters plan, would
you tell us? And how much is in the 2006 budget on this issue?
Secretary Norton. It is my understanding that we are on
track with the implementation of that program. We have $1.2
million that is allocated for implementation for 2005 and 2006.
We do view that as an important goal.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION PROGRAM
Let me just ask a question along the lines of the dialogue
that you and Senator Burns had. The BLM hazardous fuels
reduction program is also important for California.
Particularly, we rely on the $2 million of annual grants for
local fire safe councils to implement community protection
measures. I attended a Tahoe summit, which I hope one day you
will be able to attend, where all of the jurisdictions around
Lake Tahoe got together to do their fire plans. The point I
guess is that these grants I think are important. The planning
is going on all throughout the State.
Do you plan to continue these grants?
Secretary Norton. Our overall program that this is funded
from is the hazardous fuels program, and that has an increase
of $9.8 million for this year.
The California Fire Safe Council is a very good program and
we support the work that they are doing. The allocation of
financial support to particular States and local programs is
something that is done as we weigh the needs and the merits of
each of those programs later on in the year. But we do support
the overall work of the program. I cannot give it a specific
dollar amount, but it is the kind of collaborative effort that
we think makes a lot of sense.
Senator Feinstein. Terrific. Thank you very much.
LAKE BERRYESSA
Now, I guess a few days ago, we were visited by supervisors
from Napa County who are having problems with the recreational
facilities at Lake Berryessa, which is currently managed by the
Bureau of Reclamation. I guess what I would like to ask is if
you will work closely with our office and the county
supervisors in looking at the options, as you undertake the EIS
process for a new visitor services plan. Particularly
Supervisor Dillon of Napa County was back here, and there have
been two extensions of public comment. My understanding is the
plan has been recently released for more public comment.
The county provides the police and public services at
Berryessa, which amounts to about $800,000 a year, and
currently there are about 1,300 privately owned trailers on the
west shore of the lake, and there is limited public access. So
the trailer owners want the no-action alternative. That is kind
of where we are. I do not know what the bureau's position is on
this, but we have got a conflict.
Secretary Norton. We understand this is a situation with a
long history. We are very committed to going through the NEPA
process and would be happy to work with you as we continue on
that process. Reclamation expects to have their final
environmental impact statement and record of decision in the
summer or fall of this year. You are correct that we have asked
for additional public comment.
Senator Feinstein. Terrific. Now, just one last one and
then I am finished.
PARK OPERATIONS
The $55.5 million increase in the President's request for
park operations is almost entirely, we understand, for fixed
costs, including pay and benefit costs to cover current Park
Service employees. I think it is great that these costs are
finally being budgeted for, but I understand there are no
programmatic increases for operations. How are you going to
manage?
Secretary Norton. The way in which our park funds are
usually allocated is to each park individually. Within that
they allocate it to the kinds of programs that they think are
most significant for that individual park. We have increased
funding. There was a significant increase in funding for 2005,
and we continue with increases for 2006.
We are also trying to look at ways in which we can operate
more effectively system-wide. Some of our regional directors
have been looking at what I think are good ideas, trying to
look at efficiencies, including those between parks. For
example, if we have two neighboring parks that each want to
have a new archaeologist on staff, they look to see whether we
might be able to share an archaeologist between the two parks.
I think there are some things like that that may be helpful as
well.
We want to be sure that we are continuing to tackle the
maintenance backlog and our request provides the funding for
that, as well as for enhancing our visitor services.
MARIJUANA PROPAGATION IN NATIONAL PARKS
Senator Feinstein. Finally, I just want to give you a
challenge. There is a lot of marijuana being grown in national
parks, and particularly the King's Canyon Sequoia National
Park. I would like to bring that to your attention, if I might.
Secretary Norton. I have heard about some of those
situations. We do have some additional staffing to try and deal
with that. Last year at Sequoia King's Canyon there were 15
arrests of individuals who were cultivating marijuana gardens
within the park's boundaries. It is obviously a situation where
we need to work very closely with the DEA and with other law
enforcement agencies, as well as use our increased staffing for
this.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks for being on top of it. I
appreciate it. I very much appreciate your cooperation and your
responses. Thank you so much.
Secretary Norton. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Feinstein. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I am going to send a whole bunch of questions down there
for you. We will work our way through this thing one way or the
other. Working with you is a delight anyway, and I appreciate
your patience today and your appearance here.
I do have an announcement just for the record. The
Department of Energy hearing is canceled for next week, but our
next hearing will be with the EPA folks, Senator Feinstein.
That will be on April 14.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Senator Burns. We will get those schedules out to the rest
of the members of this panel.
ADDITIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Again, the record will be left open, and if you would
respond to those questions for the record, I would certainly
appreciate that.
Secretary Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Burns. Thank you and thank you to your good staff.
You have wonderful staff. They have been very cooperative in
working our way through this. I certainly appreciate that too.
Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
state assistance (``stateside'') program
Question. Your budget request proposes to zero out the Stateside
program, which provides grants to states for recreation development and
land acquisition. The rationale seems to be that the program does not
have adequate performance measures, and might be viewed as more of a
state or local responsibility.
Can you elaborate on the reasons for your proposing not to fund the
program?
Answer. As the Administration strives to reduce the Federal
deficit, focusing on high-priority direct Federal responsibilities is
imperative. The reduction in State Conservation grants will allow NPS
to focus on park activities while helping to reduce the deficit.
Question. Does your request represent a temporary reduction from
the Administration's point of view, or are you proposing to terminate
the program?
Answer. Budgets are prepared on an annual basis. Funding
availability changes, priorities are reevaluated, and other factors
differ from year to year. The Administration proposes that the State
Conservation grants program receive no new grant money in fiscal year
2006. Funding in fiscal year 2007 and beyond will be determined as part
of the regular budget formulation and review processes that precede
those budgets.
Question. In tight budget times I'm the first to admit that we need
to focus on the primary responsibilities of the Federal government. I
note, however, that other state grant programs escaped the budget
knife. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program, for example, is
increased from $69 million to $74 million. One could certainly argue
that management of fish and game not listed under the ESA is a state
responsibility.
Can you explain the disparate treatment of these two programs?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State and Tribal
Wildlife Grant program directly supports the Service's mission of
working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife,
and plants and their habitats; and is an important component of the
Department's cooperative conservation initiative. The long-term goal of
the State and Tribal Wildlife grant program is to stabilize, restore,
enhance, and protect species and their habitat that are of concern--
this includes listed, at risk, and other species. A significant number
of species currently protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
reside, for all or a portion of their lives, on private lands.
Additionally, many more species living on private lands are either at
risk or potentially at risk of being listed under the ESA. Through the
State and Tribal Wildlife grant program, the species and their habitats
that are in the most need of conservation benefit. These efforts help
the nation avoid the costly and time consuming process that occurs when
a species' population plummets and needs additional management
protection through the Endangered Species Act and other regulatory
protections. Since many issues related to wildlife conservation are not
contained by jurisdictional or administrative borders, the program also
helps to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the States
coordinate efforts to conserve threatened and endangered species,
manage migrating birds, and prevent other species from becoming listed
on the Endangered Species list.
All States are nearing completion of their Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Plans. These plans will have prioritized lists of
conservation actions that will help States stabilize or increase their
wildlife populations in a strategic, cost-efficient manner that is
based on sound science. In order to ensure that species are benefiting
from the conservation actions, all States will have in place strong
monitoring programs. Because of this focus on local input,
prioritization of actions, and monitoring, the Department is confident
that the funds requested for this program will generate significant on-
the-ground results.
In contrast, the National Park Service's LWCF State grants program
funds improvements to State and local parks that are more appropriately
funded through State funding. Furthermore, a PART review in 2003 found
that this program could not measure performance or demonstrate results.
preserve america
Question. Your budget once again includes funds ($12.5 million) for
a new ``Preserve America'' program to provide grants to communities to
develop heritage tourism.
As you know, there is already intense competition for funds in the
arena of historic preservation and heritage programs. States and
tribes--charged by Congress with administration of the Historic
Preservation Act--are seeking additional funds to maintain current
operations and allow for new tribal programs. Congress last year
authorized three new heritage areas, and has many more proposals
pending. The Save America's Treasures program is highly competitive.
And we now have targeted, authorized programs for Historically Black
Colleges and California Missions, with other legislation pending.
Why do we need to create another new program in this arena?
Answer. Preserve America embodies the Administration's commitment
to heritage tourism and historic preservation as economic engines
capable of driving local and regional economies. The Administration's
fiscal year 2006 budget request of $12.5 million for Preserve America
grants, which is only one component of the Preserve America initiative,
would offer a new type of Federal preservation funding that would
support local, state, and tribal heritage tourism initiatives,
promotion and marketing programs, and development of directly related
interpretive and educational programs.
Federal preservation funding needs to evolve to reflect the
increasingly important role that historic preservation and heritage
tourism will play in community economic revitalization in the 21st
century. Since the 1980s, increasing numbers of communities have begun
rehabilitating their historic downtowns, encouraging reinvestment in
their communities. Communities are also using preservation to encourage
heritage tourists to visit (and spend their money). These trends are
creating new jobs and new revenue while preserving the historic
properties that help give communities their unique sense of place and
history.
Despite the growing importance of preservation and heritage tourism
to community revitalization throughout the country, no nationwide
Federal assistance is focused specifically on this issue. Other
programs are much broader in scope--such as the historic preservation
grants-in-aid to States and Tribes--or much narrower--such as programs
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. The Save America's
Treasures program funds critical ``bricks and mortar'' projects, but
not creation of management strategies and partnerships for linking
preservation with heritage tourism. Funding for National Heritage Areas
does address such issues, but is restricted to a limited number of
discrete geographic areas. Preserve America Grants will fill a void by
directly assisting communities nationwide in using and promoting their
historic assets in ways that will spur economic development. In
addition, Preserve America grants would place special emphasis on
significant and creative private-public partnerships that could serve
as models to communities.
Question. What is the Federal role that isn't currently being
fulfilled?
Answer. Tourism is a key ingredient in the national economy, and a
significant component of many local economies. It is the third largest
retail sales industry, amounting to about $528.5 billion in 2002.
Tourism is also one the Nation's largest employers, with 7.2 million
direct employees and nearly 10 million indirect employees. Heritage
tourism, including visiting historic sites and museums, ranked third
among tourism activities and destinations, following shopping and
outdoor activities. Nationally, in 2005, annual revenues from cultural
and heritage tourism are expected to reach $200 billion.
While we readily recognize that historic preservation contributes
to heritage tourism, which in turn contributes to the economy, it is
also important to recognize that the effects are circular: heritage
tourism is a very important contributor to the preservation of the
nation's historic resources. In many cases, the anticipated revenues
from heritage tourism become the economic engine that drives the
initial investment in preservation and rehabilitation of those historic
resources that will become tourism destinations. By focusing on this
circular effect, Preserve America grants will strategically carry out
the National Historic Preservation Act mandate that the Federal
Government will ``use measures, including financial and technical
assistance, to foster conditions under which our modern society and our
prehistoric and historic resources can exist in productive harmony and
fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and
future generations.''
The Administration's Preserve America grants will assist local,
State, and tribal jurisdictions to capitalize on this new economic
reality. The Federal Government can play a critical role by providing
seed money to support planning, development, implementation, or
enhancement of innovative activities and programs in heritage tourism,
adaptive reuse, and ``living history'' programs that can be replicated
across the country. The Administration's proposed Preserve America
grants would provide needed program incentives and the investment
opportunities to produce such local models.
At a time when State and local governments, including counties and
municipalities, are bearing much of the State fiscal difficulties,
local tourism in general and heritage tourism in particular can help
local governments develop their own revenue streams through sales and
bed tax revenues and other indirect income derived from the tourist
service economy. This economic value also translates into more,
improved historic preservation activity and appreciation for the
Nation's history as well as its heritage resources. The grants would
also help other levels of government with important program start-up
funds and the related tools they need to improve their efforts.
Question. Why are Preserve America grants proposed to be
distributed through a new national grant-making structure, as opposed
to being administered by the state historic preservation offices?
Answer. It is appropriate to target Federal investment in this new
program through a nationally-competitive approach, rather than through
the State allocation formula. While the formula for allocating annual
operating funds to State Historic Preservation Officers is an
appropriate and effective method of assistance for those State
functions set out in the National Historic Preservation Act, the
Federal Government has often recognized that specifically targeted
preservation efforts--such as grants to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, or the Save America's Treasures grants--are more
effectively focused through a centralized program. Preserve America
grants fall under the category of specifically targeted efforts that
will benefit from a focused national competition.
Both State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices are proposed among eligible applicants for
Preserve America grants, in addition to designated Preserve America
Communities and Certified Local Governments seeking Preserve America
Community designation.
financial and business management system (fbms)
Question. The Department is in the midst of a major acquisition for
its Financial and Business Management System. While we haven't given
you 100 percent of what you've requested for this project, our
investment to date is very substantial.
My fundamental question is what steps are you taking to ensure that
this major system acquisition doesn't wind up like so many others in
government, which is to say in the trash can?
Answer. The Department has used a planning and implementation
process that is guided by investment control processes, put in place a
governance process and management structure to ensure adequate
oversight, monitoring, risk management, and test and user acceptance.
First, the Department undertook an extensive planning process that
modeled the current business processes (as is) and sought bids for
design and deployment of an off-the-shelf system that would provide the
Department with a system that meets its needs. Selection of a
contractor followed an exhaustive and thorough evaluation of
alternatives and full review and acceptance of a business case.
The Department's project lead managers evaluated the projects
completed by the contractor and made site visits to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. The managers evaluated the deployment of software by
other Federal agencies to gain knowledge about best practices and gain
understanding of potential risks.
Once a contractor was selected, the Department put in place a
governance structure for project decisions based on evaluation of risk.
A full-time project management office was put in place to maintain
continued project management. Deployment to bureaus of modules would be
subsequent to testing and user acceptance. The Department contracted
with an independent verification and validation IV&V contractor to
provide oversight for the project, put in place a change management
process, and created operational environments in which to develop,
test, and operate the system.
The project has a strong governance structure including an
Executive Steering Committee of senior bureau business leaders and the
Department's Chief Information Officer. They oversee the project and
take management actions necessary to ensure that the investment
benefits will be realized.
icon security--u.s. park police
Question. Madam Secretary, for several years now we have been
working with the U.S. Park Police to ensure that the funds we provide
them are properly managed, and that the organization itself has a clear
mission. This is more important than ever given the role the Park
Police plays in protecting some of our icon parks.
Can you give us a status report on these efforts? What changes have
been made and what changes are underway?
Answer. In August 2003 the Department directed a comprehensive
internal effort to complete the task of clearly defining the mission,
priorities, and responsibilities of the Park Police. Shortly after this
internal review began, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Interior and Related Agencies requested NAPA to follow up on its 2001
recommendations and again assess USPP's mission and functions, the
priorities and resources assigned to them, and the feasibility of
adjusting current functions. Because this essentially became a parallel
effort, the Department closely coordinated with NAPA, realizing that it
was critical to incorporate NAPA guidance in our final efforts. NAPA's
new methodology for assessing USPP operations and establishing
priorities for USPP functions was of immense help in providing answers
to significant budget and management concerns.
Working closely with the NPS Deputy Director, the Acting USPP
Chief, and NAPA, the Department has completed a thorough mission
review. Implementation of the principle recommendations concerning
mission clarification, responsibilities, and priorities are well
underway. Many of the other NAPA recommendations are also completed,
while some have made significant progress, but remain ongoing. The
Department is continuing to follow up on all NAPA recommendations that
are not yet completed. The internal review, Report to the Secretary,
U.S. Park Police Mission Review, dated December 17, 2004, was provided
to the Subcommittee and includes a detailed report on each NAPA
recommendation.
Question. Have we made it to the point where we're less likely to
be surprised by mid-year reprogramming requests, or by actual force
levels that don't match budget forecasts?
Answer. We have reached the point where the Park Police can manage
its Force and its finances at a high level of expertise. This
confidence is realized by the work of the Park Police during the
Department's mission review and the selection of Dwight Pettiford as
the permanent Chief of the U.S. Park Police. Chief Pettiford, who was
the acting Chief for about a year, was instrumental in helping to bring
the Park Police mission review and operational priorities of the Park
Police to closure. We also hired an experienced Chief Financial Officer
for USPP in October 2004 who will assist the Chief to better manage the
budget. The Department will also continue a high level of commitment
into the future, helping the Park Police to finalize the remaining NAPA
recommendations; reviewing and implementing the draft USPP Strategic
Plan, which is under review by the NPS; reviewing the USPP draft
staffing model upon its completion; and providing specific guidance for
the 2007 budget formulation cycle.
recreation fee program
Question. Last year in the omnibus appropriations bill Congress
extended the recreation fee program on a long-term basis. I fought this
move along with other members of this subcommittee because I believed
the authorizing committees of jurisdiction were the appropriate bodies
to deal with this legislation. But we did not prevail.
You are aware, Madam Secretary, that there is still some
disagreement out in the land about whether fees are appropriate, on
what activities they should be collected, and how the collections
should be spent.
Are there things in last year's authorization bill that will help
address some of these concerns? How will the new program be different
than the fee program as it has existed for the past several years?
Answer. The new Act provides for a nationally consistent
interagency program with clear criteria for determining appropriate
sites eligible for applying recreation fees, additional on-the-ground
improvements to visitor services at recreation sites across the nation,
a new national pass for use across interagency Federal recreation sites
and services, and more public involvement in the program. Unlike the
Fee Demo Program, which provided broad authority to charge fees, the
Act specifically limits fees to sites that have a certain level of
development and meet specific criteria. The Act includes additional
safeguards against unwarranted expansion of the program by creating
Recreation Resource Advisory Committees in every state or region and
providing other public participation opportunities.
Implementation of a well-run and streamlined recreation fee program
that maximizes benefits to the visiting public is a top priority for
the Departments. On December 17, nine days after FLREA was signed into
law, the interagency Recreation Fee Leadership Council (Fee Council)
convened and approved an Implementation Plan. The Fee Council, whose
members include officials of both Departments, was created in 2002 to
facilitate coordination and consistency among agencies on recreation
fee policies. Our Implementation Plan includes the creation of a
Steering Committee to oversee day-to-day implementation, as well as
several technical working groups for each of the key areas. The Fee
Council created the following technical working groups:
--National Pass Working Group
--Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure Working Group
--Public Participation/Recreation Resource Advisory Committees (RAC)
Working Group
--Communications Working Group
The Implementation Plan sets forth preliminary implementation
timelines by identifying short-term, medium-term, and long-term tasks
and designates staff with the lead responsibility to accomplish those
tasks. The working groups are drafting guidance, developing detailed
action plans, and discussing key issues to ensure compliance with the
new law. One of the short-term tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee
Expenditure Working Group is to ensure that all sites that charge
recreation fees conform to the infrastructure and other requirements of
the new law. Although this review continues, the following are examples
of sites that have already made changes to their fees under FLREA:
--Gavin's Point National Fish Hatchery (FWS) no longer charges an
entrance fee.
--Arapaho National Recreation Area (Forest Service) no longer charges
an entrance fee for the entire area, but may charge a standard
amenity recreation fee at localized developed sites.
--At Imperial Sand Dunes (BLM), recreation fees for two overlooks and
a trailhead were eliminated.
--Quake Lake Visitor Center and Lewis and Clark Visitor Center
(Forest Service) no longer charge for children under 16 years
of age.
Implementation efforts that will require longer timeframes to
implement include establishment of RACs and the implementation of the
America the Beautiful Pass. Successful implementation requires that we
provide opportunity for public input. The RAC Working Group will need
to closely coordinate on the nominations process with states, counties,
and the numerous recreational, tourism, and other groups interested in
serving on the RACs.
A number of factors have led us to set a target date of 2007 for
the America the Beautiful Pass, such as an interest in conducting
``listening sessions'' to provide public input on the pass, conducting
marketing surveys, and developing a process for fulfillment and
marketing proposals. We also are taking into consideration the long
lead time needed for certain aspects of the pass, such as the image
competition. We believe the America the Beautiful Pass has tremendous
potential to provide visitors with a seamless visitor experience, allow
interesting and creative partnerships with communities on visitor
facilities and services, and educate visitors about the tremendous
recreational opportunities on our Federal lands.
We look forward to working with any interested parties and Congress
as we move forward to implement this very important program.
Question. Beyond the requirements of the law, what other steps are
you taking to ensure that the Department doesn't overreach in charging
fees, and that the fee money itself is spent in the most beneficial and
appropriate way?
Answer. The Departments view the passage of FLREA as the beginning
of an important opportunity to create a sensible, visitor friendly,
efficient recreation fee program. FLREA creates a dynamic program that
we intend to implement in a way which will respond to lessons learned
and build on success stories.
We want to ensure that fees only are charged where enhanced visitor
facilities or services are provided and that a majority of the fees are
reinvested into visitor facilities and services at the site. Toward
this end, we not only are implementing the explicit safeguards against
unwarranted expansion found in FLREA, but also are developing guidance
and processes that take into account specific agency and site
differences. The agencies are working together to draft specific
guidance, develop detailed action plans, including timelines, and
discuss key issues.
One of the short-term tasks of the Fee Collection/Fee Expenditure
Working Group is to develop guidance on where fees may be charged and
spent to enhance the visitor experience. Such guidance should work in
concert with existing systems in the agencies that identify priorities
and needs. For example, NPS has put in place a facility management
system that ``grades'' facilities and other assets based on a facility
condition index (FCI). Similarly, BLM is implementing the Facility
Asset Management System (FAMS) to plan and track facility-specific
maintenance needs and costs, to prioritize and monitor maintenance
activities, and to prevent a recurrence of maintenance backlogs.
We also understand that the public participation provisions in
FLREA are a key component to creating a visitor-friendly recreation fee
program. The Public Participation/RAC working group is developing
detailed guidance to ensure the public is provided with opportunities
to participate. In developing the RACs, we will closely coordinate on
the nominations process with states, counties, and the numerous
recreational, tourism, and other groups interested in serving on the
RACs.
We have begun providing opportunities to participate during the
implementation phase of FLREA. In addition to responding to a number of
specific inquiries on implementation, the National Pass Working group
has hosted two ``listening sessions'' to provide the public and members
of the recreation community with an opportunity to share ideas about
the implementation of the America the Beautiful Pass. We anticipate
keeping the public informed and seeking input on the implementation
process through additional stakeholder meetings, Congressional
briefings, and web postings.
relocation costs
Question. I note from the budget justifications that you are more
tightly managing various ``contingency accounts''. The National Park
Service notes that relocation costs accounted for 25 percent of its
contingency account expenditures in fiscal year 2004, for a total of
close to $5 million. This is a significant amount.
Has the Service or the Department recently reviewed its policies
and procedures with an eye toward reducing relocation costs?
Answer. Each year the National Park Service's Accounting Operations
Center prepares an Agency Relocation Cost and Management Data analysis
that is submitted through the Department to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
The Department has undertaken a review of current relocation
policies and practices with an eye to improving effectiveness and
efficiency. Thus far we have examined the current practices, policies
and costs, and are considering policy changes to the relocation service
contract: the time allowed employees to conduct house hunting, the
duration of temporary quarters, and the duration allowed for household
goods storage.
Question. If not, why not? If so, what changes have been made and
what results have those changes had?
Answer. The National Park Service complies with the relocation
policies in Chapter 302 of GSA's Federal Travel Regulations. The costs
of relocation have been rising in recent years, especially with respect
to the ``homesale program'' and ``temporary quarters''. Home values in
major metropolitan areas have appreciated by as much as 300 to 400
percent in the last few years, increasing NPS costs for the homesale
program. Large portions of the relocation program are fixed as a
percentage of the value of the house.
NPS managers pay the relocation costs of employees when they
successfully compete for a park position in another location. In many
cases, parks are limited in being able to fill positions in cases when
the best (or only) candidate is too expensive to relocate.
The NPS, in conjunction with GSA policy, offers an incentive to
employees to sell their own home, thus decreasing the expense to the
agency. Employees who sell their own home receive an incentive that is
the lesser of 5 percent of the value of their home or the difference
between the appraised and amended value of the home. This typically
results in expenses to NPS that are between 4 and 9 percent less than
if a contractor sells the home. With regard to covering temporary
quarters and subsistence expenses, the NPS encourages employees to make
advance house-hunting trips, enabling the NPS to limit the length of
time employees reside in temporary quarters to 30 days. The Department
plans to pursue its examination of options to reduce costs through the
changes to relocation policies and practices.
safecom and disaster management
Question. Last year this subcommittee prohibited the Department
from transferring funds to implement the government-wide SAFECOM and
Disaster Management programs, though we did not prohibit you from
participating in these initiatives.
What has been your involvement to date in these initiatives? Has
your inability to contribute funding hampered your participation from a
Departmental point of view?
Answer. The Department has significant involvement in SAFECOM. This
includes participation in the subcommittees, drafting and recommending
standards and participation in the advisory committee. Several
headquarters and field staff have also attended SAFECOM sponsored event
such as the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications. The
inability to provide funding to SAFECOM has not hampered Departmental
participation in SAFECOM.
For Disaster Management, the Department has initiated actions to
provide emergency alert and notification messages in the Common
Alerting Protocol (CAP) format, an open, non-proprietary standard data
interchange format adopted by Disaster Management. Information to the
public will be made available via the internet, and messages intended
for other governmental users will be provided via the Disaster
Management Interoperability Services (DMIS) system. The United States
Geological Survey will implement CAP messaging during 2005 for
earthquake notifications and for landslide and volcano advisories.
Working with the Bureau of Land Management and the wildland fire
community, CAP messages will be generated for a limited geographic area
during 2005, with the intent of expanding coverage in 2006 as business
rules for such warnings are addressed. Coordination will also begin
with the Forest Service. The inability to provide funding to Disaster
Management has not hampered Departmental participation in Disaster
Management.
Question. Please provide for the record a summary of all SAFECOM
and Disaster Management funding requested in the fiscal year 2006
budget for the Department, as well as a summary of total expenditures
government-wide, by agency.
Answer. The Department's 2006 request includes a total of $1.55
million for SAFECOM and $680,000 for Disaster Management. Government-
wide 2006 spending as reported in OMB's report for Information
Technology spending for SAFECOM totals $22.8 million and for Disaster
Management totals $12.3 million.
fleet expenditures
Question. The Department spends some $160 million to maintain a
fleet of more than 31,000 vehicles. Last year you proposed to achieve
significant savings from improved fleet management, with projected
savings of $11 million in fiscal year 2005 and $3.7 million in fiscal
year 2006.
What progress have you made toward these goals to date? Is it going
better or worse than expected?
Answer. In 2004 the Department began a collaborative initiative to
improve fleet management, developed a strategic plan, and began to
implement recommendations from a review of the program conducted by the
Office of Inspector General. The initiative focuses on economic-based
strategies, including implementation of life-cycle replacement
schedules, disposal of underutilized vehicles, disposal of vehicles
that have surpassed their lifecycle, use of fleet performance measures,
energy-saving practices including an expanded use of alternate-fueled
vehicles, and expanded leasing. The Department-wide strategy for
improved fleet management includes migrating fleet management programs
to a more standardized operational model that promotes energy-saving
technologies, the development of fleet composition baselines and multi-
year plans, improved performance metrics that address efficiency and
effectiveness, vehicle and motor pool sharing, and purchase and lease
arrangements that consider seasonal workforces. The Department's
improvement plan will realize cost savings of 2-5 percent of the total
budget.
Question. What obstacles have you encountered?
Answer. The dispersed nature of the Department's programs and
offices and the variability in the needs for vehicles make it a
challenge to implement more consistent and cost-effective vehicle
operations. For example, many of the Department's fleet need to be able
to cover rough terrain and as a result are equipped with features such
as four-wheel drive. These vehicles cannot regularly consume the most
efficient fuels available, nor are they the most fuel efficient
themselves. However, fleet managers are optimistic that further
reductions in fuel consumption can be attained with the availability of
hybrid sport utility vehicles and the expanded markets of ethanol and
bio-diesel. In addition, because half of the USGS fleet is at least ten
years old, efforts to reach certain fuel efficiency targets by that
bureau have been prevented and it will take several years to implement
a life cycle replacement program. There are also challenges related to
getting favorable leasing arrangements that would allow parks and other
field locations to maintain vehicles on a seasonal basis in lieu of
more costly annual contracts.
cooperative ecosystem studies units
Question. Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units were developed as a
cost-effective means of engaging university science and training
capabilities regionally to achieve Federal agency goals.
What has been the Department's experience with CESUs? Have they
lived up to their promise?
Answer. The Department's Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU)
Network is organized into 17 regional CESUs. Five DOI bureaus are
partners in the network: NPS and USGS are partners in all 17 CESUs; the
Bureau of Land Management has joined 16 CESUs; and the Fish and
Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation have begun to participate
actively, joining 6 and 5 CESU's respectively. The Department has over
2,000 research, technical assistance, and education projects completed
or underway with the over 180 CESU-affiliated universities and other
partners. Many projects involve several Federal agencies working
together. The reduced overhead rate, common cooperative agreement, and
efficient administrative procedures have made the program cost-
effective. The first 8 CESUs have gone through a careful review
process, involving self-assessment, Federal managers review, and an
independent review. CESUs have exceeded their initial promise, with all
8 receiving very positive evaluations. There are now 13 Federal bureaus
engaged as partners with the CESU network, evidence that the CESUs are
considered useful and effective by a wide range of Federal bureaus both
within and external to the Department of the Interior.
Question. Concern has been expressed to me about universities
bearing a disproportionate share of the costs of this partnership.
Are any funds available to universities for the basic cost of
hosting activities, providing technical assistance, providing training,
etc.? Is there merit to providing some amount for each CESU for such
purposes?
Answer. When CESUs were established, each partner Federal bureau
provided $10,000 toward a one-time start-up fund for the host
university. With the reduced overhead rate of 17.5 percent agreed to by
all universities, funds for hosting activities, technical assistance
and training are very limited. While there may be merit in providing
funds for universities that host CESUs for these purposes, such funding
should remain directly linked to the individual research, technical
assistance, or education projects entered into between the Federal
bureaus and universities. Such funding provides substantial return on
the investment for Federal agencies--providing for increased
coordination, technical assistance, training, and other necessary CESU
activities.
presidential inaugural
Question. As is customary, the fiscal year 2005 budget for the
National Park Service and the U.S. Park Police included funding for
additional costs associated with the presidential inaugural.
Can you provide for the record a breakdown of these costs? Has a
full accounting of the NPS/USPP costs for the 2005 inaugural been
completed? How did NPS/USPP incremental expenditures for the inaugural
compare to the increases provided?
Answer. The National Capital Region received an appropriation of
$986,000 for the inaugural. Costs incurred by the region include
planning, preparation and support of the celebration. Reported costs
for the inaugural and the most recent estimates of post inaugural
maintenance total $980,000:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Compensation..................................... $524,759
Communications............................................. 4,708
Supplies/Materials......................................... 154,898
Equipment.................................................. 52,705
Equipment Rentals.......................................... 12,086
Services................................................... 230,844
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services of $230,844 includes $42,000 for turf restoration on the
Mall, $27,329 for fencing, $8,390 for telephone and IT services, $3,125
for removal of decorations from the National Christmas Tree, and
$150,000 for lighting along Pennsylvania Avenue NHP. Costs include
post-inaugural maintenance activities, including $50,000 for
replacement and repair of press risers, $98,114 for gravel on the
National Mall walkways, and $30,000 for paving along the sidewalks of
Pennsylvania Avenue NHP. Expenditures and related estimates are
consistent with the funds requested and provided in the fiscal year
2005 appropriation.
The U.S. Park Police received an appropriation of $986,000 for the
fiscal year 2005 Presidential Inaugural celebration. To date, reported
expenditures from this fund total $420,054:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USPP Payroll............................................... $223,325
Travel..................................................... 16,853
Equipment.................................................. 33,702
Other Services............................................. 146,174
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Services consist primarily of funds paid to law enforcement
from neighboring counties. The final costs to the USPP are not expected
to exceed the $986,000 appropriation. The USPP also received $165,000
from the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee specifically earmarked
for the ``Celebration of Freedom'', and expended $144,283 for this
event. The remainder of the $165,000 was returned to the Committee.
facility condition indices
Question. As part of your effort to implement the President's
Management Agenda, I note that the Department is using facility
condition indices in several of its bureaus as a tool to help
prioritize capital projects.
What bureaus are currently using or developing facility condition
indices?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National
Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are currently using
facility condition indices (FCI) to varying degrees. Currently, all
bureaus are conducting condition assessments in which constructed
assets have been or will be assigned an FCI. FCIs for constructed
assets will be reported to the Federal Real Property Profile required
by Public Law 13327 Real Property Asset Management starting in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2006.
Question. To what degree are FCIs for individual facilities
comparable across bureau lines?
Answer. Constructed assets can be compared across bureau lines when
that constructed asset has the similar function such as housing and
visitor centers. Currently, FCIs for individual facilities are not
compared across bureau lines. However, the Department of the Interior's
Asset Management Partnership, as outlined in the DOI Asset Management
Plan (AMP), will be exploring the use across different types of assets
within the various bureaus. The FCI will be used with a fully developed
DOI-wide asset priority index (API) that rates each existing or
proposed owned and leased asset in the inventory at a specific field
unit/site based on its importance in carrying out the DOI and bureau
missions and achieving strategic goals. In the second quarter of fiscal
year 2006, the Asset Management Partnership will provide Departmental
policy on improving the condition of the asset portfolio and properly
sustaining it over asset life cycle or component life cycle.
Question. Would a BIA school with an FCI of .5 be in much the same
condition as a National Park Service historic building with an FCI of
.5?
Answer. The various types of constructed assets will have their own
numerical scales of what is good, fair, and poor. The Asset Management
Partnership will be reviewing FCI use across different types of assets
across the Department.
Question. Are these measures currently useful in judging the
condition of one bureau's assets against another, or primarily useful
only for comparing assets within individual bureaus?
Answer. Currently, these measures are only useful in comparing like
assets within an individual bureau. As noted in the response to the
previous question, the Asset Management Partnership will be reviewing
FCI use across different types of assets across the Department.
arctic national wildlife refuge
Question. Based on what you know from past and current legislative
proposals, if mineral development within the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge were to be authorized this year as proposed in your budget:
What would be required of the Department during fiscal year 2006?
What would be the cost of those activities and what bureaus would
likely perform them?
Answer. In answering this question, the following assumptions are
made:
--The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the lead agency for the
leasing program (e.g., BLM will be responsible for preparation
of the Environmental Impact Statement during the pre-lease
phase);
--Authorizing legislation would cover seismic exploration during the
pre-lease phase; and
--Authorizing legislation addresses compatibility with Refuge
purposes.
The following major functional tasks would be carried out prior to
the first lease sale should Congress authorize energy development
within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
1. Development of preliminary leasing regulations.--After passage
of authorizing legislation, and because there are currently no
regulations in place for leasing in ANWR, the Department, through the
BLM, would need to promulgate leasing regulations for the program. The
specific content of the regulations would be contingent on the terms of
the authorizing legislation. BLM has indicated that the regulations in
place for leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
could serve as a template.
The process of drafting regulations would probably run concurrently
with the process of drafting an Environmental Impact Statement. BLM
estimates that, assuming no unforeseen delays, the final regulations
would be issued prior to the lease sale.
2. Development of Environmental Impact Statement.--At the same time
that the process of writing regulations begins, the BLM would begin the
process of drafting the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
leasing activities. It is during the EIS process that any stipulations
applicable to the leasing program would be developed. Like the leasing
regulations, a template for stipulations exists from the NPR-A process,
though BLM would also take into account any specific requirements of
the ANWR authorizing legislation.
The minimum timeline for an EIS, from initiation to Record of
Decision (ROD), is estimated at 18 months. Lawsuits related to the EIS
could further delay implementation of a leasing program in ANWR.
3. Seismic Exploration.--Pre-lease seismic exploration, if carried
out, would likely be done concurrently with development of the EIS.
4. Post-ROD Final Preparations for Lease Sale.--Again, using the
NPR-A experience as a template, the final preparations for the lease
sale would likely include the preparation by BLM of a Coastal Zone
Management Consistency Determination; State of Alaska DNR review and
response to that determination; then publication in the Federal
Register of the Notice of Sale 30 days prior to the actual lease sale.
Note that the State's response to the consistency determination must be
received prior to publication of the Notice of Sale.
The minimum period of time estimated by BLM for this process, from
the signing of the Record of Decision to the lease sale, is 120 days,
broken down as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM Preparation of draft CZM--Consistency Determination...... 30
BLM Internal Review of draft................................. 10
State DNR review and response to draft....................... 50
Publish Notice of Sale in Federal Register................... \1\ 30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Register Notice requires a 45-60 day review period in
the BLM Alaska State Office and the Washington Office prior to
publication; this review would run concurrently with the first 90 days
of these final preparations.
The lease sale would take place 30 days after publication of the
Notice of Sale.
There are several places in this process where delays could result
in a longer time period. For example, the State's review process for
the consistency determination is actually 90 days, but the State
normally agrees to shorten the review period to 50 days. Also, as noted
above, the State's response to the consistency determination must be
received prior to publication of the Notice of Sale.
The Department has not yet estimated the specific cost of
performing these activities but expects that funding would be
reallocated from other program activities as necessary.
blackfoot challenge
Question. The Blackfoot River watershed is an extraordinary place,
and if you haven't been there, I invite you or Ms. Scarlett to join me
there this summer. A great strength of the valley is its community of
citizen stewards--led by the Blackfoot Challenge. The Blackfoot
Challenge exemplifies the spirit of cooperative conservation that you,
the President and I are working to encourage and support.
I've been working hard to help the Blackfoot Challenge achieve its
goal of conserving this remarkable place and the community that lives
there. I've been pleased that the President requested funding to
support this community-led initiative in both the fiscal year 2005 and
2006 Forest Service budgets. I am concerned, however, that your
Department has not been supporting this project, despite the
participation of local BLM and FWS officials from the get go.
Can you explain why your Department has not yet recognized the
conservation opportunities that the local community, the Forest Service
and the Congress have so clearly recognized? I am particularly
concerned that the BLM, an agency whose mission I strongly support, has
not been acting to support this project.
Can you help me understand the gap between BLM's local support and
the lack of support by the Washington office?
Answer. The Blackfoot River Watershed Land and Water Conservation
Fund LWCF project is part of a multi-phase land acquisition project. In
order to implement the project, BLM is conducting appraisals, land use
planning, and environmental clearances for the project. During fiscal
year 2004, the Bureau carried over $2.9 million in funding appropriated
for the project. The Phase I Acquisition was completed in February 2005
with the acquisition of 2,500 acres. During fiscal year 2005, an
additional $4.9 million was appropriated for the purchase of
approximately 4,000 acres. The BLM will complete the appraisal on the
Phase II Acquisition by the end of fiscal year 2005, and has completed
the appraisal on the Phase III Acquisition.
Question. Last fall FWS Director Steve Williams announced the start
of planning for a conservation easement program to protect the working
landscapes and natural resources of the Rocky Mountain Front. I hope
this program will be a fine example of cooperative conservation by
ranchers, conservationists and the Service.
When do you expect this long delayed planning effort to be
completed?
Answer. The Front is a high-priority conservation area for the
Service and its partners in the conservation community, including the
State of Montana, the Boone and Crockett Club, and The Nature
Conservancy, because it is the only remaining landscape in the
Continental United States with a complete, intact and functional
assemblage of large mammalian carnivores, including the grizzly bear,
gray wolf, wolverine, and lynx.
The Preliminary Project Proposal for the Program was approved by
the Service's Mountain-Prairie Regional Office in April, 2002 and
forwarded to Service Director Williams for approval. The Director
approved the PPP in October, 2004. This approval provided the Service's
Regional Office with the authority to proceed with detailed planning to
consider the establishment of the easement program. Since October, the
regional planning team has met with the Montana Congressional
delegation, conservation and sportsmen's groups, Federal agencies,
state, and local governments, tribes, and various local business
interests. The team has also held three public scoping meetings at
various locations near the project area.
The Service has developed an Environmental Assessment, pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act, to analyze the effects of
establishing an easement program on the Front, and plans to issue a
Finding of No Significant Impact as a result of the Environmental
Assessment. These documents are currently under review for final
approval by the leadership of the Service.
energy development--flag guidance
Question. Your Department has been tasked with implementing a lot
of President's Energy Plan. I applaud your aggressive efforts to
encourage domestic energy production. At the same time, under your
watch a Clinton-era guidance document--the so-called FLAG guidance--has
continued to be used as a tool to frustrate the state permitting of
critically important energy projects nationwide. In fact, Federal land
managers with jurisdiction in my state tried to stop a much-needed
facility using these guidelines.
How do you justify having these internal guidelines--which were
neither reviewed nor approved by the Congress--continue to frustrate
energy development in the Nation?
Answer. Under the Clean Air Act, the Congress gave the Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) an affirmative responsibility to protect the visibility
and other air quality related values of parks and wilderness areas
(i.e., Class I areas) from the adverse impacts of air pollution. One
process used to meet this responsibility is reviewing permit
applications for new and modified sources that may impact Class I areas
under our responsibility. Under the statute, FLMs have an important
role in the permit review process. It consists of reviewing permit
applications in order to gauge the impact of proposed construction of
major new sources (or major modifications) on Class I areas that are
under the jurisdiction of FLMs, and providing comments and
recommendations to the permitting authority (usually the State) on
whether or not the applicant's facility could cause or contribute to an
adverse impact on an air quality related value in the affected Class I
area. The Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Workgroup
(or FLAG guidance) was designed to provide guidance to permit
applicants and permitting authorities in the form of recommendations,
specific prescriptions, and interpretation of results for assessing
visibility impacts of new sources near Class I areas.
Both permit applicants and permitting authorities requested that
the FLMs develop a consistent approach to reviewing permit applications
and evaluating air pollution effects on sensitive resources. That is
the primary reason why the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, as the three Federal
land managing agencies that administer the nation's Federal Class I
areas, embarked on the FLAG initiative. Prior to FLAG, the different
FLMs, or even administrative units within a single agency, requested
different types of information and analyses from permittees. That
frustrated both permit applicants and permitting authorities. However,
we recognize that a review of FLAG implementation and possible changes
to ensure consistency, timely decisions, and conformance with statutory
authorities is warranted. By providing consistent guidance among the
FLMs regarding what type of information is needed, the FLAG guidelines
were intended to provide more certainty to the permit review process,
and help avoid unnecessary delays in obtaining a permit to construct
such facilities.
Question. Don't you think that these guidelines ought to be taken
down, and that we should start this process over again the right way--
with a notice-and-comment rulemaking?
Answer. In its current form, FLAG is a guidance document that is
not legally binding on permit applicants or permitting authorities.
Nevertheless, although the FLMs followed public notice and comment
procedures for FLAG that were similar to a rulemaking,\1\ the FLAG did
not go through all the procedures necessary for an entity within the
Department of the Interior to adopt a rule. Therefore, it does not
constitute a rule. Accordingly, we are planning to initiate a process
to determine whether FLAG or other guidance on this matter ought to be
adopted formally in accordance with the DOI's rulemaking process and,
if so, we would undertake such a process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, prior to releasing the FLAG, the FLMs announced
their FLAG intentions in the Federal Register, provided a 90-day public
comment period on the draft FLAG report, conducted a public meeting to
hear oral comments, considered all comments and prepared a response to
comments document, and made appropriate changes to the draft FLAG
guidance based on public comments received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of FLAG, the FLMs would still need to review permit
applications using the same Clean Air Act provisions and Environmental
Protection Agency regulations and polices that FLAG relies on. By
making the FLAG guidance available to permit applicants (including
those from the energy sector) and permitting authorities, it was hoped
that it would be possible to avoid delays that might result from lack
of understanding of the FLM role and information needs. Because we now
have more than four years of experience with draft FLAG guidance, we
believe that it is appropriate to review and improve on the processes
by which the FLMs review and comment on new source permits.
national park service partnerships
Question. This Committee has been working extensively with the
Department to tighten management of NPS partnerships at all levels of
the Service. We absolutely want to encourage partnerships where
appropriate, but want to be certain that those partnerships fit with
the Service's mission and are prioritized appropriately against non-
partnership projects.
One of the focal points of these discussions has been the proposed
National Center for the American Revolution at Valley Forge NHP. I
think we share a concern that the scope of this project be carefully
considered in light of other NPS needs and future operational demands.
Can you bring me up to date as to the status of this project within
the Department? Can you describe the concerns you have about this
project?
Answer. The NPS continues to work extensively with the partner to
develop a full understanding and compile the remaining analysis to
determine when it is appropriate to request approval of this project by
the House and Senate Congressional Appropriations Committees, as
required. Issues to resolve include the size of the building,
operational sustainability of the project, viability of the partnership
and the amount of Federal investment, both capital and operations
funding envisioned by the partner as necessary to help the project
reach its operational revenue projections.
Within the last year, the Service commissioned a ``Peer Review'' of
the building design and operational plans for the new ARC. This study
reviewed all of the development and operational assumptions used by the
partner in scoping this facility. Specific review was done of expected
attendance, physical planning guidelines, financial performance
outlook, transportation analysis, visitor experience, visual assessment
and operating and staffing recommendations. The Peer Review recommended
a building scope that would achieve all project objectives, could still
be considered sustainable and was ten percent smaller than the original
project being recommended by the partner. As the result of this Peer
Review, the project was reduced in size to meet the Peer Review
recommendations.
After this work was completed, the NPS, in partnership with ARC,
agreed to complete the following analyses to fulfill the requirements
under Director's Order 21 (DO21) and the new Partnership Construction
Development Process:
--A fundraising feasibility study to determine the readiness of the
partner to raise the required funds, probable sources of
contributions and length of time required to achieve stated
fundraising goals. The feasibility study is due to begin on
April 14, 2005. The standard timeframe for this process is 3-6
months. If the study indicates that the funding target cannot
be reached, the partners would be required to adjust the size
of the project, as well as assumptions about operations of the
building.
--A fundraising plan that addresses roles and responsibilities,
including goals; timetable; scope; potential donors;
fundraising strategies and techniques to be used; promotional
or marketing strategies; donor recognition guidelines; and
fundraising experience of personnel assigned to carry out the
plan. An earlier version of a fundraising plan submitted to the
NPS was not based on a feasibility study and failed to comply
with DO21.
--An updated outline of an Operations Plan which will describe the
general operations of the museum facility/collections center,
including the nature and type of activities to be conducted,
the respective roles of the parties, NPS rights for the use of
the facilities, and the source and use of operating revenue.
Operation of the facilities shall be in accordance with
applicable Federal, State, and local regulations, public NPS
standards generally applicable to such facilities, and other
criteria described.
--An Expected Budget that will explain the budget commitments of ARC
and the expected budget implications for NPS. The budget
presentation will be activity based and will be designed to
clearly show the involvement of both partners and their
respective areas of emphasis. The budget will address the
financial impact the project could have on the park in best and
worst case scenarios with respect to projected park visitation,
staffing, maintenance, and other factors. The budget also
communicates NPS's commitment that the project not diminish
existing service levels at the park. The budget will be
developed to ensure that the partners themselves can make
future modifications and the model will remain useful in years
to come. The budget will be presented in a format suitable for
communication amongst the diverse government and private
stakeholders in this project.
The National Park Service will consider presenting the project to
the House and Senate Congressional Appropriation Committees once this
work is completed and reviewed by the Service and the Department.
Question. Have the project partners made adjustments in their
proposal in response to the concerns expressed by the Department, or in
response to concerns expressed by Congress?
Answer. In response to concerns and questions raised by the
Service, Department, and Congress, adjustments have been made to the
proposal and to the partnership. These adjustments include:
--Reducing the size of the facility from 131,000 square feet to the
current target of 90,000 square feet.
--Compliance with the approved models for collections storage
facilities and visitor centers (the museum will comprise a
small orientation area, restrooms, book store, and food service
area that fulfill visitor center functions).
--Participation by the partner in a Fundraising Feasibility Study
which will determine the likelihood of such a fundraising
venture being successful.
--Agreement by the partner not to seek funding from Congress for the
project.
--Compliance with the Service's Director's Order 21 and the
Appropriation Committee's requirement that the NPS seek
approval from Congress.
The Service and the Department fully expect that the partner will
comply with any recommendations resulting from the Fundraising
Feasibility Study once completed or the project will not be moved
forward.
u.s. geological survey (usgs)--landsat satellite mission/funding
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget includes a $12 million
request to support the current Landsat 7 satellite mission and $7.5
million to begin system development for the follow-on mission scheduled
for 2009.
Give us a brief update on the status of Landsat 7. Has a solution
been found to correct the degraded data that is sent from the
satellite? If not, how valuable is the data now being archived? How
significantly has demand for these products diminished?
Answer. Although the imaging equipment onboard the spacecraft
cannot be repaired and is still impacting the images being acquired,
the Landsat 7 images collected after May of 2003 are still very useful,
as demonstrated by the uses of the data to map the devastation that
resulted from the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. The USGS has developed
several new products since the anomaly. Users can currently order (1)
pre-anomaly scenes (prior to the equipment failure), (2) post-anomaly
scenes, those containing scan line gaps (non-gap filled), and (3) three
variations of gap-filled products where the gaps are filled by
interpolation using data from the edges of the gap, data previously
collected (1 to 1\1/2\ years old) or, data from a scene collected 16
days previously. In October 2003, the USGS began selling the non-gap
filled scenes and in May 2004 introduced the first of the gap-filled
products. Based on input from the user community, the USGS expects
these new products to appeal to users that have heretofore not
purchased the post-anomaly products. Although it is taking time for the
community to realize that Landsat 7 continues to collect seasonal,
global data sets that can still provide accurate land-cover and land-
use records, currently post anomaly and gap-filled products account for
40 percent of Landsat 7 data sales. In fiscal year 2005 the USGS
expects to distribute over 6,000 Landsat 7 scenes, which is less than
half of the scenes that were distributed per year prior to the anomaly.
From fiscal year 2005 and forward the USGS expects income from data
sales to stabilize at approximately $3.3 million per year and fees from
International Cooperators at approximately $1.5 million.
Question. Describe in greater detail the Landsat Data Continuity
Mission. What is the full cost of developing systems and other
requirements that will be needed to accommodate data from the 2009
satellite launch?
Answer. In December 2003, a White House-chartered interagency
working group concluded that the best solution for Landsat data
continuity was to host a Landsat instrument on two of the planned
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) weather satellites. The mission, renamed from the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission to Landsat on NPOESS, will be the follow-on to the
Landsat 7 mission. Landsat on NPOESS is intended to ensure the
continued acquisition and availability of Landsat-quality data in order
to provide policymakers, researchers and the public with long-term
global monitoring of the terrestrial environment.
NPOESS will converge existing military and civilian polar-orbiting
weather satellite systems under a single national program. Polar-
orbiting satellites are able to monitor almost the entire landmass of
the planet. NPOESS is managed by a tri-agency Integrated Program Office
(IPO) using personnel from the Department of Commerce, Department of
Defense, and NASA.
NPOESS requires remote sensing data from three orbital planes to
accomplish its mission. Each plane is identified by its longitude of
ascending node (LTAN), or 13:30, 17:30, and 21:30. The NPOESS program
will launch 6 (two in each LTAN) satellites over a 10-15 year period.
Both of the 17:30 spacecraft will host an Operational Land Imager (OLI)
that will employ a solid-state sensor and collect data in one
panchromatic and eight multispectral bands (see Table 1) over the
entire Earth's land surface (85 North latitude to 85 South
latitude).
The USGS expects this successor to the Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic
Mapper Plus (ETM+) sensor to be operational on board NOAA's NPOESS by
early calendar year 2010. While the OLI uses different sensor
technology than the previous Landsat satellites, its spectral bands,
combined with a rigorous calibration, will ensure continuity with
millions of Landsat scenes collected and archived by the USGS over the
past 34+ years.
TABLE 1.--SPECTRAL BANDS TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE OLI SENSOR ONBOARD TWO OF THE NPOESS SATELLITES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Band Band type Scientific applications Heritage Resolution m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. Coastal Aerosol...... Useful in water studies.......................... ALI/MODIS................ 30
2................................. Blue................. Useful for water body penetration (bathymetric ETM+ Band 1.............. 30
mapping), distinguishing soil from vegetation,
and forest type mapping.
3................................. Green................ Useful to measure green reflectance peak in ETM+ Band 2.............. 30
vegetation.
4................................. Red.................. Useful to help discriminate vegetation types..... ETM+ Band 3.............. 30
5................................. Near IR.............. Useful for differentiating vegetation types, ETM+ Band 4/ALI.......... 30
biomass content and water/land interfaces.
6................................. Shortwave IR 1....... Useful for looking at moisture content of soil ETM+ Band 5.............. 30
and vegetation.
7................................. Shortwave IR 2....... Useful for discriminating mineral and rock types. ETM+ Band 7.............. 30
8................................. Panchromatic......... Useful as a sharpening band...................... ETM+ Pan Band/ALI........ 15
9................................. Cirrus............... Useful for cirrus clouds and aerosols............ MODIS.................... 30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USGS costs for participating in the Landsat on NPOESS mission
are provided in the table below. The costs are shown from fiscal year
2005 to fiscal year 2023 and include both development and operations
costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 BTC \2\
enacted budget 2007 \1\ 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USGS...................................... 0.75 8.20 24.15 20.24 19.14 \3\ 22.8 299.00
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Outyear numbers are based on current program estimates and subject to change.
\2\ BTC=Budget to Complete--includes estimates through the lifetime of the second Landsat on NPOESS mission.
(fiscal year 2023)
\3\ Fiscal year 2009 through BTC for USGS are total cost estimates only. It is expected that fees from data
sales will offset a part of this cost.
u.s. geological survey (usgs)--tsunami-related activities
Question. In the aftermath of the 9.0 earthquake and resulting
tsunami this past December, Congress is now considering a supplemental
appropriations bill that includes a request of $8.1 million for USGS.
These funds will enable the Survey to procure and install additional
seismic monitoring stations and also enhance the existing seismic
monitoring network. The fiscal year 2006 budget request includes a
proposal for an additional $5.4 million to continue work initiated with
supplemental funding, as well as to provide maintenance and staffing of
new and enhanced systems.
To what extent will the Survey's earthquake detection and warning
systems be improved by these investments?
Answer. The funding requested by the Administration for fiscal year
2005 and fiscal year 2006 will permit the USGS to accelerate and
complete several key improvements and upgrades to its National
Earthquake Information Center (NEIC), to the Global Seismographic
Network (GSN), and to key earthquake response products. Prior to
December's tsunami, USGS had begun a slow process of upgrading its 20-
year-old legacy system for real-time earthquake detection and
notification. The additional support will allow the NEIC to complete
development and deployment of its new software system, Hydra, which
enables more rapid earthquake detection and notification in
tsunamagenic source areas that border the United States and its
territories. Moreover, these enhancements are necessary to ensure
reliable operations, performance, and long-term operational cost
efficiencies.
The USGS' new Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response
(PAGER) system uses information about an earthquake's source (e.g.,
ground shaking, rupture length, depth), combined with information
regarding population and infrastructure in the affected region, to
estimate potential impact (both damage and loss of life) of a major
ground shaking event. PAGER is ideal for both domestic and
international earthquakes in areas where a dense seismic network is not
available, but where a rapid assessment is critical for estimating
impact. Funding for PAGER will provide for additional research
scientists, technical support, and computer programmers needed to fully
implement the PAGER program. The outcome of this investment will be
improved algorithms for Global ShakeMaps, finite fault modeling, rapid
aftershock identification and association, and loss estimation. PAGER
will also allow for integration and evaluation of impact of secondary
hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, and tsunamis.
The NEIC requires a full-time, 24x7 staff of seismologists to
quickly respond to potentially damaging events and ensure data
throughput to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) tsunami warning centers. NEIC also requires a commensurate level
of commitment to oversee the computer and network operations to ensure
continuity of operations 24x7 (currently a small group of research
scientists volunteer on an ad hoc basis to respond when computer
systems fail in the off hours). With the requested support, NEIC will
decrease reporting time for global earthquakes (currently over one
hour) and reliably deliver a complete suite of earthquake products,
including PAGER, within 20 minutes or less.
The Global Seismographic Network (GSN) is a critical source of
seismic data for earthquake detection and tsunami warnings. The GSN is
jointly supported by USGS and the National Science Foundation, with
USGS responsible for operations and maintenance of approximately two-
thirds of the network. Improved telemetry connections are needed so
that all GSN stations provide data in real time. Other noted
improvements include more frequent maintenance for enhanced uptime and
expanded field recording. With the enhanced funding, telemetry upgrades
will be made system-wide to improve the timeliness and accuracy of
earthquake analyses for rapid response. In the Caribbean, where there
is an earthquake and tsunami threat to U.S. territories, additional
GSN-quality stations will be installed to adequately monitor the
earthquake activity and provide rapid reports to response officials.
The outcome of this investment will be a state of the art, real time
earthquake detection and notification system that is both timely and
robust and enables delivery of a suite of value-added earthquake
information products that emergency managers want.
Software developed through the California Integrated Seismic
Network (a USGS, university, and State partnership) to speed USGS-
generated earthquake information directly to local emergency managers
has a dual-use capability to also provide NOAA tsunami warnings. This
system, designed to provide a mechanism for instantaneous transmission
of seismic information, complements existing NOAA delivery mechanisms.
Investment in this area will allow emergency managers to respond to
earthquakes as well as tsunamis.
Question. How much of an additional investment would be required to
optimize the system?
Answer. With the funding requested in the 2005 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act and the 2006 President's budget
request, we are on our way to having an optimized tsunami warning
system. The requested funding will provide software development with
the National Earthquake Information Center, enhanced operations and
maintenance of the NEIC including it's continuous operation 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, full implementation of the Prompt Assessment of
Global Earthquakes for Response system to estimate potential impact of
major ground shaking event, improved tsunami warning distribution, and
improved global seismic monitoring and rapid information delivery. The
increased funding will also allow for the collection and assessment of
the geological and geospatial information necessary to improve regional
assessments of coastal areas for potential damage from a tsunami
hazard. The supplemental incluedes $8.1 million for these activities
and the 2006 budget request includes an additional $5.4 million for
these activities. Funding in the outyears is expected to be level with
the 2006 request.
Question. How is GS contributing to the global effort to improve
coordination of early warning systems and the communication of critical
data?
Answer. The USGS Director is providing leadership toward the
development of the Global Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS),
an international effort to develop a comprehensive, sustained, and
integrated Earth observation system. The implementation plan for GEOSS
was adopted at the Third Earth Observation Summit held in Brussels,
February 2005. In parallel, the United States has developed a Strategic
Plan for the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System, which, like the
GEOSS plan, focuses around nine societal benefit areas, including
``Reduce loss of life and property from disasters'' and ``Protect and
monitor our ocean resources.'' The USGS will work with its GEOSS
partners and other international bodies (such as the UNESCO
International Oceans Committee) to develop a global tsunami warning
system.
As part of the President's ``Disaster Management'' e-Government
Initiative, one of 24 initiatives established by the President's
Management Council, the initiative's Web site is linked to USGS
disaster information Web sites to ensure that the most current USGS
research results and data are available to organizations and citizens
as part of the initiative's effort to make better use of information
technology (IT) investments and to reduce government response time to
citizens.
In addition, the USGS is exploring the feasibility of earthquake
early warning, in which rapid computer analysis and communication links
are used to provide seconds of warning before earthquake waves arrive
(much as is done for tsunami waves on a much longer time scale). Such
warning systems are in place in Japan, Mexico, and Taiwan. The 2000
reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) called for development of a U.S. early warning system for
earthquakes. The USGS would implement early warning as part of a fully
implemented Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). The USGS sponsors
modest research and development in this area. The largest unmet need
for early warning is station density. In addition, prototype software
requires significant effort to become fully operational.
Question. What lessons has GS learned that might be applied in our
own country to better protect our citizens living in potentially
hazardous areas?
Answer. The tsunami disaster of December 26, 2004, has resulted in
increased awareness of tsunami and earthquake risk in Alaska, Hawaii,
California, the Pacific Northwest, the Caribbean, and even the eastern
U.S. seaboard. Seismic monitoring systems need to be upgraded in these
areas if they are to serve as sentinels for tsunami warning. USGS is
strengthening regional seismic networks in California, Alaska, Oregon
and Washington through the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)
modernization. In addition, USGS partners with National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Tsunami Hazard
Mitigation Program to strengthen coastal seismic networks in those
states and Hawaii. Moreover, it is clear that education and training
are critical, both for public officials and emergency responders, and
for the public at-large. In the Pacific Northwest, USGS scientists work
together with state and local emergency managers in presentations to
coastal communities on tsunami hazards. USGS has also developed
publications for public awareness and maintains a popular Web site with
information on tsunami and earthquake hazards. USGS recently partnered
with the Cascadia Regional Earthquake Working Group to produce a
scenario examining the impacts of a magnitude-9 earthquake off the
coast of the Pacific Northwest. This document will help policymakers
and the public understand and address the hazard. Even with networks
and warning systems in place, if people do not know how best to respond
to a warning (or a felt shaking of the ground), its value is greatly
diminished.
u.s. geological survey--minerals resources reduction
Question. A $28.5 million reduction is proposed for minerals
research and assessment activities. Programs to be discontinued include
the collection of comprehensive basic geologic, geochemical,
geophysical and mineral deposit data for the nation; the USGS-led
internationally coordinated global mineral resource assessment to
provide predictions of worldwide distribution of undiscovered deposits
of critical metallic and nonmetallic mineral commodities; and the
elimination of 20 mineral commodity reports a year.
Does any other government entity have responsibility for the
functions now being performed by the Minerals Resources program? If GS
discontinues much of its work in this area, will there be a central
organization to collect, interpret and disseminate this information to
the public?
Answer. This reduction was a difficult decision based on funding
priorities and budget constraints. The Administration chose the
Minerals Resources Program for reduction because the research is lower
priority as compared to other USGS programs and because the expertise
to continue this work exists with State geological surveys, and in
universities. The Administration believes that if the work being
eliminated is of high importance to private industry or States, they
could pick up the work, in partnership agreements.
Question. Why wouldn't the collection and distribution of this data
be considered an inherently governmental function?
Answer. Inherently governmental functions are usually classified as
functions that are so intimately related to the public interest as to
mandate performance by Government employees. These functions include
those activities that require either the exercise of discretion in
applying Government authority or the making of value judgments in
making decisions for the Government. Governmental functions normally
fall into two categories: (1) the act of governing, i.e., the
discretionary exercise of Government authority, and (2) monetary
transactions and entitlements. An inherently governmental function also
involves, among other things, the interpretation and execution of the
laws of the United States.
In the case of the minerals resources program, the USGS is
providing a service of collecting and distributing minerals assessment
data. The Administration does not believe that this activity classifies
as being inherently governmental and that this service can be performed
by non-Federal entities.
Question. Given the fact that competition for the importation of
mineral resources is expected to increase significantly as emerging
industrial nations such as China enter the world market, why wouldn't
it be considered in our national interest to develop and maintain this
data?
Answer. There are many worthy programs that the Administration
would like to support, but cannot support in the current budget
climate. We believe that the expertise and interest exist outside the
Federal government to develop and maintain this data.
Question. The proposed program reduction in minerals resources
would result in a reduction-in-force of approximately 240 currently
occupied positions at an estimated cost of $30,000 per person--in other
words, $7.2 million total. There is no provision for the payment of
these costs, while at the same time a reduction of $1.7 million in
savings resulting from office closures in locations throughout the
country is assumed.
How does the Department propose to cover the costs that GS will
incur with this RIF? Some of the employees within the minerals
resources program are under union contract; what impact would this have
on the cost and implementation of a RIF?
Answer. Reduction in Force costs will be covered within the USGS.
Using a cost estimate of $30,000 per position abolished and a
separation date of October 1, 2005, costs are estimated to be at least
$7 million. USGS is revising this estimate and will provide a firmer
estimate as soon as possible. USGS and the Department are looking at
Voluntary Separation Incentive Program/Voluntary Early Retirement
Authority (VSIP/VERA) options and the ability to place affected
employees in other positions when possible to soften the impact of the
RIF.
minerals management service--royalty in kind program
Question. In the last several years, the Minerals Management
Service (MMS) has greatly expanded its use of the Royalty-In-Kind (RIK)
authority. Currently, over 80 percent of the oil production from the
Gulf of Mexico is taken ``in kind'' in order to fill up the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve (SPR).
When do you expect SPR to be filled up this year?
Answer. As of January 2005, DOE anticipated the SPR reaching its
700 million barrel capacity in July/August 2005. DOE will provide an
update to MMS on the anticipated fill date in mid-May 2005.
Question. After SPR is filled, does the agency plan to continue to
take the bulk of its Gulf of Mexico royalty production ``in kind''
rather than ``in value?''
Answer. We anticipate that the royalty production committed to the
current SPR program will convert to an RIK commercial program this
fall, assuming continuation of favorable economic conditions and
receipt of fair market value in the MMS RIK crude oil program.
Question. In the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill, the
Committee expanded the agency's RIK authority to allow the MMS to
recover the direct costs for running the program from the proceeds of
oil and gas taken in kind. This was designed to enhance your ability to
use the RIK authority.
Why has this authority been proposed for elimination in the fiscal
year 2006 budget?
Answer. Appropriations language as proposed in the fiscal year 2006
President's Request is not inconsistent with the goals and objectives
as outlined in the Five Year Royalty In Kind Business Plan that was
issued in May 2004.
Question. Would continuing this authority be useful in running the
program at full capacity?
Answer. No, this authority is unnecessary. The fiscal year 2006
President's Request includes $9.8 million in funding for the Royalty In
Kind Program. This level of funding provides the resources necessary to
carry out the goals and objectives of the Program. In addition,
discretionary funding for these activities will better ensure proper
oversight and accountability in the program.
office of surface mining--smcra reauthorization
Question. As it did last year, the Office of Surface Mining budget
includes a $58 million increase which is tied to the Administration's
proposal to reauthorize the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA). SMCRA expires on June 30, 2005, and with it the ability to
collect additional fees.
How would the administration's proposal on SMCRA alter the way the
program is run currently?
Answer. The Administration has not at this point submitted a
reauthorization proposal to Congress. However, our budget request for
fiscal year 2006 includes a grant increase of $58 million to support
legislation that would accomplish the primary goals of the legislation
from last year. These goals were:
--A fee extension for a period sufficient to collect funds to address
the current inventory of health and safety coal related
problems.
--Expedited payment of the current unappropriated balances to
certified states and tribes.
--Change in the allocation of future collections to focus more
resources on reclamation of high priority coal related health
and safety problems.
--An overall request that fits within the mandatory and discretionary
spending limits assumed in the President's budget.
Question. Do you expect the authorizing committees to have acted on
a bill by the time SMCRA expires?
Answer. It is important to note that only the fee collection
authority in SMCRA expires on June 30, 2005. All other aspects of the
Act remain in force. We are working very closely with Congress to
develop a mutually acceptable bill that does not polarize individual
stakeholders. We have seen some progress in our efforts and are hopeful
that we will see such a bill before June 30, 2005.
Question. If there is a period of time during which SMCRA lapses,
what will be the impacts on carrying out the AML program?
Answer. Only the fee collection authority would expire on June 20,
2005. In the short term, there would be no immediate impact, since we
have an appropriation for fiscal year 2005, and there is an
unappropriated balance in the AML fund ($1.668 billion as of September
30, 2004). However, over the longer term, we estimate that at least $2
billion worth of high priority coal-related health and safety problems
will remain with no identified funding source to address them. This
means that at least 2 million people living within one mile of such a
hazard will remain at risk.
Assuming approximately the same level of appropriations as in
recent years:
--Within two years, funds dedicated to states based upon need (i.e.,
funds allocated under Section 402(g)(5)) would be exhausted.
--Also within two years, funds in the Federal operating account
described in Section 402(g)(3) will be exhausted. This
allocation is used to fund federally managed reclamation in
non-primacy states and tribes, state managed emergency
reclamation, federally managed emergencies in non-primacy
states and in those states that do not manage the emergency
program, minimum program supplements, the Small Operator
Assistance Program (SOAP), The Clean Streams Program Watershed
Cooperative Agreements, and Federal operations.
--Beginning in fiscal year 2008, funds would be distributed based on
unappropriated state and tribal share balances, without
consideration of need. Approximately 50 percent of these funds
are for certified states and tribes that have certified that
they have no remaining coal problems.
--An unappropriated balance of $330 million will remain in the Rural
Abandoned Mineland Program (RAMP) account, a program that has
not been funded for nearly a decade.
Should the fee expire on June 30, 2005, OSM will take immediate
steps to protect the health and safety of citizens. While the Clean
Streams Program, SOAP, and Watershed Cooperative agreements are all
valuable programs, we consider them to be lower priority than the
emergencies that are funded from the same allocation. Thus, we will
provide no further funds for these programs after June 30. The funds
saved will be redirected instead to partially fund another year of
emergency work.
It should be noted that the administration has proposed a rule
pursuant to Section 402(b). This rule will allow us to collect a fee
sufficient to make a deposit to the Combined Benefit Fund equal to the
interest earned on the AML fund.
minerals management service--hurricane impacts on oil production
Question. The 2004 hurricane season was an unusually active one.
Hurricanes Charley, Ivan and Frances caused extensive damage in Florida
and in the Gulf of Mexico where most of the nation's offshore oil and
gas production is located.
What were the impacts from these storms on production output?
Answer.
Hurricane Ivan (9/11/2004-2/14/2005)
--Of the approximately 4,000 structures and approximately 33,000
miles of pipelines in the GOM, 150 platforms and 10,000 miles
of pipelines were in the direct path of Hurricane Ivan.
--Destroyed 7 platforms and caused significant damage to 24 other
platforms.
--Numerous pipelines were damaged, mostly by mudslides at the mouth
of the Mississippi River.
--Initially, industry evacuated over 545 platforms and shut-in
approximately 1.4 million barrels of oil and approximately
6,515 MMCF of gas production per day. The shut-in oil
production was equivalent to approximately 83 percent of the
approximately 1.7 million BOPD in the GOM production. The shut-
in gas production was equivalent to approximately 53 percent of
the approximately 12.3 BCFPD in the GOM.
--Within 2 weeks on September 27, 2004, industry had only 31
platforms evacuated and shut-in approximately 490,000 barrels
of oil and approximately 2,350 MMCF of gas production per day.
--On November 1, 2004, industry had only 9 platforms still evacuated
(not counting 7 destroyed structures) and shut-in approximately
224,000 barrels of oil and approximately 905 MMCF of gas
production per day.
--As of February 14, 2005, industry still had 9 platforms evacuated
(not counting 7 destroyed structures) and shut-in approximately
126,000 barrels of oil and approximately 147 MMCF of gas
production per day.
--Cumulative shut-in oil production for the period of 9/11/04-2/14/05
was 43,841,245 bbls, the equivalent of 7.246 percent of the
yearly production of oil in the GOM, which is approximately 605
million barrels.
--Cumulative shut-in gas production for the period of 9/11/04-2/14/05
was 172.259 BCF, the equivalent of 3.871 percent of the yearly
production of gas in the GOM, which is approximately 4.45 TCF.
Hurricane Frances (9/3/2004-9/7/2004):
--Cumulative shut-in oil production was approximately 62,000 barrels,
the equivalent of 0.015 percent of the yearly production in the
GOM which is approximately 605 million barrels.
--Cumulative shut-in gas production was approximately 118 MMCF, the
equivalent of 0.003 percent of the yearly production of gas in
the GOM which is approximately 4.45 TCF.
Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane Charley (8/10/2004-8/13/2004):
--Cumulative shut-in oil production was approximately 1.3 million
barrels, the equivalent of 0.21 percent of the yearly
production of oil in the GOM which is approximately 605 million
barrels.
--Cumulative shut-in gas production was approximately 4,100 MMCF, the
equivalent of 0.0922 percent of the yearly production of gas in
the GOM which is approximately 4.45 TCF.
Question. Are we back at 100 percent capability?
Answer. While technically not back at 100 percent, the production
level has virtually returned to normal, and additional new platforms
have added capacity and are now producing.
Question. Have you included any necessary funding in the fiscal
year 2006 budget request to ensure that MMS has the necessary resources
to make sure we get back to full production capacity and maintain it in
the Gulf?
Answer. Yes. MMS is conducting engineering studies to examine the
precise structural forces that were experienced by the platforms during
Hurricane Ivan. MMS received $500,000 from Congress in fiscal year 2005
to contract technical studies of the impacts of Hurricane Ivan.
Competitive award proposals for these studies are being prepared and
are close to being awarded. MMS has met on several occasions with
industry to discuss the impacts of Hurricane Ivan on the platforms,
pipelines and drilling rigs. Various committees have been established
to review specific standards and technical issues. On July 26-28, 2005,
MMS and industry will co-sponsor a workshop to further review the
committee reports and review possible modification to industry and MMS
standards and identify further research needs.
fish and wildlife service--court order on wolves
Question. A recent court order by the Federal district court in
Portland, Oregon reversed the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to
``downlist'' the gray wolf from ``endangered'' to ``threatened'' in the
Western and Eastern United States. As you know, in Montana the state
has worked hard on a plan for wolf management that will allow for
landowners to deal with wolves that prey on livestock. The FWS approved
that plan.
Will the court's decision to classify wolves as endangered affect
the ability to deal with wolves who are harassing and killing livestock
in Montana?
Answer. No. The Oregon ruling did vacate both the 2003
reclassification to threatened status and the accompanying new
regulations under section 4(d), which allowed for management of problem
wolves due to its threatened status. However, section 10 of the ESA
does provide other avenues for the management of listed species,
including the ``take'' of individuals of endangered wildlife species.
In Montana, we will use two different mechanisms, one for wolves in the
northern part of the state, and one in the south. Wolves in southern
Montana are part of a ``nonessential experimental population,'' a
classification that allows for more active management than is usual for
endangered species. In 2004, we promulgated a special rule (under
section 10(j) of the ESA) for the experimental population area; this
rule provides for management of depredating wolves, and was not
affected by the Oregon court's ruling. Experimental populations under
section 10(j) afford more regulatory flexibility for population
reintroductions. In northern Montana, previous to the 2003 final rule,
the Service implemented a 1999 interim wolf control plan through the
Regional Director's section 10(a)(1)(a) permit. This permit provides
for the control of depredating wolves, and will be used to manage
wolves in northern Montana.
Question. Is the Department of the Interior planning to appeal this
ruling?
Answer. The Department has asked the court to clarify the ruling.
Until the court responds, the Department is considering all options,
including appealing.
fish and wildlife service--state wildlife grants
Question. I see that the proposed budget request for fiscal year
2006 includes an increase of $5 million for the state wildlife grant
program. This program funds the development and implementation of state
conservation plans. The deadline for each state to have its plan
completed is October 1, 2005.
Do you expect all the states to meet this deadline?
Answer. Yes. The Service expects all 50 States and 6 territories to
have plans completed by October 1, 2005. The Service has in place
technical assistance teams to provide guidance and assistance to our
State cooperators for their plans. The purpose of these teams is to
ensure that the Service has provided all of the possible resources to
our cooperators to allow them to successfully prepare their plans.
Question. In working with the states are you pleased with the
quality of the plans that they are developing?
Answer. Yes. Judging from early drafts of the plans and from our
interaction with the States in meetings and conferences, we are pleased
with the quality of many of the plans. Good examples are North Carolina
and Alaska that have both put out for public comment draft Plans that
appear to be of very high quality.
Question. One of the major reasons the sage grouse was not listed
was that many states that had populations of sage grouse had
conservation plans in place to manage for the protection of the grouse.
Do you feel that having the conservation plans developed under the
state wildlife grant program can prevent future listings by putting in
place conservation strategies for other species?
Answer. We hope that conservation efforts resulting from the State
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans will make listing unnecessary
for many species. We recognize, however, that some of the State plans
may not address all of the taxa that can be listed under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (e.g. insects and plants) due to differences in their
various legislative authorities. We strongly support the development of
the State Plans, as they are a crucial starting point for planning and
implementing individual conservation efforts that can reduce or remove
threats to species to the point that listing will not be necessary. It
is important to note that the nature and timing of conservation efforts
implemented under the State plans, rather than the plans themselves,
will be a key factor in whether listing is unnecessary for a given
species.
minerals management service--user fees
Question. The budget request for MMS includes a number of new fees
for services for which the agency currently does not charge. The fiscal
year 2006 budget estimates that the agency will collect $13.5 million
of these new fees. I understand that with oil at over $50 per barrel
the big companies can probably afford a few new fees, but my concern is
the small producer.
Has the Department considered the impact of these new fees on
smaller producers?
Answer. The rulemaking process requires MMS to assess the impact of
any proposals on small business. In addition, comments received through
the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and proposed rule
process will be considered. Through the commenting process, MMS is
expecting companies of all sizes to provide us information on how
proposed fees will impact their business operations.
Question. Could these new fees have an impact on the incentive for
some operators to develop additional production capacity?
Answer. These fees are too low to have a measurable impact on
operator incentives. The proposed fees would be a tiny percentage of
the estimated gross revenue realized by the operators on the OCS. The
Department has published an ANPR in order to provide stakeholders an
opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2006 cost recovery proposal.
Any comments regarding the impact of fees on small producers will be
taken into consideration during the rulemaking process.
Question. Would you consider waiving these new fees for smaller
operators?
Answer. The MMS will carefully consider public input during the
rulemaking process and may reduce fees for small operators if
warranted.
minerals management service--5-year plan
Question. I understand that you will soon begin work on the next 5
year plan as required by the OCS Lands Act. The 5 year plan specifies
the size, timing, and location of areas to be leased for Federal
offshore oil and natural gas. Currently, most of the offshore areas in
the United States are under moratoria which prevent exploration and
development.
With oil at over $50 a barrel and the reliability of foreign
sources more in question, does it make sense to continue to keep such
vast areas off limits to oil and gas development?
Answer. The Administration continues to support executive
withdrawals through 2012.
Question. During the development of the next 5 year plan will the
Department have the legal authority to at least analyze the oil/gas
potential of areas that are covered by the moratoria so that we know
the extent of the production capacity that we are forgoing?
Answer. The Department has the legal authority to assess resources
anywhere on the OCS. In fact, it is done on a periodic cycle. The
current information is from the 2000 National Assessment. The 2005
National Assessment is being prepared with projected publication in
2006.
bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
Question. Secretary, as you know, we have grappled with the Wild
Horse and Burro program for a number of years. Rapidly increasing costs
and the inability of the adoption program to keep pace with the number
of animals being taken off of Federal lands was crippling the Bureau.
Last year as a result, I worked with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to enact Sec. 142, which sets parameters to sell some of the
animals.
Some have argued that these horses will go to slaughter, but it has
always been my belief that a very small percentage of animals sold, if
any, would face this fate. It is my understanding that these sales have
begun moving forward and the bulk of the animals have been sold to
``white-hat'' buyers looking to offer an alternative to the adoption
program.
Could you update us on the sale program and illustrate how the
Department has attempted to ensure the horses are sold into acceptable
circumstances.
Answer. In carrying out sales, the BLM has focused its outreach
efforts on horse advocacy groups, Tribes, humane organizations, and
other groups and individuals that have shown a demonstrated interest in
providing for the welfare of the animals. This approach is consistent
with the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which declared
these animals to be living symbols of the Western spirit. The Bureau
has been highly successful in finding good homes for the horses and
burros it has been selling; the agency, however, temporarily suspended
sales and deliveries on April 25 in response to two incidents involving
the commercial processing of horses that had been re-sold or traded
after being bought from the BLM.
The BLM has examined options for reinstating the sales program,
while reducing the risk that recently purchased ``excess'' animals
would be sold for commercial processing. BLM recognizes that any
assurances for humane treatment and care must be obtained from
purchasers prior to sale. After sale, animals are no longer afforded
the protections of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
The BLM will strengthen the language in the Bill of Sale, as
follows:
The Bill of Sale will be revised to create enforceable conditions.
These additional provisions are intended to reduce both the potential
and incentive for purchasers or subsequent owners to sell the animals
for slaughter.
Specifically, a notice and citation to 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 will
be added to the Bill of Sale. Section 1001 provides that it is a crime
to make a false representation in any statement in any matter within
the jurisdiction of a Federal agency. This provision will read as
follows: ``Purchaser may be subject to criminal penalties, if in this
Bill of Sale he/she knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or
covers up a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statement or representation; or otherwise violates 18 U.S.C.
1001.'' This provision could support a prosecution of the purchaser
if it could be proven that at the time of sale the purchaser intended
to send the animals to slaughter or made other false statements.
The Bill of Sale will also be modified to include language that
reads as follows: ``Purchaser agrees to provide humane care to the
listed wild horses(s) and/or burro(s).'' This provision will replace
the statement of intent in the existing Bill of Sale. This provision
will be further strengthened by stating: ``Purchaser agrees not to
knowingly sell or transfer ownership of any listed wild horse(s) and/or
burro(s) to any person or organization with an intention to resell,
trade, or give away the animals(s) for processing into commercial
products. Prior to selling or transferring ownership, Purchaser agrees
to verify that the subsequent purchaser does not intend to make these
horses or burros available for commercial processing.''
BLM is committed to ensuring that wild horses sold will be placed
into appropriate homes. Individuals wanting to purchase horses are
screened using the following qualifications to help determine their
suitability for providing a good home for the adopted horse.
Qualifications reviewed are:
--Status or affiliation with group or organization or buying as an
individual.
--Number of animals requested.
--Number of acres available for these animals, including the type of
forage and kind of facility.
--Individuals' experience with horses or livestock.
--Experience with wild horses, including knowing their behavior.
--Individual responsible for the care of the animals, buyer or
another person.
--Ownership of the land where the animals will be kept.
--Financial ability to care for the animals.
--Intended use for the animals.
--BLM checks records for past compliance problems.
--Also, all buyers are asked to promise not to sell to anyone who
would sell the animals to a commercial processing plant.
Question. What other reforms to the program is the Bureau
examining?
Answer. BLM is assessing the current program to determine if
reforms need to be made. BLM is also working with other partners to
ensure proper treatment of wildhorses and exploring methods of better
managing the horses. Included are the following:
--Assessment of the sale process to ensure BLM is in compliance with
the direction of Congress to sell certain excess wild horses
and burros.
--Enhancing exposure of the wild horse and burro adoption program
through national, regional, and local advertising campaigns.
--Partnering with organization and groups to establish education
opportunities about wild horse and burro habitat and the
adoption program.
--Testing a pilot project at adoptions by offering individuals that
have adopted one animal a ``buddy'' animal at a reduced fee.
--Closing one long-term holding contract.
--Continuing to work with the National Wild Horse and Burro
Foundation to increase efficiency in the adoption program.
Examples include the California Volunteer Pilot Project and
looking at the overall marketing of the wild horse.
--Continuing to research and apply population level fertility
control.
--Continuing to research on population census techniques.
--Exploring methods to increase adoption success by examining ways to
gentle additional animals.
bureau of land management--southern nevada public land management act
Question. The Administration's proposal to take 70 percent of the
proceeds from Southern Nevada Land sales is raising some eyebrows in
this subcommittee, and my colleagues from Nevada have been fairly open
with their opinions of the idea.
Could you explain the Administration's rationale for reallocating
70 percent of the funding from this program to the general treasury, as
opposed to continuing to implement the program as currently enacted in
law?
Answer. The receipts generated from SNPLMA land sales have far
exceeded what was anticipated when SNPLMA was enacted. As a result, the
available funding has outpaced land acquisition needs, and many more
projects than originally anticipated are being formulated without the
accountability of further consideration by the Congress. The
Administration's 2006 Program Assessment Rating Tool review of BLM's
implementation of SNPLMA determined that these funds are increasingly
being dedicated to local projects rather than Federal priorities only.
The budget proposal would not change the amount of revenue
currently provided to the State of Nevada General Education Program or
to the Southern Nevada Water Authority, only the portion dedicated to
Federal spending in Nevada. The sale revenues deposited in the special
SNPLMA account, and thus available for Federal projects in Nevada,
would be reduced from 85 percent to 15 percent. This proposal serves
the general taxpaying public while still providing about four times the
level of spending in Nevada as originally anticipated in 1998. With
projected 2006 collections of $917 million approximately $292 million
will be spent in Nevada, including $160 million for Federal projects
and $132 million for State share. The remainder would be deposited in
the General Fund of the Treasury to assist with deficit reduction and
to ensure that Federal taxpayers benefit from the sale of these Federal
assets.
Question. In your deliberations on this issue, did you consider
retaining a portion of these revenues for beneficial purposes beyond
Nevada's borders, as opposed to simply shipping it to the Treasury?
Answer. The Department of the Interior budget is but one piece of a
much larger consolidated Federal Budget, in which anticipated revenues
offset proposed spending. As such, the SNPLMA land sale receipts that
will now be deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury do support
the programs and projects of a multitude of Federal departments and
agencies that will provide benefits both within and beyond Nevada, even
though the nexus between these programs and the SNPLMA revenues is not
readily transparent in the President's Budget documents.
bureau of land management--sage brush/sage grass initiative
Question. In your fiscal year 2006 budget request, you once again
ask for a large increase in the BLM, in this case $3.6 million, for
sage brush and sage grouse activities.
Could you outline how the sage brush initiative is being
implemented, and the success the Department has had, or expects to see
in spending these sums of money?
Answer. During 2006, the BLM will continue to focus on implementing
actions outlined in both National and State-level BLM Sage-grouse
Habitat Conservation Strategies. These strategies were developed in
close cooperation with State-led sage-grouse conservation planning
efforts and are designed to complement these conservation plans.
The BLM is requesting additional funding for implementation of
BLM's National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy, which has
been developed and is being implemented in cooperation with State-led
sage-grouse conservation plans.
The National Sage-grouse Strategy is the framework to address the
conservation of sage-grouse and risk to sagebrush habitats on lands and
activities administered by the BLM. The document identifies the
resources and specific actions to be included in individual BLM State
Office strategies and/or plans and outlines methods to address the risk
to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats at various scales. The Strategy
provides for a comprehensive national approach, while providing for
local solutions to address the range-wide variability and complexity of
managing sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. BLM's National Sage-grouse
Strategy is designed to deliver a substantial Federal contribution to
cooperative conservation efforts that are being led by state wildlife
agencies throughout the range of greater sage-grouse in the West.
BLM designed this National Sage-grouse Strategy around four main
goals. Included with these four main goal areas are a series of
specific strategies and actions that will support implementation of
each goal. Each action identifies responsible offices and time-frames
for completion. The four goals are:
(1) Improve the effectiveness of the management framework for
addressing conservation needs of sage-grouse on lands administered by
the BLM.
(2) Increase understanding of resource conditions in order to
prioritize habitat maintenance and restoration.
(3) Expand partnerships, available research and information that
support effective management of sage-grouse habitat.
(4) Ensure leadership and resources are adequate to continue
ongoing conservation efforts and implement national and state-level
sage-grouse habitat conservation strategies and/or plans.
In 2006, the additional funding will be used to accelerate habitat
inventory for sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent species such as
pygmy rabbits, another species of conservation concern in the sagebrush
biome. To help identify and prioritize restoration needs, BLM plans on
expanding inventories for noxious weeds, treating additional noxious
weeds, completing additional vegetation treatments to benefit sage-
grouse habitat quality, reduce degradation from expanding juniper
woodlands into sage-grouse habitat, and increasing the acres of habitat
monitored by approximately two million acres.
Question. Do you feel the Department is making headway in saving
habitat and this will result in preventing an endangered species
listing?
Answer. BLM's commitment to conserving sage-grouse and sagebrush
habitat predates petitions to list the grouse, and accomplishing this
through partnerships would be our approach regardless of the listing
decision. The announcement in January by the Fish & Wildlife Service
that the greater sage-grouse does not warrant listing under the
Endangered Species Act specifically mentions the crucial role of
cooperative efforts and local working groups. In commending cooperative
efforts to maintain and improve sagebrush habitat, the FWS noted the
importance of continuing to develop and implement conservation plans
and strategies across the sage-grouse's range. The decision not to list
the sage-grouse was never seen as the end to cooperation but seen as a
new beginning.
By identifying resources, management actions, and methods for
assessing various risks to sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats, the
Strategy brings together sound science, the BLM's three decades of
experience in sagebrush management, and the successes we've already
achieved with our partners. Through continued cooperation during the
coming year and beyond, BLM hopes ensure conservation and recovery of
sagebrush ecosystems resulting in healthy and productive landscapes
across the West.
Between 2000 and 2004 BLM treated almost 1 million acres of
sagebrush to the benefit of sage-grouse. Surveys and monitoring are
completed in coordination with State agencies and other partners to
understand the health and trends of sage-grouse populations and
habitat. BLM continues to work on regional-scale analyses throughout
the range of sage-grouse.
Question. Can you assure us that your outreach to states,
communities and affected parties remains a top priority?
Answer. BLM believes that the best solution for conserving sage-
grouse is to continue cooperative efforts among Federal, state and
local partners to preserve sagebrush habitat.
Throughout the process of developing the National Strategy for
Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation, BLM felt that the key to success was
not prescriptive policies or top-down edicts--but rather, partnerships
at the local level, where there is on-the-ground, up-to-the-minute
knowledge, as well as a remarkable commitment to restoring and
conserving sage-grouse.
Cooperation with local partners is the platform for applying
science, experience, and commitment to making a difference for sage-
grouse and their habitat.
The BLM is committed to this approach of working with partners at
all levels to restore and conserve sagebrush habitats on the public
lands and sees a no more effective way to bring about the sustained,
broad-scale, multi-state, multi-jurisdictional action that is required
to ensure habitat and species conservation now and long into the
future.
bureau of land management--range improvement fund
Question. I noticed with concern the Administration's request to
eliminate the Range Improvements Fund. As you know, this funding source
is used for grassland management, riparian area repair and preventative
maintenance and noxious weed control. The budget proposes shoe horning
the $10 million in activity into already tight budget categories.
In light of the Department's claims of addressing ongoing range
degradation issues, and its call to spend additional money on range
habitat for endangered species, could you explain the rationale behind
eliminating the Range Improvement Fund?
Answer. Part of the Administration's strategy for reducing the
Federal deficit is to rein in mandatory spending, such as the Range
Improvement Fund, and where possible and merited, to continue to
perform this work with discretionary funding that can be adjusted from
year to year based on changing needs and priorities.
Question. Can you assure the subcommittee there would be no
reduction in work performed if the account was eliminated?
Answer. The BLM will continue to fund these range improvement
projects in 2006, but will do so through its Deferred Maintenance
program and Cooperative Conservation Initiative programs in the
Management of Land and Resources account. Specifically, the budget
estimates that $7 million in base Deferred Maintenance program funding
and $3 million of the $6 million increase requested for CCI will be
targeted to high priority range improvement projects.
Other aspects of the 2006 BLM budget request also emphasize the
importance of rangeland health and productivity. For the second year in
a row, BLM is proposing a significant increase in funding to support an
aggressive plan of sagebrush conservation and restoration. The 2006
budget includes an increase of $7million, which builds on a $2.7
million increase provided in 2005. Of the requested $7 million
increase, $3.4 million will be matched by partner contributions under
the Challenge Cost Share program. Maintaining and improving the health
of the sagebrush habitat to ensure viable sage-grouse populations are
critical to the continued multiple use management of these lands,
including grazing.
Invasive weeds also damage the health and productivity of
rangelands. The 2006 BLM budget includes increases of at least $1.3
million to address weed management on BLM-administered lands. Of this
$1.3 million, $1 million is in the Challenge Cost Share program, and
will therefore be leveraged with non-Interior funds to treat additional
acres.
bureau of land management--rural fire assistance
Question. I must express my displeasure that the Department has
proposed eliminating the Rural Fire Assistance program administered by
the BLM. The budget justifies this cut by arguing that the Forest
Service and FEMA have similar programs. I must point out that the
Forest Service account for State and Local fire assistance was cut by
$22 million, and the FEMA assistance to fire fighter's grant fund was
cut $100 million from the enacted level.
Can you explain the rationale for eliminating this program in light
of what appears to have the making of another horrific fire year?
Answer. The Department of Interior reviews its programs to ensure
they are meeting stated goals and objectives, and carefully evaluates
results to determine whether the program addresses the stated goals. A
recent national study by the National Association of State Foresters
found that the almost 14,000 fire departments surveyed were almost as
likely to rank basic wildland firefighting training as high in priority
as basic structural firefighting. Recognizing the importance of
training to departments that support DOI fire suppression activities,
the 2006 budget proposal shifts emphasis from providing funds to local
fire departments for equipment and basic training to developing and
delivering training to RFDs to strengthen initial attack and develop
the extended attack capabilities of RFDs. Under the 2006 ready reserve
budget proposal, which is funded with a $1.9 million increase in
Preparedness, DOI will train 1,000-2,000 firefighters each year and
equip them with personal protective equipment. This ready reserve will
enhance long-term recruitment of RFDs, supplement the volunteer roster,
and reduce risk to local communities by creating a resident, highly-
trained wildland fire workforce. Communities will benefit by having
skilled cadres of local firefighters available to reduce the loss of
property and natural resources. More wildland fires will be contained
at a smaller size, reducing the reliance on costly Federal and contract
firefighters, thereby supporting fire suppression cost containment.
The Department recognizes the risk of catastrophic fire to
communities, particularly with record mountain snowpack lows in much of
the West. The 2006 budget continues to emphasize the importance of
hazardous fuels reduction with a $9.8 million increase over the 2005
enacted level.
Question. Can you explain the interaction the Department has had
with FEMA and the Forest Service to ensure that the reductions in these
programs will not hurt our preparedness for wildland fire place local
firefighters at risk?
Answer. The Department is currently in discussions with FEMA, the
Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters to
rewrite an existing MOU to focus on providing information to FEMA on
wildland firefighting needs and priorities, formalize DOI participation
in peer review of FEMA awards, enhance website collaboration, and
cooperate more closely conducting grant workshops. The various FEMA
grant programs offer flexibility to meet both structural and wildland
fire service needs. Through this collaboration, we expect small
departments previously served by the RFA program to successfully
compete for various FEMA grants. In addition, DOI is conducting grant-
writing sessions to further enhance small RFDs' chances of success.
The Department recognizes the constraints on the various Federal
grant programs and appreciates the level of collaboration offered by
our colleagues at FEMA. We look forward to both finalizing the MOU and
increasing the portion of fire grants going to wildland firefighting in
the future.
Question. Finally, can you outline for us the overlap in these
programs and illustrate that ongoing needs will be met, and these local
entities will receive training and equipment specific to wildland fire
needs?
Answer. The RFA program is administered by all the DOI Wildland
Fire Management bureaus and targets small communities with populations
less than 10,000 near DOI-managed lands. Funds are used for the
purchase of wildland fire equipment and tools, communication devices,
wildland fire training, and community prevention and education
activities. Grants must be matched with a 10 percent cash or in-kind
contribution. The program supports RFDs that protect not only
communities but also natural resources on DOI-managed lands.
The Forest Service Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program also
targets small communities with populations less than 10,000. Funds may
be used for the purchase of equipment, training programs, and
assistance in organizing fire departments, and must be matched dollar-
for-dollar. The program also supports protection of communities and
resources from catastrophic wildland fire.
The Forest Service State Fire Assistance (SFA) program benefits
virtually all aspects of State Foresters' fire programs, from community
wildfire planning and fire prevention to suppression and hazardous
fuels treatments. State resources established and maintained with these
funds are important resources that can be shared between States and
with Federal land management agencies. Emphasis is currently on fire
response planning and training in wildland fire suppression tactics and
the Incident Command System used nationally for all emergency response
actions, and will shift to a greater emphasis on community-based
wildland fire mitigation. Funds must be matched dollar-for-dollar.
The DHS-FEMA Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness (SLGCP) operates a one-stop shop for homeland security
funding, which includes the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program
(AFG) as well as other grant programs targeted to prepare the nation
for acts of terrorism. The primary goal of AFG is to provide assistance
to meet fire departments' and nonaffiliated EMS organizations'
firefighting and emergency response needs. The program seeks to support
organizations that lack the tools and resources necessary to protect
the health and safety of the public and their emergency response
personnel with respect to fire and all other hazards they face. Grants
may be used for training, equipment, PPE, wellness and fitness,
modifications to facilities, or acquiring firefighting vehicles and
apparatus. Grants are matched on a sliding scale: 5 percent for
populations served that are fewer than 20,000, 10 percent for
populations between 20,000 and 50,000, and 20 percent for populations
over 50,000.
Departments that traditionally applied for RFA grants are eligible
to apply for grants from both the Forest Service and FEMA. The grants
may be used for the purchase of wildland fire training and PPE. DOI is
conducting grant-writing sessions to further enhance RFDs' chances of
success, as well as providing information about the other programs they
may be eligible for. Finally, the 2006 budget recognizes the importance
of our RFD partners with the $1.9 million ready reserve proposal that
would offer both wildland firefighter training and personal protective
equipment to 1,000-2,000 firefighters each year.
bureau of land management--construction
Question. I notice that once again the administration has proposed
reducing funding for BLM construction. We had increased the program to
$11.5 million in last year's act, however, the proposal before us
suggests $6.5 million meets the needs of the Bureau's 261 million
acres. By my calculation, that is less than two and a half cents per
acre for construction needs.
Can you honestly testify before us that BLM's total construction
need for 261 million acres is a total of $6.5 million?
Answer. The BLM supports the President's budget and notes that the
amount requested will continue to reduce the backlog of construction
projects in the Five Year Plan. The funds will be used to construct
those projects that are ranked the most critical for BLM's needs.
Question. Can you provide a breakdown for the Committee of the
construction accounts of all the Department's bureaus and agencies and
compare the request level with the number of acres the agency oversees?
Answer. The information follows:
[Dollars and acres in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 requested
Agency construction No. of acres
funding aministered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM..................................... $6.5 262.0
FWS..................................... 19.7 96.0
NPS..................................... 324.3 88.0
BIA..................................... 232.1 \1\ 56.0
BOR..................................... 337.2 8.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Trust lands.
It should be noted that no direct correlation exists between
construction needs and the number of acres administered by the Bureaus.
Constructions needs encompass a wide range of projects to protect,
enhance, and manage Interior's resources, such as, irrigation
facilities, visitor centers, recreation facilities and trails, and BIA
schools, to name just a few.
bureau of indian affairs--budget reorganization
Question. Recently the BIA has proposed restructuring its budget
structure to match program components that have been found in multiple
areas. I have heard from tribes that are concerned that the new
structure makes it harder to account for Tribal Priority Allocations
(TPA)/and that it appears the line between regional offices and the
headquarters office will blurred even further.
Can you assure us that you will fully consult with the tribes prior
to implementing any element of the new budget structure?
Answer. The BIA has consulted with tribes regarding the Bureau's
proposed restructured budget during regular meetings of the BIA/Tribal
Budget Advisory Council. This consultation is expected to continue.
Question. Can you report back to the subcommittee on the progress
of these consultation sessions?
Answer. The Tribes recognize that the restructured budget
simplifies the justification of BIA programs and clearly ties programs
to the Strategic Plan and performance measures.
bureau of indian affairs--gao audit of bia irrigation
Question. In November I requested GAO work with the BIA Irrigation
program to examine ongoing management concerns, specifically related to
repair and maintenance schedules. Unfortunately, most of our Indian
irrigation infrastructure is in serious disrepair. This is a top
priority for Montana.
Can you assure us that the Department will work in good faith with
the GAO to ensure all information necessary to complete this audit is
provided as quickly as possible?
Answer. The BIA central office, regional offices and agency
irrigation project staff are providing GAO any information it requests
in a prompt manner. GAO has visited the Rocky Mountain Region
(Billings, MT) and the Crow Irrigation Project (Crow Agency, MT) as
part of GAO's design phase. A sample of the documents BIA has submitted
to GAO include irrigation deferred maintenance cost estimates, general
irrigation project information and statistics, listings of BIA
personnel involved in irrigation projects, and water users names.
Question. Has the Department implemented any internal reforms to
address the ongoing communication problems between headquarters and the
regional irrigation offices?
Answer. The BIA Central office personnel have made concerted
efforts to work closer with the regions and project offices. The BIA
central office is also sharing information, providing training on
annual budget preparation and annual deferred maintenance, and
developing project operating instructions.
bureau of indian affairs--tribally controlled community colleges and
other educational facilities
Question. I have continually voiced my strong support for the
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges, and I continue to believe they
have been a resounding success in helping our native communities.
Despite the headway we have made in prior years, your request reduces
funding for TCCCs by almost $10 million. Additionally, your budget
request slashes Johnson O'Malley grants which provide assistance to
public schools with Indian students, and you cut Education Construction
by almost $90 million.
With well over $100 million in cuts to Indian Education programs,
can you explain the Administration's commitment to helping Native
American children receive the training and tools to better their
communities?
Answer. One of BIA's strategic goals is to provide quality
educational opportunities from early childhood through adulthood. The
2006 BIA education budget represents a continued commitment to the
future of American Indian youth and supports the President's commitment
to ``leave no child behind.'' The $521.6 million request for elementary
and secondary school operations will support 184 schools and
dormitories serving over 47,000 Indian children. The $232 million
request for school education construction will continue to replace,
repair and maintain schools in the BIA system to provide Indian
students a safe and nurturing place to learn. The $43 million request
for Tribal Colleges and Universities operating grants will provide
$3,500 per Indian student. When BIA funding is combined with grant
funding from the Department of Education, TCUs will receive over 40
percent more in revenue from those two Federal sources than an average
community college receives per student from all sources. BIA funding
also provides scholarship funding for Indian students to attend Indian
or non-Indian schools. The total BIA education request of almost $800
milllion is geared toward improving student performance and furthering
the education of Indian children to enrich their lives and the future
of their communities.
Question. Tribal colleges have shown time and time again their
value in educating tribal community leaders and providing students the
ability to expand their economic options. Do you believe these programs
are a waste of money?
Answer. The education provided by tribal colleges and universities
is important in multiple ways. Curriculum is designed to meet the needs
of the local economies, respect the culture and mores of the sponsoring
Tribe, and provide students ways to maximize their potential and
fulfill educational dreams. TCUs serve Tribal members in remote areas,
offer educational opportunities to the community at large and open
students to the larger realm of education.
Question. Why do Indian Education accounts take the bulk of the
cuts in the Department of the Interior's request before Congress?
Answer. The 2006 BIA budget requests almost $800 million for
education programs for pre-kindergarten through college. Funding
reflects the capability of Education programs to effectively and
efficiently use resources to meet the goal of leaving no child left
behind.
During the President's first term, over $1.1 billion was invested
in Indian School construction. This funded 27 replacement school
projects and 28 major facilities improvement and repair projects. We
are comfortable with this year's education construction program level
because there are currently 25 replacement schools in the planning and
design process or under construction. Eleven of these schools will be
completed in 2005 and 2006. Funding at higher levels than requested for
2006 would exceed our ability to prudently manage the construction
program.
The President's budget eliminates $5.2 million in the BIA budget
for UTTC and CIT. However, the President requests $7.5 million funding
in the Department of Education budget under the Tribally Controlled
Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions Grant program. The
UTTC and CIT are the only institutions eligible for grants under this
program. The Department also worked with the Department of Labor to
ensure that tribal colleges benefit from the new community college
assistance program. We are also looking for opportunities where UTTC
and CIT may have a role in training BIA and OST employees.
The President's budget reduces funding for Johnson O'Malley grants
because it is duplicative of funding available to public schools in the
Department of Education budget. The Dept. of Education budget includes
over $150 million in funding specifically targeted to Indian students
attending public schools. Public schools with Indian students also
receive over $500 million, or about 55 percent, of impact aid funding
from the Dept. of Education.
bureau of indian affairs--detention center funding
Question. I applaud the ongoing efforts of the Departments of
Justice and Interior to increase their funding of Native American
justice facilities. In my own state the detention facilities are in
terrible disrepair.
Your budget for Facilities Improvement and Repair includes the
Blackfeet Detention Center as one of its 3 major projects for fiscal
year 2006. I'm happy to see this, but must say the dedication to these
types of facilities comes a bit late.
Can you outline the Department's plan of action to address the sad
state of our detention facilities?
Answer. The BIA has developed a multi-level plan to address
detention center issues in Indian Country. In an effort to improve
oversight of detention centers, BIA has established the position of
Associate Director of Corrections within the Office of Law Enforcement
and Security, Supervisory Detention Specialists have been placed in
each district, and a program analyst has been directed to monitor OLES
funds. The 2006 BIA budget includes a $16.7 million increase in funding
to: (1) staff, operate, and maintain detention facilities built with
Department of Justice funding which will be certified for occupancy in
2006, (2) outsource detention of inmates to local jurisdictions where
BIA facilities do not comply with national standards, and (3) begin a
comprehensive program to improve and repair detention facilities owned
by the BIA.
Question. Can we expect to see a cohesive plan from the Department
that addresses the need to rebuild or repair these facilities
throughout the West, and specifically in my state of Montana?
Answer. The BIA has initiated a comprehensive plan to address the
correction of deficiencies at all BIA owned or operated detention
centers. The plan is being implemented under the Bureau's Public Safety
and Justice Construction program.
The action plan has been implemented in collaboration with Regional
and Agency facilities staff and Office of Law Enforcement Services
personnel. In fiscal year 2005, BIA initiated a validation of
conditions reported in Facilities Management Information System (FMIS)
at all detention centers. Using the updated information, the Bureau
prioritized detention center Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R)
projects under Public Safety and Justice Construction program based on
reported health and safety needs.
In fiscal year 2005, BIA FI&R projects at Havasupai Law Enforcement
center (AZ) and Spokane Law Enforcement Center (WA) will address all
life safety and building codes deficiencies to bring them in line with
national detention center standards. BIA is currently evaluating the
needs at Macy Law Enforcement Center (SD), Turtle Mountain Detention
Center (ND), and Blackfeet Detention Center (MT) to determine the scope
of projects necessary to bring these facilities up to national
standards. Multiple smaller FI&R projects are currently underway at
Bureau detention facilities to correct critical health and safety
deficiencies. Projects include abating environmental hazards and
remedying building code violations.
At the proposed 2006 funding level, BIA expects to address and
correct all deficiencies at BIA owned or operated detention center
facilities by 2010.
bureau of indian affairs--indian claims settlement
Question. I notice the Claim Settlement account sees another fairly
drastic reduction from the prior year level. It is my understanding
that the amount requested fulfills the government's responsibility in
fiscal year 2006.
Can you confirm the budget request level fully funds government's
responsibility for claims in fiscal year 2006?
Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2006 President's budget request for
Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements and Miscellaneous Payments to
Indians account fulfills the Government's responsibility for fiscal
year 2006.
bureau of indian affairs--tribal priority allocations
Question. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that tribes have not
been fully reimbursed for contract support on self-determination
contracts they have entered into with the Indian Health Service and
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Can you give us a short synopsis of the Supreme Court Decision and
how it impacts the Department of the Interior?
Answer. Because the Supreme Court emphasized that Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act agreements are, in affect,
procurement contracts, the Leavitt case has the potential to
significantly impact the manner in which the DOI articulates it
obligation to pay contract support costs in such agreements. The
Department is still assessing what specific changes may be required in
BIA contract administration as a result of this case.
Question. How will past shortfalls be accounted for?
Answer. The Department has not yet arrived at an opinion of how the
decision will retroactively impact contract support cost obligations.
The issue is currently under consideration. The Department will keep
the committee informed on any developments on this matter.
Question. What does the Court Decision mean for fiscal year 2006?
Will the Department be sending up an budget amendment to cover their
obligation for fiscal years 2005 and 2006?
Answer. The issue is currently under consideration. As yet, the
Administration is not proposing an amendment. The Department will keep
the committee informed on any developments on this matter.
office of the special trustee--historical accounting and cobell
litigation
Question. It is my understanding that the bulk of the $76 million
increase in the Office of the Special Trustee is for additional
Historical Trust Accounting activities.
Can you confirm that the entire increase is for Historical
accounting activity, and can you update us on the progress of this
exercise as it relates to the Cobell litigation?
Answer. The OST budget for 2006 includes $135 million for
historical accounting, an increase of $77.8 million over 2005. The 2006
budget of $135 million for the Office of Historical Trust Accounting
provides an estimated $95 million for IIM accounting, an increase of
$50 million above the 2005 level, and $40 million for tribal
accounting, an increase of $27.8 million above the 2005 level.
The Department is currently involved in a major class action
lawsuit, Cobell v. Norton, and 24 lawsuits associated with the
management of Indian trust funds.
The following is a summary of the progress made in historical
accounting for individual accounts:
Through December 31, 2004, the Office of Historical Trust
Accounting had reconciled more than 36,700 judgment accounts with
balances totaling more than $53 million and reconciled 7,360 per capita
accounts with balances of over $21.7 million. OHTA also has resolved
residual balances in 8,496 special deposit accounts, identifying the
proper ownership of $40.8 million belonging to individual Indians,
Tribes, and private entities. OHTA has also reconciled over 5,600
transactions from land-based IIM accounts representing over $348
million moving through IIM accounts. In addition, OHTA has mailed over
9,500 historical statements of judgment and per capita accounts to
individual Indian account holders and former account holders.
Summary Data on Accounting Results To Date
High Dollar Transactions--$100,000 or More:
--Ninety-three percent (or 865) of all 930 high dollar debit
transactions of $100,000 or more were reconciled.
--Eight differences were found in the 865 reconciled high dollar
debit transactions. These differences all arose in the
settlement of three probates. Three of these eight differences
were to the disadvantage of the IIM accountholder, totaling
$1,807, and five were to the advantage of the IIM
accountholder, totaling $1,908.
--Fifty-eight percent (536) of all 919 high dollar credit
transactions of $100,000 or more were reconciled.
--Twenty-seven differences were found in the 536 reconciled credit
transactions, of which twenty were to the benefit of the IIM
accountholder (overpayments), totaling $21,468, and seven were
to the disadvantage of the IIM accountholder (underpayments),
totaling $2,071.
Transactions Less than $100,000:
--Ninety-two percent (1,887) of all 2,044 randomly sampled debit
transactions were reconciled. No differences between the posted
amount and the supporting documentation were found in the
reconciled transactions. While more needs to be done here, a
statistical inference can be made by using additional
assumptions.
--If only sampling error is considered, these results make it
possible to infer with more than 99 percent assurance that the
difference rate is less than 0.5 percent for all 5.23 million
debit transactions under $100,000.
--Fifty-nine percent (1,418) of all 2,401 randomly sampled, in-scope
credit transactions of less than $100,000 were reconciled.
Eleven differences were found, of which seven were overpayments
totaling $18 and four were underpayments totaling $505. While
well along, no statistical inferences can yet be drawn at this
time about the population of all 19.68 million.
The percentage of dollars in error compared to dollars reconciled
is less than eight-thousandths of one percent (0.007 percent).
Question. For the past two years, we have included bill language
that allows Self Governance tribes the ability to perform a number of
trust duties.
Can you update us on the implementation of the self determination
demonstration as a model for tribal participation in trust management?
Answer. Pursuant to the authorities provided in the Indian Self
Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-638, as
amended) all tribes have been authorized to perform trust functions on
behalf of the United States Government since passage of the Act in
1975. The demonstration project did not provide any additional
authorities for the demonstration tribes to perform any other trust
duties than they were already authorized to perform.
Sec. 131 of the General provisions of the Interior and Related
Agencies title of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 provides
the assurance that funds appropriated for fiscal years 2004 and 2005
shall be available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust
Reform Consortium, and to the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian
Community, the Confederated Salish-Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Reservation and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boys Reservation
on the same basis as funds were distributed in prior years.
Furthermore, it allows these tribes to operate their programs separate
and apart from the Department of the Interior's trust reform
reorganization, and ensures that the Department will not impose its
trust management infrastructure upon or alter the existing trust
resource management systems of the above referenced tribes.
The bill language has also required that the participating tribes
agree to carry out their responsibilities under the same standards as
those to which the Secretary of the Interior is held and further, that
they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that they have
the capability to do so.
In order to ensure that the demonstration tribes had the capability
to perform in accordance with these standards, examinations of their
trust programs were conducted. With only one exception, the
participating tribes demonstrated that they were capable of performing
the trust functions compacted under the same standards as those to
which the Secretary is held. The one tribe deemed not capable has since
prepared a corrective action plan that is successfully addressing the
weaknesses identified. Communication with the participating tribes is
ongoing and follow-up to last year's examinations is currently being
done.
The Department understands that the original intent of this
language was to protect the participating tribes from any adverse
impact, budgetary or otherwise, that was perceived might occur as a
result of the implementation of the Department's trust reform
initiatives. Many of these reforms have already been put in place with
no negative impact on any of the tribes including those participating
in the demonstration program. Furthermore, none is expected.
Question. The Cobell litigation continues to concern the
Subcommittee as we grapple with providing funds for basic Indian
Affairs services.
Can you update us on the latest progress in the Cobell case?
Answer. In June 1996, the Department was named, as defendant in the
Cobell v. Babbitt, now Cobell v. Norton litigation. This is a class
action lawsuit for an accounting of funds held in trust by the Federal
Government for individual Indians in Individual Monies Accounts. The
district court in Cobell certified the class as consisting of all
present and former beneficiaries in the IIM accounts.
On December 10, 2004, the Court of Appeals addressed the district
court's September 25, 2003 order. The ruling addressed the two main
categories of the district court's decree: ``Historical Accounting''
and ``Fixing the System.'' The Court found that Historical Accounting
was governed by Public Law 108-108 and thus vacated the district
court's order with respect to that portion of the case. In so finding:
--The Court pointed out that Congress passed Public Law 108-108 ``to
clarify Congress's determination that Interior should not be
obliged to perform the kind of historical accounting the
district court required.''
--The Court stated ``The committee ``reject[ed] the notion that in
passing the American Indian Trust Management Act of 1994
Congress had any intention of ordering an accounting on the
scale of that which has been ordered by the Court. Such an
expansive and expensive undertaking would certainly have been
judged to be a poor use of Federal and trust resources.''
The Court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that Public Law 108-108
amounted to a legislative stay of a final judicial judgment and thus
violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Court found a critical
distinction between statutes that reverse final judgments for money
damages and statutes that alter substantive obligations of parties
subject to ongoing duties under an injunction.
Plaintiffs also argued Public Law 108-108 violated the due process
and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The Court rejected this
argument, noting that plaintiffs did not explicitly identify the
property right being taken other than to reference the right to
interest earned on trust accounts. The Court also pointed out that
``Congress may provide a simpler scheme than the district court's,
while nonetheless assuring that each individual receives his due or
more.''
While the second part of the Court's decision focuses on ``Fixing
the System,'' elements of it are important to decisions relating to
historical accounting. The Court confirmed an earlier district court
observation that the establishment of a trust relationship does not
mean that plaintiffs can automatically ``invoke all the rights that a
common law trust entails.'' The Court reasserted that the government's
duties must be ``rooted in and outlined by the relevant statutes and
treaties . . .''
The Court also focused on the government's argument that normally
private trust expenses are met out of the trust itself, pointing out
``[T]hus plaintiffs here are free of private beneficiaries' incentive
not to urge judicial compulsion of wasteful expenditures.''
In short, the Court's decision invites a discussion within both the
Executive Branch and the Congress as to what is an appropriate
historical accounting.
On February 23, 2005 the Cobell court issued an order reinstating
the structural injunction previously issued on September 23, 2003,
directing the Department to conduct a far more expansive accounting and
requiring that it be completed under even more constrained time lines.
The current order requires extensive work beyond what is currently
budgeted in 2005 or proposed in 2006 to be completed by January 6,
2006. In addition to the planned completion of accounting for all
judgment and per capita accounts, the court order directs that indexing
of all trust-related records located at Federal facilities in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Lee's Summit, Missouri, the systems tests
related to electronic data gaps, and the systems conversion from the
Integrated Records Management System (IRMS) to the Trust Funds
Accounting System.
The Department's fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 budget for
historical accounting is based on continuing efforts as outlined in the
January 6, 2003 Historical Accounting Plan. However, as a result of the
district court reissuing the structural injunction on historical
accounting on February 23, 2005 the Department is continuing
discussions with the Department of Justice on the course of action
available. The preliminary estimate developed by the Department is that
it will cost between $12 and $13 billion to comply with the court
order. The Department's budgets for 2005 and 2006 are not constructed
to address these requirements.
On March 9, 2005 the Department of Justice filed an Emergency
Motion For Stay Pending Appeal of the structural injunction issued by
the district court on historical accounting with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted the Stay Pending Appeal on April 7, 2005.
Question. I see that Judge Lamberth's recent decision re-imposes
his structural injunction in the Cobell case.
What would be the impact on the Department, and particularly its
Indian programs, if the injunction remains in place given the
limitations of the current fiscal environment?
Answer. As noted above, the Department's fiscal year 2005 and
fiscal year 2006 budget for historical accounting is based on
continuing efforts as outlined in the January 6, 2003 Historical
Accounting Plan. The preliminary estimate developed by the Department
is that it will cost between $12 and $13 billion to comply with the
court order structural injunction. The Department's budgets for 2005
and 2006 are not constructed to address these requirements.
If the Court of Appeals does not grant an appeal of the district
court structural injunction, the Administration and the Congress will
be forced to address how to comply with the district court order, which
would have a severe impacts on the Federal budget.
As this Committee noted in enacting Public Law 108-108, Congress
observed that the reallocation of resources required by the initial
2003 injunction ``would be devastating to Indian country and to the
other programs in the Interior bill.'' As the committee report
explained, the expenditure of billions of dollars on an accounting
``would not provide a single dollar to the plaintiffs, and would
without question displace funds available for education, health care
and other services.'' H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-330, page 117.
Question. What has been the nature of your discussions with the
authorizing committees with regard to a long-term solution to the trust
reform problem?
Answer. Staff from both the Senate and House aauthorizing
committees participated in the discussions held last year with the
plaintiffs in the Cobell litigation. The Administrations position
throughout these discussions has always been that any settlement must
be fair and equitable to both the beneficiaries and the taxpayers. Any
long-term trust reform effort must include a method to fully address
fractionation of individual Indian lands.
Question. Am I wrong to assume the mediation process started last
year is faltering and will probably not result in the resolution of
this case?
Answer. Through the efforts of the authorizing committees, the
plaintiffs and the Department participated in a mediation of the Cobell
case last year. The mediators, selected by the parties, conducted
numerous meetings, both jointly and separately with the parties.
However, to date, no material progress can be reported by the
Department. The Committee is encouraged to contact the mediators
directly for a constructive discussion of the mediation process and
results.
The Department is committed to a resolution of this litigation that
is both fair to all parties and is based on a supported basis for a
settlement. Despite the efforts of this Administration and the previous
Administration, mediation, and Congressional interests, the Department
believes that only Congress can resolve this litigation, either through
a legislative settlement or by clearly defining what is intended when
it required an accounting of trust funds in the 1994 Trust Reform Act.
landowner incentive program
Question. According to the fiscal year 2006 budget justification,
the Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to develop performance measures
for the Landowner Incentive Program.
What have been the major obstacles to establishing these measures?
Answer. The Service expects to have quantifiable, meaningful
baseline performance measures completed by the end of this fiscal year.
In establishing these goals, the Service is working through several
obstacles including determining achievable accomplishments in
coordination with our State grant recipients, and a lack of
standardized data and monitoring protocols.
Question. When will these measures be fully implemented?
Answer. The Service will have established baseline performance
measures by the end of this fiscal year and will strive to get them
incorporated into future budget justification documents. This timeframe
allows our grant recipients to have implemented and reported on their
grant accomplishments for 2-3 fiscal years, which will improve the
accuracy of the data and allow us to validate our performance measures.
The planned performance measures will be in effect for our fiscal year
2007 budget process.
Question. Given the lack of adequate performance measures and tight
budget constraints, does it make sense to propose such a large increase
for this program ($16 million)?
Answer. Yes. The Service has strict grant selection criteria and
reporting requirements that ensure all grant projects are of high
quality and benefit many species in need of conservation. As a
relatively new program, many States have recently set up the
infrastructure and developed the critical partnerships with private
landowners that are needed to achieve the program's goals. By
increasing funding, the program will be able to carry out its mission
in more States than currently possible and have in place a strong
program that will build on its previous successes.
fish and wildlife service construction
Question. The fiscal year 2006 request proposes to reduce the
construction account by $33 million. There are no plans to construct
any of the high priority visitor centers or to complete visitor centers
that are currently in the design and/or construction phase.
What are the agency's long term plans for meeting visitation needs
on the refuge system?
Answer. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states
that compatible wildlife dependent recreation uses (hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental
education) are the priority general public uses of the System through
which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and
wildlife. In order to meet growing visitor demands, the Service has
initiated its visitor facility enhancements program. In contrast to
large-scale projects such as visitor centers, the new program focuses
on construction of small-scale visitor facilities such as kiosks, boat
ramps, photo blinds, and fishing piers that allow Americans to
experience wildlife up close. We believe this program is better suited
to meet the future interests of our visitors.
Question. What methods (such as the use of standardized nationwide
designs) has the agency explored to reduce the cost of facilities?
Answer. In 2002, the Service's Division of Engineering produced a
comprehensive document titled, ``Site Adaptable Facility Designs--A
Planning Guide for New Projects.'' This manual provides standard design
guidelines for 5 categories of facilities: office buildings,
maintenance buildings, housing, storage buildings, and comfort
stations. This is evidence that the Service is very much committed to
using standard designs--where it is proven to be cost effective. In
addition, Region 5 recently completed standardized designs for a small,
medium and large visitor center and plans to use them consistently
throughout that region. The National Wildlife Refuge System program
office and regional offices are currently evaluating these designs to
determine whether they are appropriate for use elsewhere in the
Service.
Question. Has the agency considered greater use of outside
engineering firms to lower the cost of designing and constructing
needed facilities?
Answer. In fiscal year 2004, the Service outsourced approximately
$17 million of engineering work to Architectural/Engineering
contractors, or 61 percent of the total planning, design, and
construction management obligations associated with 503 projects. While
we continue to look for other ways to engage contractors, the Service
has found that this level of contract work with outside engineering
firms seems to be very efficient. In fact, the Service believes that
greater use of outside engineering firms would increase the cost of
completing smaller deferred maintenance and rehabilitation projects--of
which there were 360 such projects in fiscal year 2004, because smaller
deferred maintenance projects are not cost effective to bid, and A/E
firms are not typically interested in small projects that are
geographically dispersed throughout the nation. However, the Service
plans on conducting a comprehensive competitive outsourcing study of
all engineering-related professional disciplines in fiscal year 2006 in
order to make sure that all possible efficiencies are being utilized.
fish and wildlife migratory bird program
Question. The fiscal year 2006 request proposes an increase for
existing joint ventures in addition to funds for six new joint
ventures. Given tight budget constraints, the Committee may not be able
to provide all of these requested funds.
Is it a greater priority to provide additional funds for the
current joint ventures, or is it more important to start up the new
ventures?
Answer. Due to rescissions and fixed cost increases, current joint
ventures received slightly less funding in fiscal year 2005 than in
fiscal year 2004. Therefore, it is a top priority for the existing
joint ventures to receive the requested fiscal year 2006 increase. At
the same time, bird conservation partners in areas of the country
without joint ventures continue to organize and support new joint
ventures to meet outstanding bird conservation needs and deserve some
level of assistance from the Service.
Question. Of the six new proposed joint ventures, which are of
greatest importance to begin as early as possible?
Answer. The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture has met all the
Service-established criteria for receiving funding support, including
the development of an approved Joint Venture Plan. The Northern Great
Plains Joint Venture is expected to complete work on their Plan in the
next few months. These should be the first of the new joint ventures to
receive funding. All of the new joint ventures are making progress
toward these same criteria.
fish and wildlife service science initiative
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes $2 million
for a science excellence initiative within the Fish and Wildlife
Service budget.
Are these funds to enhance the Service's scientific capability?
Answer. No, the $2 million requested for the Science Excellence
Initiative would not be used to manage the Service's existing
scientific capability; it would be used to meet mission-critical needs
that cannot be met within core capabilities. The funds would be used to
develop additional partnerships and mechanisms to enable the Service's
scientists to collaborate more effectively among themselves and with
expert scientists in other organizations, especially the U.S.
Geological Survey. For example, funds ($500,000) requested to establish
one or more communities of practice would bring together expert
scientists in the Service and USGS and provide them with a mechanism to
share and exchange scientific information and work together on high-
priority fish and wildlife issues. These communities of practice would
largely be virtual fora where experienced scientists and new scientists
alike could go to accelerate their learning about emerging scientific
techniques and scientific information, and to discuss specific
situations where those techniques and that information were
instrumental in resolving fish and wildlife issues or in preparing fish
and wildlife management plans, such as recovery plans and refuge
management plans. Similarly, about a quarter of the funds requested
would be used by the Service to work directly with USGS's Cooperative
Research Units, which have unique capability to provide the timely
technical assistance, scientific expertise and scientific information
Service scientists need to manage fish and wildlife on-the-ground,
particularly on refuges, in National Fish Hatcheries, and in a variety
of restoration programs, like those supported by the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife program. Likewise, about a third of the funds requested
would be used to work directly with USGS scientists in relationships
that would resemble consultancies or limited scientific partnerships.
These relationships would enable operational scientists in the Service
to acquire special kinds of expertise, such as in ecological modeling
and adaptive management, that they need to manage refuge lands,
conserve threatened and endangered species, conserve migratory
waterfowl, and restore interjurisdictional fisheries.
Question. Why does the Service need to develop this science
capability in-house rather than relying on USGS to meet these needs?
Answer. The Service must have the operational scientific capability
to apply cutting edge science and complex scientific methods to
administer the programs for which our agency is responsible. While we
rely upon USGS and other science organizations for many research needs,
where information is needed to inform our management; the effective
administration of our science-based management programs requires
operational science capability at a high level. This increase request
is to enhance this operational science capability within the Service.
The Service needs to provide its front line scientists with the
basic means they need to acquire the scientific information, scientific
expertise and technical assistance they use daily to address complex
resource management issues. Service scientists, many of whom work at
isolated duty stations with only one or two peer scientists, must be
linked to the broader scientific community and to world-class
scientific institutions, where they can go for assistance and
consultation. The $2 million requested for the science excellence
initiative would link the Service's operational scientists with one
another and with USGS's research scientists through: (1) communities of
practice, which would enhance collaboration among scientists engaged in
issues like structured decision support systems, conservation genetics
and adaptive management; (2) consultancies and limited partnerships
that would enable the Service's operational scientists to work hand-in-
hand with USGS expert scientists on particularly complex resource
issues; and (3) collaborative ventures with Cooperative Research Units,
which would enable Service scientists to augment their expertise by
acquiring special expertise and information housed in CRUs.
Question. How, if at all, is the USGS involved in this initiative?
Answer. USGS is a willing and supportive partner in the Science
Excellence Initiative and in the Service's $2 million request in fiscal
year 2006. Directors Groat (USGS) and Williams (FWS) conferred
extensively about their bureaus' priority budget needs in both fiscal
year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2005, the bureaus built
budget initiatives that were complementary and carefully integrated,
and which were intended to provide both bureaus with much-needed
capabilities to address local issues confronting our nation's fish and
wildlife. However, funding to support these capabilities was not
appropriated. Nonetheless, the Directors collaborated again in
developing their fiscal year 2006 budget proposals. Director Groat
(USGS) lent his full support to the Service's request for $2 million in
fiscal year 2006 for its Science Excellence Initiative.
In addition to being a supportive partner, USGS is also willing to
work with the Service to help develop the infrastructure and
collaborative relationships that would be supported by the Service's $2
billion budget request. Director Groat and his senior managers in the
biological discipline, as well as leaders at Cooperative Research Units
and the Survey's research centers, await opportunities to work with the
Service to establish communities of practice and science consultancies,
and to work together on pressing resource issues at local levels.
fisheries program
Question. The fiscal year 2005 budget justification did not
adequately describe the impacts that the proposed budget would have on
the fisheries program. The Committee learned well after the submission
of the budget that several important hatchery facilities would be put
in caretaker status or be closed completely. The Committee provided
additional funds to prevent these closures.
At the levels proposed in the fiscal year 2006 request, will any
hatcheries be closed or have significant staff reductions?
Answer. No National Fish Hatcheries will close or have significant
staff reductions in fiscal year 2006 at the proposed levels. The
President's fiscal year 2006 Budget Request includes increases of
$2.111 million for National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS) operations
funding and a general program increase of $345,000 for maintenance
funding. These increases will allow the NFHS to clearly focus on
implementation of priority restoration, recovery, and science and
technology projects to achieve goals outlined in the National Fisheries
Program Strategic Plan.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2006 request maintain the additional
$885,000 that the Committee added to the base program for fiscal year
2005?
Answer. The fiscal year 2006 request does not include the
additional $885,000 that the Committee added to the base program in
fiscal year 2005.
esa consultation budget
Question. The Committee frequently hears from various groups that
it take too long for projects to receive their section 7 consultation
approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
What has been the level of staffing for this program for each of
the last five years?
Answer. The number of full time equivalents (FTE) working on
consultations in the past five years has been as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full time
Fiscal year equivalents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000....................................................... 380
2001....................................................... 430
2002....................................................... 480
2003....................................................... 480
2004....................................................... 480
2005....................................................... 480
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is there a large backlog of proposed projects that need
section 7 consultations?
Answer. The Service attempts as much as possible to meet the
consultation timeframes imposed by the Act. However, the Service
acknowledges that its consultation workload is high and increasing and
is taking steps to address it. We have recently promulgated two joint
counterpart regulations that are intended to provide flexibility in the
ways a Federal agency may meet its obligations under the ESA by
creating alternative procedures to the section 7 consultation process.
They reduce our workload by enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness
of the section 7 consultation process by increasing interagency
cooperation and providing two optional alternatives for completing
section 7 consultation. We have promulgated a counterpart regulation
for EPA pesticide consultations under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. As part of the President's Healthy
Forests Initiative, we developed counterpart regulations with the
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, USDA Forest Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service
to streamline consultations on proposed projects that support the
National Fire Plan.
Question. If so, would additional personnel reduce this backlog?
Answer. Yes, additional personnel could help address the backlog in
the short-term. However, we have a continued effort to streamline
consultations to reduce the backlog in the long-term. Accordingly,
additional personnel may not be the best use of resources in the long
run.
Question. How much funding does the Service receive from other
Department of the Interior agencies and the Forest Service for
consultation work on hazardous fuels reduction projects?
Answer. Agreements were signed in 2001 within the Department of the
Interior and with the Forest Service and BLM that allow the Service to
be reimbursed by the fire management agencies for costs associated with
the increased consultation workload related to the fire plan. Since
fiscal year 2001, over $12.7 million appropriated to the Forest Service
and BLM for the purposes of wildland fire management has been made
available to the Service through these agreements and subsequent
modifications.
Question. Are these funds from other agencies certain enough that
the Service can hire on additional staff to perform this work or does
the amount of funds vary too much from year to year?
Answer. The interagency agreement funding has supported
approximately 43 full time equivalent employees to work on fire
consultations to date. Agreements negotiated in 2001 provided funding
through 2006 or until expended. In addition, in many Field Offices, the
Service reassigned its most experienced section 7 staff to work on the
National Fire Plan. These biologists are now available to assist the
fire management agencies in early project planning.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Stevens
bureau of land management
Questions. The 2004 fire season was the worst Alaska has ever seen.
Alaska had 703 fires and over 6.6 million acres burned. Not only did
these fires affect the land and wildlife in various regions of the
state, but the health and safety of nearby residents. For more than 15
days, the EPA rated the air quality in Fairbanks as ``hazardous,''
meaning that particulate matter in the air exceeded 350 micrograms per
cubic meter. At several times during the summer, Fairbanks and the
surrounding communities exceeded 995 particulates per cubic meter. A
typical day in Fairbanks rates 10 micrograms per cubic meter. Residents
had to avoid any outdoor exertion, and people with respiratory or heart
disease, the elderly, and children had to remain indoors.
I have received reports that the effects of these fires could have
been diminished, but the federal agencies lacked the resources,
manpower, and equipment necessary to adequately attack these fires at
their inception. This led to relatively minor fires expanding until
they burned out of control.
Given the 2004 fire season in Alaska, has the Department
reevaluated its procedures? What changes, if any, have been made to
fire policy, particularly in areas with less population but where
fires, if left to burn, could have devastating effects on the land and
to wildlife? Do you feel that the Department's budget has adequate
resources for this upcoming fire season?
Answer. The Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (AWFCG) has
been actively evaluating operations and procedures based on the 2004
fire season. This group consists of the Department of the Interior's
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management, along with the Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service, the State of Alaska, and representatives
from Chugachmuit and Tanana Chiefs.
As part of the evaluation process the AWFCG sponsored a series of
13 public meetings in communities throughout Alaska's interior and in
Anchorage. Additionally, AWFCG participated in and took comments at the
fall meeting of the Forty-Mile Miners Association and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs Providers Conference. A wide range of concerns and
comments raised at those meetings are now being addressed.
The AWFCG has developed a summary of the public comments,
recommendations and actions based on the community meetings and written
comments received since the 2004 fire season. This document can be
found at the following web site: http://fire.ak.blm.gov. At this site,
the document can be found by clicking on the fire planning section and
referring to community meetings.
actions
Fire Planning Process
The AWCG reviewed the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management
Plan (AIWFMP) and confirmed that the plan is a positive approach to
overall statewide fire management and that the plan provides the
flexibility to make any needed adjustments based on the 2004 season.
The AIWFMP provides for an annual review of the management options
for designated protection levels, e.g. critical, full, modified, and
limited. The land management agencies have reviewed the boundary
locations delineating these levels, and some boundaries have already
been changed based on the concerns expressed by Alaska communities.
Other boundary changes are being considered but are not yet final.
There were many concerns raised about the level and duration of
smoke in the communities affected by last year's fires. The AIWFMP
currently provides flexibility for the land manager/owner or AWFCG to
authorize an increased level of suppression as conditions require,
regardless of management option designation. However, previously there
were no criteria identified in the AIWFMP as to when this adjustment
should be considered.
AWCG has drafted proposed evaluation criteria, or trigger points,
for when increased suppression should be considered in the interest of
smoke mitigation. The draft is being reviewed by the interagency
wildland fire community and will be implemented before the upcoming
fire season. However, it is important to recognize that, in any given
situation, there is no guarantee that increased suppression will
successfully reduce fire impacts, including smoke. Moreover, one must
be cognizant of the fact that, over time, successful suppression can
actually increase fire risks by contributing to the buildup of
hazardous fuels. Successful suppression strategies require a careful
balancing of these short- and long-term risks.
In 1958, the State of Alaska was granted over 103 million acres of
land under the Alaska Statehood Act. In 1971, Native Alaskans were
granted 44 million acres of land under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act. At present, approximately 89 million still await final
transfer. To remedy this situation, Senator Lisa Murkowski and myself
sponsored the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act to accelerate
conveyances to the State of Alaska and Native Corporations, finalize
pending native allotments, and complete the University of Alaska's
remaining land entitlement by 2009--it became law in December 2004.
While these legislative changes are a necessary component, the goal of
completing conveyances by 2009 requires increases in funding.
Question. Given the importance of completing the Alaska conveyance
process, why did BLM decrease funding for this program by over $9
million?
Answer. The BLM fully supports the Alaska Conveyance program. The
significant increase provided by Congress in the 2005 appropriations
process could not be maintained in a constrained fiscal environment.
The 2006 budget funds the program at the same level as in the 2005
request, with the addition of uncontrollables, which the Department
believes at the present time is a more sustainable level. At the 2006
request level, the BLM will continue to make significant progress in
transferring Federal lands in Alaska to other ownerships. New
provisions provided by the recently enacted Alaska Land Transfer
Acceleration Act will allow the BLM to accelerate the completion of the
program and reduce costs.
fish and wildlife service
Question. The Endangered Species Act provides broad protections for
fish, wildlife and plants that are threatened or endangered. Every
year, Congress appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars for that
program. The spectacled eider and Steller's eider are two species in
Alaska that have been listed as threatened. The Fish and Wildlife
Service's budget proposes decreasing funding for their recovery by over
$1 million.
Given the importance of conserving endangered and threatened
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, what is the
Department's justification for reducing funding for their recovery to
less than $500,000?
Answer. The requested changes in the recovery budget reduce the
funding for the Alaska Sea Life Center to $494,000, which will likely
be used for collaboration between the Service and the Alaska Sea Life
Center to continue coordination of the eider recovery team and applied
studies on eider biology, physiology, and ecology; and continue
outreach and education efforts involving Alaska Natives and other rural
residents in eider conservation efforts. The $1.9 million proposed
increase in Recovery general program funding will actually increase the
Service's ability to leverage existing funds with willing partners to
implement the recovery programs for a wide variety of species. In this
manner, we will still be able to complete our highest priority recovery
planning and implementation actions.
Question. One requirement of the Marine Mammal Act is that marine
mammal populations and the marine ecosystems upon which they depend be
maintained at, or returned to, healthy levels. This mandate is of
particular importance to my state given the number and types of marine
mammals in Alaska and the need to ensure sustainable use of marine
mammals for subsistence purposes.
What is the Department's justification for eliminating funding for
Alaska Marine Mammals--over $2 million was appropriated for this
program in fiscal year 2005?
Answer. The earmark provided in fiscal year 2005 is targeted to two
areas: (1) $1,183,000 for cooperative agreements with Alaska Native
organizations, and (2) $986,000 for marine mammal surveys in Alaska. We
anticipate that the tasks and projects funded with this earmark, and
that are described below, will be completed in fiscal year 2005. The
Service is committed to continuing to meet our responsibilities for
marine mammal conservation and management under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and recovery for those species listed under the
Endangered Species Act. We anticipate that at the Administration's
request level, we will be able to implement activities to conserve and
manage marine mammals and meet our responsibilities.
The fiscal year 2005 appropriation included $1,183,000 for grants
to develop and implement cooperative agreements with Alaska Native
organizations, under Section 119 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972, as amended in 1994. These agreements enhance the management of
polar bears, Pacific walrus, and northern sea otters in Alaska. In
fiscal year 2005, funds are being provided to the Eskimo Walrus
Commission, the Alaska Sea Otter and Steller Sea Lion Commission, and
the Alaska Nanuuq (Polar Bear) Commission, where they continue to be
used to develop the management capabilities of the Native community for
locally directed subsistence harvest. The funds appropriated in fiscal
year 2005 help bring together people from remote villages to develop
and implement effective and consensus management strategies, which
enhances communication within the Native community and between the
Native community and the Service. Other cooperative projects increase
local involvement in gathering environmental data and compiling
traditional knowledge to support sustainable use of marine mammal
subsistence resources. The Service establishes Cooperative agreements
with the three Commissions on an annual basis and therefore, these
grant-funded tasks will be completed in fiscal year 2005. The Service
has committed $250,000 from our fiscal year 2006 budget for
implementation of Section 119 Agreements.
The fiscal year 2005 Appropriation also included $986,000 for the
continued development of marine mammal population survey methods in
Alaska. These funds provide the opportunity to obtain biological
information to address high priority resource issues. They also help
develop and test innovative survey techniques relating to walrus, sea
otters and polar bears in Alaska. Survey activities undertaken with
these funds will be used to refine remote sensing with thermal imaging
to estimate walrus numbers, which dramatically increases the Service's
ability to conduct critical abundance estimates for Pacific walrus. In
addition, sea otter surveys funded with these dollars will be conducted
to help evaluate regional trends for a declining population as well as
questions regarding potential seasonal distribution changes within
specific regions where numbers of sea otters have been depleted.
Additional surveys conducted with these funds will improve information
on the distribution of the southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
populations. Successful completion of these preliminary projects also
is expected during fiscal year 2005.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
standing rock irrigation
Question. Low lake levels at Lake Oahe, which spans 231 miles from
Pierre, the capital of South Dakota, to Bismarck, the capital of North
Dakota, have been causing a number of problems for Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe. From November 23-26, 2003, there was simply no drinking water at
all in Fort Yates, ND. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe purchased and
distributed bottled drinking water and other supplies and the Bureau of
Reclamation did what it could to restore the water supply to the
community during that holiday weekend.
More than a year later, however, the community is dealing with the
effects of low lake levels. It has hit the Tribe's irrigation program
particularly hard. Last year, construction was completed on the
Cannonball irrigation project as a part of the Garrison project, but a
temporary change in the intake was required to operate in 2004 due to
low water levels on Lake Oahe. The original intake was never used
because 11 feet of sediment had accumulated over the intake. In order
for the irrigation project to operate this year, a new intake is
needed. The North Dakota delegation sent a letter to the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Keys, on March 1, asking for funds to
address this problem. Could you please tell us the status of a response
to our letter?
Answer. A letter was signed by the Commissioner on April 5, 2005 in
response to the North Dakota delegation. Attached is a copy of the
letter for the record.
Question. Similar problems are plaguing two irrigation intakes that
were constructed with BIA irrigation funds--the Fort Yates intake in
North Dakota and the Eagle intake in South Dakota. The Tribe has asked
about the possibility of a reprogramming of fiscal year 2005 BIA funds
or an appropriation of fiscal year 2006 funds to extend theses two
intakes originally constructed with BIA funds. Could you give the
Subcommittee an analysis of the status of the fiscal year 2005 funding
in the BIA's irrigation program, and explain what authorization and
funding level would be needed for the Subcommittee to appropriate funds
in fiscal year 2006 to address these problems?
Answer. As these are extensions of two existing intake structures,
this would fall under the BIA Irrigation Construction program. In
fiscal year 2005, all Irrigation Construction funding was directed to
the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP). In fiscal year 2006 the
President's Budget request for Irrigation Construction is $12.8 million
and consists solely of funding for NIIP.
The BIA has authority to undertake the Standing Rock water intake
projects. However, any funding for these projects should be identified
separate and apart from funding for NIIP. A consultant of the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe has provided an estimate of $1.0 million for the Fort
Yates intake extension project, which BIA has validated, and $500,000
for the Eagle intake extension project which the BIA is in the process
of assessing.
national wildlife refuge system
Question. The fiscal year 2006 budget for the Fish and Wildlife
Service includes an increase of $12.9 million over the enacted level.
With this increase the budget justification notes an associated
increase of 10 FTEs. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
indicated they may have to abolish as many as 200 positions under this
budget request due to increased costs and assessments. Will any
positions be eliminated or held open in fiscal year 2005 or fiscal year
2006 that have previously been filled? If so, please provide a list by
region and field station.
Answer. The positions in question are located in the National
Wildlife Refuge program. While they have been identified as a minimum
staffing need, many of these positions have never been funded. The
impact to the budget is in lost opportunities to address funding needs
due to the absorption of fixed costs and across-the-board rescissions.
Since 2001, the total number of Refuge FTEs has increased by 419
positions, or roughly 16 percent. At the same time, however, the
program has had to absorb roughly $22.1 million in fixed costs that
could otherwise have been used to hire almost an additional 278 new
staff. The $22.1 million amount is comprised of two factors. The first
factor is the gap between the legislated pay increase level and the
actual funding received for pay increases. Over multiple years, this
gap has a cumulative impact. The second factor is the annual impact of
across-the-board rescissions. In addition to preventing the program
from hiring new staff, absorbing fixed costs reduces opportunities to
leverage funds, support additional volunteers and partnerships, and
provide additional services to the public.
The Service continues to monitor the situation. Before leaving
positions unfilled, programs look at numerous other ways to contain
costs. For example, the Service extensively uses partnerships and
volunteers to contain costs: in fiscal year 2005, there were over
45,000 volunteers.
scientific integrity
Question. Has the Department done anything to look into the results
of a recently conducted Union of Concerned Scientists and Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility Survey of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service employees? How are you addressing these concerns about
political interference at the Department?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the information
compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists and by Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility. In addition, the Service has studied
the survey techniques and survey instrument used by UCS and PEER. While
the survey design, sample size, and response rate make it difficult to
draw precise inferences from the data collected, we do not discount the
fact that over 400 employees responded to this survey, expressing
various forms of dissatisfaction or concern. The Service leadership
will be considering these views and other more scientifically generated
information in the coming months to determine appropriate steps to
address such concerns. We believe that our requested $2 million Science
Excellence budget initiative will provide important support in this
effort. With regard to the UCS/PEER inferences about political
interference in decision-making, the Service believes it would benefit
from revising its training programs to focus more attention on the
roles of scientists, supervisors and managers in decision-making and to
place greater emphasis on decision-support tools and their roles in
structured decision-making. This effort will be directly supported by
our fiscal year 2006 Science Excellence funding request and will
strengthen and sharpen the application and role of science in the
decision making process.
leafy spurge
Question. Please provide the funding levels by agency and
management unit included in the fiscal year 2006 President's budget for
leafy spurge eradication in North Dakota.
Answer. The Department's 2006 President's budget includes an
estimated $2.0 million in total for leafy spurge and yellow star
thistle, broken out as follows, by bureau:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLM........................................................ $700,000
USGS....................................................... 300,000
FWS........................................................ 646,000
NPS........................................................ 250,000
BIA........................................................ 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds are distributed based on priority needs and at this point in
time, information on leafy spurge funding by state is not available.
tribal priority allocations
Question. As you are aware, the Tribal Priority Allocations or
``TPA'' account in the BIA budget makes up 40 percent of Operation of
Indian Programs funding. TPA funds basic, rubber-meets-the-road tribal
services, including programs for tribal courts, Indian child welfare,
housing, welfare assistance, adult education and forestry. The fiscal
year 2006 request proposes to ``evaluate'' the allocation of funding
under TPA and consider if there are better ways to distribute TPA
funds. What assurance can you provide this Subcommittee that tribes
will be consulted before any redistribution plan is put in place? Given
that tribal consultation sessions are already being held in the
formulation of the fiscal year 2007 budget, how will any reallocation
or redistribution proposal affect the development of the fiscal year
2007 budget request?
Answer. The Tribes will play a significant role in the analysis of
the current TPA funding formula. The Tribal Budget Advisory Council has
established a working group to evaluate this issue. If the evaluation
indicates a need to revise the funding formula, proposals will be
developed and considered in consultation with the Tribes. This
evaluation is in a very preliminary stage; therefore, the impact to the
fiscal year 2007 budget request cannot yet be determined.
mni sose water rights
Question. In December, 2004, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
notified the Mni Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition (Coalition)
that its fiscal year 2005 funding had been eliminated. This Coalition
consists of 28 tribes in the Missouri River Basin and has been
operating for twelve years pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the BIA. The MOA was based on providing trust services and
responsibilities to the Northern Plains Tribes due to a lack of BIA
manpower, interagency relationships, and knowledge of trust issues. Can
you tell the subcommittee why these funds were eliminated and whether
or not the Department has identified unobligated funds that could be
reprogrammed to the Coalition?
Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the budget for the Water Resources
Management, Planning, and Pre-development, program was reduced by
$418,000. This restricted the program's ability to fund all initiatives
that had been supported the previous year. In distribution of the
fiscal year 2005 funds, BIA staff carefully monitored the provisions
required under the MOA between the Coalition, and also reviewed the
Coalitions's proposed projects an accordance with national criteria.
The coalition did not rank high enough, when compared to other Tribal
needs, to receive funding. If funding becomes available for
reprogramming, funding for the Coalition will be considered among other
priority funding needs.
bia replacement school construction
Question. BIA is responsible for operating 184 schools in 23 states
that serve roughly 48,000 children. The budget says that funding for
the school construction program supports the President's commitment to
``leave no child behind,'' and that the goal is to ``provide an
environment conducive to quality educational achievement.'' Yet, the
administration's budget proposes to reduce funding for replacement
schools by $62 million. That's a cut of 58 percent from the current
enacted level, and 69 percent from the 2004 level. Congress has
provided a substantial amount of money to the construction program over
the past 4 or 5 years, and these projects take some time to complete.
But despite the increases, one-third of BIA schools are still listed as
being in ``poor'' condition. According to the budget, BIA has had some
carryover balances in the construction account, so the thinking here is
that by cutting the funding, the planning and design people can ``catch
up with construction awards.'' BIA will carry over $175 million in
fiscal year 2006, approximately 55 percent of the $319 million
appropriated in fiscal year 2005. The National Park Service will carry
over $385 million, or 127 percent of the $302 million appropriated last
year. Yet, despite having more than twice the carryover as BIA, the
request for Park Service construction is actually up $22 million, a 7
percent increase. Knowing that there are still 60 schools out there
that are in drastic need of replacement, why is school construction
funding being cut by 58 percent? And if this is really all about
carryover balances, then why is the Park Service being spared a similar
cut in its construction program?
Answer. The table below summarizes carryover as a percent of total
available funding for NPS BLM, FWS, and BIA. However, carryover
balances were not the only factor considered. The funding level for
each construction account was based on an evaluation of facts specific
to each bureau. For BIA, funding for school construction was reduced to
maximize our ability to complete schools already in the design process
or under construction. The budget maintains the pace of the current
program by including funding to begin planning and design for future
projects
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year Percent
---------------------------------------------------------------------- change
fiscal
Carryover year
Enacterd Total as a 2005 2006 2006 vs.
BA available \1\ Carryover percent enacted request fiscal
of total BA BA year
available 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS............................ $409 $723 $339 47 $355 $358 1
BLM............................ 14 28 14 50 11 6 -45
FWS............................ 72 143 68 48 96 22 -77
BIA \2\........................ 347 610 216 35 319 232 -27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total available includes carryover from prior years, recoveries, and new budget authority.
\2\ The numbers shown for BIA represent the total construction account, not just school construction.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. As you know, the National Center for Earth Resources
Observation and Science (commonly known as ``EROS'') in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, is an extraordinarily important resource not only for my
state, but for our nation and the international community. You have
been extremely helpful in working with me and others to avert the
potential crisis that could have resulted from the May 2003 malfunction
of the Landsat 7 satellite's scan line corrector (SLC). Your
cooperation in reprogramming funds for use at EROS helped to address
funding shortfalls caused by the malfunction, and you were instrumental
in assembling the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, which
seeks funding increases that will help to ensure the long-term
continuity of the Landsat data record. I look forward to working with
you and my colleagues in Congress to ensure that this essential funding
is delivered. I remain concerned, however, about the possibility that
another more serious Landsat malfunction between now and the launch of
its successor in 2009, at the earliest, could cause a gap in the
Landsat data record. Does the USGS expect a Landsat data gap to occur?
Answer. A land imaging sensor is scheduled to launch on the first
NPOESS (National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System) satellite (launch currently targeted for late CY 2009). The
extent of a gap, if any, between Landsat 7 and NPOESS will depend on
the continued health of Landsat 7 as well as NPOESS' ability to remain
on schedule. Given the uncertainties involved, the USGS and NASA are
developing plans to buy imagery to mitigate any negative impacts to
users of the Landsat data (discussed below in greater detail).
Question. Given that such a gap would diminish the value of the
Landsat data record and potentially harm our data processing
capabilities, it is in our interest to do all we can to prevent a gap
from occurring. Could you outline the preventive steps being taken by
USGS?
Answer. USGS flight engineers continually monitor telemetry from
Landsat 7 to maintain the health and safety of the spacecraft and the
sensor on board. For several months in 2004, the engineers tracked
anomalies in the performance of one of Landsat 7's three gyroscopes,
which are used to maintain and control the position and orientation of
the spacecraft. After extensive analysis, the USGS decided to shut off
one ``gyro''. During the same period, the USGS worked closely with NASA
experts to perform a risk assessment, as the Landsat 7 satellite design
requires two gyros for successful operation. The USGS continues to
monitor the remaining gyros. So far, however, the remaining gyros are
functioning with no problems, and they could last for the duration of
the mission. The USGS is taking preventive steps, though, by conducting
a study that would allow for operation of the satellite using a single
gyro. This approach has worked successfully on other satellites
designed for two-gyro performance, and a hardware/software test of
single-gyro flight procedures is planned for the summer of 2005.
Question. Further, should these preventive steps fail, how would
USGS minimize the negative consequences of a gap?
Answer. In case these preventive steps fail, the USGS, with NASA
and with input from the user community, is investigating alternatives
for partial mitigation of a data gap. That is, while no single
satellite or combination of satellites can duplicate the spectral
content and geographic coverage of Landsat 7, one or more foreign land-
observing satellite systems may be able to provide, at reasonable cost,
twice-annual global coverage of imagery with spectral characteristics
that are somewhat similar to Landsat 7. The USGS is currently
evaluating data from such systems and holding preliminary discussions
with the data providers.
Question. Finally, could you explain the extent to which the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request for Landsat 7 operations
and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission would help to prevent and
respond to a potential gap?
Answer. Baseline funding for the USGS Land Remote Sensing Program
supports ongoing, routine efforts to obtain and characterize sample
data sets from commercial land-observing satellites and from
international government systems. In cooperation with NASA scientists,
sample data sets from systems capable of providing global land coverage
are currently being evaluated. Program funding for fiscal year 2006 is
projected to continue supporting this effort. Should Landsat 7 fail
during fiscal year 2006, it is presumed that flight-operations funding
for Landsat 7 could be shifted toward obtaining alternative data once
the decommissioning effort is completed. LDCM is the longer-term
solution to the status of Landsat 7. Timely launch of a new land sensor
by 2009 will provide a full replacement for Landsat 7.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Burns. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will
stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, the
hearings were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
----------
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:]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Letter From the State of Nevada
State of Nevada,
Colorado River Commission of Nevada,
April 26, 2005.
Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Interior, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Burns: The Colorado River Commission of Nevada, the
state agency charged with protecting Nevada's interests and rights in
the water, power and land resources of the Colorado River System,
supports the appropriation of $5,200,000 of Bureau of Land Management
funds for assistance in salinity control activities in the Colorado
River Basin as recommended by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum for fiscal year 2006. Specifically, the Colorado River Commission
supports the President's request for the Soil, Water and Air management
for a designation that $800,000 be used to further advance Colorado
River salinity control efforts.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
current funding recommendations for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program is essential to move the program forward so that the
congressionally directed salinity objectives are achieved.
Sincerely,
George M. Caan,
Executive Director.
______
Letter From the Penobscot Indian Nation
Office of the Chief and Council,
Penobscot Nation, Community Building,
Indian Island, Maine, April 19, 2005.
Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Byrd, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Appropriations
Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
Hon. Byron Dorgan, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senators: Thank you very much for all the work you and the
Committee members have accomplished over the years on behalf of Tribal
governments and our citizens. Indian Country certainly has shown some
improvement as a result of your efforts and the Committee is held in
high esteem by all Tribes. We are most grateful for all that you have
done and continue to do.
On April 14 the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies held public hearings and on behalf of
the Penobscot Nation, I testified and submitted a written statement. I
am attaching a copy of our testimony and ask that you consider it
during your deliberations this year and make it a part of any hearing
record. I am also attaching a letter I recently sent to Claude Allen,
President Bush's Domestic Policy Advisor and Director of the Domestic
Policy Council. A number of tribal leaders have had two meetings in
recent months with Mr. Allen at which numerous topics were discussed
and a comprehensive list of issues affecting Federal agencies were
developed.
In follow up to these sessions, I sent the attached letter to Mr.
Allen in which I commented on areas of concerns affecting various
Federal agencies. Copies have also been sent to the respective Cabinet
Level Secretaries overseeing those agencies and departments.
At these meetings and in follow-up correspondence, it is clear that
a fundamental area of concern is the inadequacy of funding for programs
affecting Indian tribes. I am sure you hear this from various groups
but I believe the situation in Indian County is particularly grave and
is in fact inequitable when compared to other groups. I would like to
draw your attention to a report entitled, A Quiet Crisis: Federal
Funding and Unmet Needs in Indian Country. This was published by the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2003 after a detailed examination of
Indian programs. Its findings were not a surprise to those of who live
on Indian reservations but should be shocking to the rest of the
country and to policy makers and appropriators such as yourselves. If
you have not read the report, I would urge that you to get a copy and
review it in detail. I also want to point your attention to a
subsequent report by the Commission entitled, Broken Promises:
Evaluating the Native American Health Care System (Sept. 2004). These
reports indicate that the level of Federal funding made available to
Indian people, when compared to other groups for whom the Federal
government has a responsibility, is so much less as to constitute a
violation of the civil rights of American Indian people. To cite but
one example, the per capita health care expenditures for Medicare
recipients is $5,915; for Veterans getting health care from the VA, we
spend an average of $5,214; for inmates in federal prisons, the
Congress appropriates $3,803, and for Indian people the figure is
$1,914. Gentlemen, if we know that it costs over $5,000 to provide
health care to a Veteran and if we know that it costs almost $4,000 to
serve the medical needs of prisoner, how can we spend less than $2,000
per Indian? What message is this sending to the Indian people as to
their relative value in this country.
Two statements from the 2004 report bear repeating:
``It has long been recognized in Native American and medical
communities that Native Americans are dying of diabetes, alcoholism,
tuberculosis, suicide, unintentional injuries, and other health
conditions at shocking rates. Beyond these mortality rates, Native
Americans also suffer significantly lower health status and
disproportionate rates of disease compared with all other Americans.
These realities should come as no surprise to those with a basic
knowledge of our nation's history and those charged with making
policies that influence the future of the Native American population.''
That report also pointed to the ``failure of Congress to provide
the resources necessary to create and maintain an effective health care
system for Native Americans.''
The time has come to address this disparity and while I understand
there are budget constraints I also know that when this country
confronts a crisis, like we have in Iraq where we will soon have spent
$300 billion, we can find the money necessary. Gentlemen, we have such
a crisis here at home and ironically it is with the only people inside
this country that the United States signed treaties with that included
language committing the United States to the provision of health care.
Would you consider committing to the simple proposition of allowing
Indian health care expenditures to achieve parity with other groups?
That would lead to a doubling of the budget of the Indian Health
Service were we to achieve parity with prisoners or a two and a half
fold increase in the IHS budget to achieve parity with Veterans. If you
commit to achieving such parity I know it can't be done in one year but
it could be accomplished in a phased fashion over three to five years.
Finally, and more locally, I direct your attention to the fact that
the proposed budget eliminates the BIA's Community Fire Protection. The
proposed elimination of this program directly contradicts the
Department of Interior's Strategic Plan (2003-2005) which identifies
the ``Protection of Lives, Resources, & Property'' as a core mission.
The Penobscot Reservation is an island in the middle of the Penobscot
River, with one bridge providing the only entrance and exit. We have
approximately 300 single-family homes which house approximately 545
persons, 16 elderly apartments, a school with 100+ students in
attendance and six tribal buildings housing approximately 125
employees. Additionally, we are currently constructing an elderly
assisted living complex, and are in the planning stages of building 15
new single family homes. We recently met with our neighboring town's
(Old Town, Maine), Fire Department officials to discuss the possibility
of contracting with them for our fire protection needs. Unfortunately,
the town reported to us that they could not enter into a contractual
agreement. As indicated in the attached, it is a priority of the
Penobscot people that the Committee restore funding for the Community
Fire Protection and we ask that when you do you direct the BIA include
an additional $150,000 to our TPA base for the Penobscot Nation's
community fire program.
Overall our request was for an additional TPA of $655,500 for Fire,
Police, Economic & Community Development and Veterans Services
Coordination for Indian Veterans of Maine, and, access to Title IV-E of
Foster Care.
Again, Thank you very much, we sincerely do appreciate all you are
doing for Indian People.
May GheChe' Nawais be with you, with all of our families and ``All
Our Relations.''
James Sappier, Chief,
Penobscot Nation.
Attachments.
Prepared Statement of James Sappier, Tribal Chief, Penobscot Nation
Chairman Taylor, Ranking Member Dicks and Members; Thank you for
this opportunity to testify.
--My name is James Sappier, Chief of the Penobscot Nation in Maine.
--We live on Indian Island, one of over two hundred islands in the
Penobscot River that make up our reservation lands in central
Maine.
--Our written testimony has been given to the Clerk, as well as a
copy of our letter to the President's Domestic Policy Council.
--I will give a brief summary.
--We strongly oppose the Administration's proposed fiscal year 2006
Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget which proposes a decrease to
the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) resulting in reduction
and/or elimination of programs vital to the Penobscot Nation's
safety and well-being.
--The Penobscot Nation, as do most Tribal communities, rely heavily
upon BIA funding to support their essential community needs, as
fire protection, law enforcement, education, housing, trust
lands protection, health and human services. etc.
--All Services that are 638 contracted by the Tribe.
--Our specific requests to the Committee for the fiscal year 2006
budget includes:
Appropriation requests of Bureau of Indian Affairs of $655,500
--$150,000 for Community Fire Protection,
--$100,000 for Economic Development,
--A need for $60,000 for law enforcement,
--$172,000 for community development, and
--$173,500 for the Indian Veterans of Maine--the Penobscots,
Passamaquoddies, Maliseets and Micmacs of central Maine and,
SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL ACCESS TO TITLE IV-E FOSTER CARE
For Indian Health Services
The Committee should increase the IHS budget to at least the level
of health care that prisoners receive. Our budget would be doubled.
Also, Tribes need a waiver to participate in Social Security
benefits and programs. Indians don't live that long and programs that
require age-based qualification for eligibility, discriminate against
our members and their receiving full services.
--An example, since January 2004, we have buried 21 Tribal members,
the average age was 57 years old.
--This is actually 1 percent of our total Tribal population.
For the Environmental Protection Administration
Each year the Tribal Operations Committee's Indian Caucus submits a
Tribal budget based on need to the administration and each year they
receive about 45 percent of their budget request.
The Tribes will never catch up to the numerous entities that
receive program and environmental support.
Tribes are truly 25 years too late in coming into the EPA system.
The letter to the President's Domestic Policy Council illustrates a
more in-depth description of conditions that confront our Tribes and
especially those areas within the scope of this Committee, the
Interior, Health and Environment of Indian Country.
--This letter places much emphasis on the ``Quiet Crisis--Federal
Funding and Unmet Needs In Indian Country'' a report prepared
by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2003.
--It really brings to the forefront the real problems in Indian
Country.
--After a detailed analysis, the Commission concluded that funding
for programs for Indian Tribes simply have not kept up with
spending for non-native programs, or to meet the increase
population growth of Indian Country.
--Congress must consider the impact of inflationary costs.
--Specifically federal funding for Native American programs is
inadequate and goes unnoticed because it is unreported,
unmonitored, unaccounted for, and inconsistently tracked.
Specifically, for BIA the following were noted:
--When adjusted for inflation, the impact of TPA funding shortfalls
become more evident.
--The TPA budget has diminished the real spending power of tribal
governments dramatically.
--Tribal governments do not receive funds at the rate of inflation,
and they have also been losing real spending power at a
dramatic rate.
--Over the period of the report, 1998-2003, TPA spending power has
lost $36.5 million or 4.4 percent.
--These inflationary costs coupled with the $10 million reduction is
making it impossible for Tribal Governments to continue to
operate programs that the Federal Government has a legal
obligation through treaties, settlement acts, and statutes to
provide.
--Tribal self-determination is endangered if these reductions are
enacted.
--Penobscot Nation has no other funding sources to pay for the
program operational shortfalls and may be left with no
alternative but to consider retrocession of these programs.
--Under the Indian Self-Determination Act we can retrocede a program
back to the United States and the agency involved (BIA or IHS
for instance) would be required to send personnel to Maine,
establish offices and take over the management and operation of
that program.
--The costs for administration, management and operations of BIA
programs would be 250-300 percent higher.
--As reflected within the USCRC report, ``A Quiet Crisis,'' all
Departments listed actually place our Tribes in jeopardy.
--A copy of the letter sent to the President's Domestic Policy
Council for their attention and involvement is available.
--Each Department and agency has received a heads-up transmittal
letter and a copy of the Council letter as well.
--The letter to the Domestic Policy Council brings to the forefront
many issues that need to be addressed by the Committee.
--The Department of Interior's Strategic Plan (2003-2005) clearly
identifies as one of its four missions to be the ``Protection
of Lives, Resources, & Property''.
--Certainly, our appropriation requests identified falls within the
scope of the Department's mission.
--The Penobscot Nation is currently working on several economic
development projects, including a Mail-Order Pharmacy Service.
--We are confident that these projects will have the potential to
change our devastating economic.
Last July I resigned from EPA-Boston, went home, and was elected
Chief in September taking Office in October. I could not continue
working within the federal structure and watch the slow degradation
overcoming our communities.
Federal Agency Program Managers, 3 or 4 levels below the
Secretariat will not and/or are very reluctant to disinvest program
funds for purposes of increasing Indian Program funding. As well, this
is true of Congressional Committees and their staffers as budget levels
are determined for each Committee in carrying out their
responsibilities.
We should not pit one constituency against another and as no one
gains and hard feelings cause unnecessary disruptions.
What do we do with the USCRC report, A Quiet Crisis?
In Indian Country, this question is being raised, and, we believe
that yearly budget increases in phases one, two and three years can
only be accomplished in the Administration, the Congress and the Tribes
working together as true governmental partners. We really must do
something and very, very soon.
Would the United States commit to a three year phase approach to
bring the Tribes up to parity, in program budget levels?
The Penobscot Nation appreciates the opportunity to express our
concerns pertaining to the proposed fiscal year 2006 appropriations and
especially for your attention to these crucial matters.
We truly need your support.
I'd like to introduce Penobscot Nation elder, Sgt. Charles Shay, he
would like to speak with you in regard to our Maine Indian Veterans.
Sgt. Shay was a Prisoner of War in Germany during World War II.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Sgt. Charles Shay
--My name is Charles Shay, and, I was a World War II ``Prisoner of
War'' in Germany in the 1940's.
--This experience shaped my life, as it has for all the Indian
Veterans who have served in all the wars.
--Maine for the first 150 years defined the Penobscot Indians as
``paupers'' and in 1966 our Tribal members got the right to
vote.
--You must remember that the Colonist joined us, the Penobscots in
those early years.
--As we were at war with England and as well, the Boston Colony had a
Proclamation for scalping Penobscot men, women and children in
1757, signed by Governor Phips.
--Before the United States and after the birth of the United States,
our Tribe has fought for this Country in every war.
--Joining the service and defending the United States was never a
problem for my Tribe, the Penobscot Nation.
--Penobscot Tribal members served in all wars from the Revolutionary
War to today's Iraq.
--We have always been there when our Country called.
--You should not treat our Indian Veterans the way you do.
--Likewise Veteran services have been unknown to us and only recently
have we been able to receive some of these.
--Penobscot Nation and the Tribes of Maine really need an Indian
Veteran Services Coordinator to advocate and guide Indian
Veterans through the maze of paperwork and programs, the forms
and applications.
--Penobscot Nation is willing to have the Office centralized in Maine
at Indian Island. This cost of $173,500 should be shared
between Veterans Administration and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Department of Interior.
--It is time to treat our People, Indian People, with the respect
they have earned.
--Our Veterans have never received the full benefits for which they
have given their life. Many being wounded should have received
these over the many, many years they have been available.
Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me and we do
need help for our veterans.
Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee, Ladies and Gentleman: Before
I begin stating the reason for my being here to address you, I think it
appropriate to furnish you with information about myself. My name is
Charles Norman Shay, born 27 June 1924, Native American and a proud
member of the Penobscot Indian Nation. Our home is a small island on
the Penobscot River located near Old Town, Maine.After graduating from
High School in 1942 I was required to register for conscription into
the military service which I found to be unfair because at time we were
second class citizens in our own country without the right to vote in
federal and state elections among other things. We were classified with
paupers and other undisirables
I entered the military service in April 1943 and after completing
Basic Training and a Medical/Surgical Technician School, I was sent to
England where I was assigned to the 16th Infantry Regiment, 1st
Infantry Division who, at this time, were preparing for the invasion of
Europe. Our unit debarked at ``Omaha Beach'' on 6 June 1944. I was
awarded the ``Silver Star'' for actions that took place at this time.
Our units continued on through France into Aachen, Germany and
eventually on to Remagen, Germany where were able to cross the Rhine
River on a bridge that had been secured by other forces of the 1st
Army. Our mission, to establish a ``Beachhead'' so that other forces
could follow. This action took place on 24 March 1945 and on 25 March
the infantry squad that I was attached to became isolated from the main
unit when German Forces launched a counter-attack. We were all taken
captive, but only for a few short weeks. Once across the Rhine, allied
forces made a massive advance across Germany and Austria and shortly
thereafter World War II came to an end. In the summer of 1950, after
spending four years in Vienna, Austria with the occupation forces I
returned to the United States in July and was ssigned to the 7th
Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division. In September of the same year
we were on our way to Korea. Our Unit participated in many skirmishes
with the North Korean and Chinese forces. I was awarded the ``Bronze
Star'' with two Oak Leaf Clusters and the Combat Medic Badge, 2nd
Award. On 24 June 1952 I took an ``Honorable Discharge'' from the U.S.
Army after 10 years of service. Shortly thereafter, I enlisted in the
U.S. Air Force and on 31 July 1964 I finally retired from the military
service. While serving in the Air Force I perticipated in ``Operation
Castle'' Atomic Test at Eniwetok Proving Ground in the winter of 1954.
In 1965, I obtained a position with the International Atomic Energy
Agency with Headquarters in Vienna, Austria until I retired on 31
December 1984. I was recalled to U.N. Service in the spring of 1985 and
acted as security office with the office of the High Commissioner for
Refugies, Vienna Office for an additional two and one-half years.
The Penobscot Indian has perticipated in all wars beginning with
the Revolutionary War to the present war that is going on in Iraq. Our
ancestors never evaded the opportunity to offer their services to the
democratic government of the United States in time of war. This is
substantiated by records that show that we had 38 Penobscots in the
Revolutionary War, 20 in the Civil War, 26 in World War I, 80 in World
War II at a time when the entire population of Indian Reservation
numbered approximately 500 residents, 36 in the Korean War, 60 in the
Viet Nam War. Many of our ancestors paid the ultimate price and many
others returned maimed and disabled. For the wars following Viet Nam
there are no statistics available. The experience of participating in
the military service during war time has had a deep lying effect on our
lives as any Veteran will tell you. Many experiences are sometimes hard
to forget The time has come when we need to help and do what we can for
our veterans and their dependents. Benefits available to this group of
people are numerous and the interpretation and application for such can
be very confusing to the layman. Our veterans are in dire need of an
Indian Veteran Services Coordinator to guide them through the maize of
paperwork and programs, forms and methods of application and sometimes
just plain advice as to what is best for them. This person has to be
experienced in interpretation and application of laws and regulations
that govern federal benefits. This can only be done in a centralized
office that would be available not only to the Penobscots but to all
Indians in the State of Maine including indigenous groups that might be
living here. The Penobscot Indian Nation is willing to host such an
operation at our reservation, known as Indian Island. Our reservation
is centrally located in comparison to other reservations. The
coordinator of course would be responsible for monthly or bi-monthly
visits to other reservations, a problem that would be resolved once an
office has been established. Up until this time we have had people who
have voluntarily assumed these responsibilities and operated out of
their home. However, their knowledge of federal benefits was very
limited and their activities were confined to arranging for military
honors at funerals and the obtaining of head stones. A very small
benefit for the Penobscot Veteran when one thinks of the sacrifices
made by them. The cost of such an operation has been estimated to be
$173,500.
Taken into consideration were burials, transportation (the Veterans
Hospital is located at Togus a distance of almost 200 miles), financial
assistance in cases of poverty and/or low-income and of course wages
for a coordinator, office supplies and computer hardware/software and
installation of such. Office space would be provided including
electricity and heat by the Penobscot Indian Nation. All costs should
be shared between VA and BIA-DOL. As spokesman for the Penobscot Indian
Veteran and for other Indian Veterans in the State of Maine we hope
that you will not let us down and after your careful consideration that
your response to this proposal will be positive.
I thank you for your attention.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, American Hiking
Society represents 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 180
affiliated organizations. As the national voice for America's hikers,
American Hiking Society promotes and protects foot trails and the
hiking experience--and is a long time partner with the National Park
Service (NPS), USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). Demand for recreation is growing at a rapid pace; unfortunately,
federal funding for trails and recreation is not growing nearly as fast
and is now declining in many areas. In order for Americans to enjoy the
outdoors, experience our rich natural heritage, and find healthy places
to recreate, we need protected open spaces and well-maintained trails
and other recreation facilities. We appreciate the Subcommittee's past
support and urge you to support strong funding that will protect trails
and recreation resources for future generations. American Hiking makes
the following funding recommendations for fiscal year 2006:
National Park Service:
--Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $9.7 million
--National Trails System: $10 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS
Network
USDA Forest Service:
--Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: $275 million
--Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: $80 million
Bureau of Land Management:
--Recreation Management: $70 million
--National Landscape Conservation System: $47 million
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF):
--Stateside LWCF: $300 million
--Federal LWCF: $450 million
--Federal LWCF, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park Service:
$4 million
--Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Forest Service:
$5 million
--Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, BLM: $1.5
million
Trails represent one of our nation's most valuable assets, bringing
individuals and families outside for recreation, inspiration, and
education, and providing healthy physical activities, alternatives for
transportation, and economic development for local communities. Hiking
is one of the nation's most popular outdoor activities--72 million
Americans hike regularly or occasionally (Outdoor Industry Association
Participation Study 2004). However, years of inadequate funding
jeopardize the protection of natural and cultural resources and the
experiences of millions of recreationists every year.
Federal policy encouraging partnerships, healthy lifestyles, and
promoting volunteerism to protect and maintain our public lands
warrants increased funding for trail and recreation programs across the
land management agencies. Targeted funding increases coupled with
increased on-the-ground recreation staff, including trail and volunteer
coordinators, is essential to providing and preserving hiking and other
outdoor recreation opportunities nationwide.
nps, rivers, trails, and conservation assistance program (rtca): $9.7
million
Through its RTCA program, the NPS implements its natural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation mission in communities across
America. RTCA yields enormous benefits to communities by fostering
partnerships between federal, state, and local interests to restore
rivers and wildlife habitat, develop trail and greenway networks,
preserve open space, and revitalize communities--all contributing to
improved quality of life and close-to-home recreation. RTCA is highly
effective and cost efficient. In 2004 alone, NPS community projects
reported more than 680 new trail miles, more than 330 newly protected
river miles, more than 22,700 acres of newly protected natural areas
and more than $40 million leveraged funding from other sources. RTCA
plays a critical role in creating a nationwide network of parks and
open spaces, supporting conservation partnerships, promoting
volunteerism, and encouraging physical activity. The Administration's
HealthierUS Initiative explicitly highlights RTCA for its efforts in
promoting physical activity.
RTCA is a very successful and popular program but continues to lack
adequate funding. Despite RTCA's accomplishments in coordinating
upwards of 300 projects annually, RTCA funding has remained relatively
stagnant during the last decade and lagged well behind the rate of
inflation. The program's declining real budget and funding shortages
result in limited staff positions in several regions, office closures,
and reduced staff participation within communities and on-the-ground
projects, diminishing essential services of this field-based technical
assistance program. Flat funding results in an annual loss of
approximately 4 positions, as personnel costs continue to rise through
inflation and cost-of-living increases, while project costs must be cut
back. We strongly urge you to fund RTCA at $9.7 million to remedy the
program's continued erosion, compensate for losses due to inflation,
and enable the program to respond to growing needs and opportunities in
communities throughout the country.
nps, national trails system: $10 million, plus $1.25 million for gis
network
The NPS administers eighteen of the twenty-four national scenic and
historic trails, but only one--the Appalachian National Scenic Trail--
is fully open for public use from end-to-end. For most of these trails,
barely half of their congressionally authorized length and resources
are protected and available for public use. A minimum of $10 million in
fiscal year 2006 is crucial for resource protection, trail maintenance,
interpretation, and volunteer coordination and support for these long-
distance trails. In addition, NPS requires $1.25 million to continue
work on a Geographic Information System network for the National Trails
System to better administer, manage, and protect trail resources and
landscapes. American Hiking thanks the Subcommittee for its support of
the National Trails System and urges you to increase funding to help
complete and protect these national treasures. American Hiking Society
endorses the specific funding requests submitted by the Partnership for
the National Trails System.
usda forest service, recreation management, heritage and wilderness:
$275 million
The current investment in Forest Service recreation falls far below
national needs. The Forest Service estimates that recreation creates
nearly 80 percent of the Gross Domestic Product generated from Forest
Service land, yet only about 10 percent of the agency budget is
dedicated to recreation. Additionally, our national forests include the
vast majority of our nation's designated wilderness areas, where
opportunities for primitive recreation are abundant. Flat funding, as
proposed in the Administration's budget combined with cost of living
increases and inflationary pressures, would result in a net decrease of
$6.2 million to the program's real budget. The Forest Service requires
increased funding for recreation management to protect critical
resources; upgrade recreation facilities; reduce the $178 million
recreation deferred maintenance backlog and address the $136 million
capital improvement needs for recreation sites and facilities; augment
on-the-ground recreation staff; improve recreation resource analyses
and planning; and more effectively utilize partnerships and volunteers.
forest service, capital improvement and maintenance--trails: $80
million
The Forest Service manages 133,000 miles of trails and requires
increased funding to restore and maintain these thousands of trail
miles; reduce the $106 million trails maintenance backlog and address
the $99.2 million capital improvement construction needs for trails;
improve trail infrastructure; prevent and mitigate resource impacts;
and provide safe, high-quality recreational experiences for millions of
hikers and other trail enthusiasts. The fiscal year 2006 Administration
budget request would result in a net decrease of $13.3 million,
adversely affecting critical trail needs across the country. The Forest
Service administers three national scenic trails and one national
historic trail and manages parts of 16 other trails. We ask that you
appropriate $3.037 million as a separate budgetary item, in addition to
the Administration request, specifically for the Continental Divide,
Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce
National Historic Trail as outlined by the Partnership for the National
Trails System.
Increased funding for recreation and trails is especially crucial
to the agency's Recreation Agenda goal of placing trail and volunteer
coordinators and/or recreation planners at each national forest and for
each nationally designated area or trail. Despite the Forest Service's
increased emphasis on recreation, we are very concerned that this
conversation at the top is not translating to the ground. Very few
national forests have even one full-time trails coordinator.
Understaffing often results in volunteers performing essential
functions instead of agency personnel or willing volunteers being
turned away. And despite the number of hiking and other recreation
organizations that offer to volunteer to build and maintain trails in
national forests, very few forests have a volunteer coordinator. These
efforts warrant an expanded commitment to trails and recreation
funding, notably funding for recreation staff on the ground.
blm, recreation management: $70 million
The BLM supports a broad range of recreational opportunities within
its 261 million acres yet continues to receive very limited funding for
recreation. BLM is focusing on a comprehensive travel management
approach to managing roads and trails and providing adequate and
appropriate public access and has generated many collaborative
partnerships for trails. However, the BLM faces daunting challenges
with a growing deferred maintenance backlog for upkeep of more than
15,500 miles of trails. BLM is also facing critical inventory, planning
and management challenges as it manages a staggering network of an
estimated 600,000 mile of roads, trails, routes and ways available for
public use--with 80,000 miles maintained and signed. Increased funding
will support the development of travel management plans, interpretation
projects, stewardship education, outreach projects, expansion of
partnerships, and the protection of natural and cultural resources
impacted by increased recreational use
blm, national landscape conservation system (nlcs): $47 million
The NLCS protects and conserves the crown jewels of our public
lands while providing a variety of benefits to the public, including
diverse recreational opportunities. Additional funding is needed to
support a range of activities in NLCS units including: environmental
education, site interpretation, and developing more compatible land use
ethics among public lands visitors; completing Resource Management
Plans and initiating implementation actions for national monuments and
conservation areas; monitoring of recreation use; management of
portions of twelve national scenic and historic trails exceeding 5,200
miles; and developing and strengthening partnerships for visitor
services, recreation, interpretation, stewardship education, and
volunteers. We request $4.169 million for national trail
administration, management, and operations as outlined by the
Partnership for the National Trails System.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf): $300 million stateside; $450
million federal
Federal and state land managers use the LWCF to create parks,
protect trails and open spaces, and preserve wilderness and wildlife
habitat. Over the past decade, the majority of LWCF funds have been
diverted to programs unrelated to the traditional LWCF uses such as
land protection and recreation. While LWCF funds have been cut
severely, the need for open space and recreation has soared. LWCF has
helped communities acquire nearly seven million acres of parkland,
water resources, and open space. LWCF has also underwritten the
development of more than 37,000 state and local park and recreation
projects. Authorized at $900 million annually, LWCF is one of the most
important conservation tools ever designed and is critical to the
future protection of national trails. We request $12.5 million in
federal LWCF for the National Trails System. We vigorously oppose the
Administration's recommendation to terminate the state assistance
program and urge you to retain strong funding for this vital program.
Volunteer contributions are essential to trails and recreation
programs, and American Hiking and its members and member clubs do their
part every year to help maintain our nation's outstanding network of
trails. However, an increase in volunteerism on public lands should not
be perceived as an opportunity to cut agency budgets. In fact, the
opposite is necessary. Creating a viable volunteer environment,
leveraging willing human resources for burgeoning land managers' needs,
requires additional investment in the infrastructure to support these
volunteers. In return, volunteers can help reduce the enormous
maintenance and construction backlogs in public agencies and be an
educated, passionate voice for preserving and protecting our public
lands.
On June 4, 2005, American Hiking will coordinate the thirteenth
National Trails Day (NTD) to raise public awareness and appreciation
for trails. Participants will gather at more than one thousand of NTD
events nationwide. American Hiking Society members and outdoorspeople
nationwide appreciate the Subcommittee's support for trail and
recreation in the past and look forward to continued strong support.
Thank you for considering our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Humane Association; American Horse
Defense Fund; American Horse Protection Association; American Mustang
and Burro Association, Inc.; American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals; American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign; Center
for Environmental Education and Information; Forest Guardians; Fund for
Animals; Humane Society of the United States; International Society for
the Protection of Mustangs and Burros; Least Resistance Training
Concepts, Inc.; Return to Freedom; Society for Animal Protective
Legislation; Vaquero Heritage Foundation; Wild Horse and Burro
Coalition; Wild Horse and Burro Freedom Alliance; and Wild Horse
Observers Association
bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
Despite the agency's inability to meet this goal, large numbers of
horses were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
maintained through fiscal year 2004. Last year, the agency requested
another increase of $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds) so that it can once
again begin mass roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild
horses and burros on the range from a rough estimate of 35,000 to just
25,000 in a mere two to three years. Yet the agency has failed to
conduct the most basic research to justify its proposed action. Despite
a statutory requirement to base roundups on current data, the agency
now spends less than 4 percent of its budget on range work, including
monitoring and censusing of wild horse populations, even though such
work is critical to the successful management of wild horse and burro
populations and the range itself. In fact, most herd management areas
haven't been censused for at least five years.
The removal of large numbers of horses creates a management crisis,
witnessed by recent events including the slaughter of 41 wild mustangs.
Although the BLM has recognized the shortage of good adoptive homes and
has subsequently opened several long-term holding facilities where
horses are pastured in large groups, it is unclear how the agency can
sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up, additional
facilities are needed. For 2005, BLM intends to round up 9,800 wild
horses and burros but estimates it will only be able to place 7,150
through the adoption program. Already the agency spends some 40 percent
of its annual budget on caring for approximately 21,000 horses removed
from the range, with nearly another 40 percent of the budget going to a
marketing and adoption program that cannot successfully place the
thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up annually.
Furthermore, the BLM has not submitted a biannual report regarding
the status of the wild horse and burro program to Congress, as provided
for in the 1971 Act. Astonishingly, 1997 was the last year the BLM
presented a report to Congress, covering the years from 1992-1995.
Since that time, the BLM has, for all intents and purposes, not been
held accountable for its actions. Congress and the general public have
been denied an opportunity to scrutinize the agency's management
actions. Requesting additional funds to conduct massive and
indiscriminate wild horse and burro removals to levels that jeopardize
the welfare of these animals, while at the same time wasting hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars on the environmentally destructive
livestock grazing program, is nothing short of indefensible. The agency
has apparently lost sight of its legal mandate to protect wild free-
roaming horses and burros.
Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
passage of a last-minute rider in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending
package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is imperative
that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
Appropriations bill for several years be included again in fiscal year
2006. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have
always reflected the understanding that Americans want these animals to
remain free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, we
join with the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection
organizations in urging that the following language be incorporated
into the bill:
``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the sale,
slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
Recent reports that 41 horses went to slaughter directly after they
were sold by BLM highlights the urgent need for this language.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
request summary
On behalf of the nation's 35 Tribal Colleges and Universities
(TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
(AIHEC), thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2006
Appropriations requests for the 27 colleges funded under the Tribally
Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal College Act),
and for our two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational
institutions. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, administers these programs. While AIHEC ultimately seeks full
funding for all programs authorized under the Tribal College Act, we
recognize that a focused approach with incremental increases is a
realistic way to meet that goal. In fiscal year 2006, we seek a total
of $69.8 million for Tribal College Act programs. Our first priority
within this request is to increase funding for the day-to-day
operations of institutions funded under Titles I & II of the Act. For
this we specifically request $67.5 million; of which, $49.8 million
would be for Title I grants (funding 26 tribal colleges) and $17.7
would be allocated for Title II (Dine College). This request is an
increase of $9 million for Title I grants and a $6.6 million increase
for Dine College over fiscal year 2005 levels and a total of $24.275
million over the President's budget request. Additionally, we seek
$215,000 for the technical assistance contract under Sec. 105 of the
Act, an increase of approximately $100,000 over the President's
request. These funds will help address continually emerging technical
assistance needs and to gather and analyze data necessary to comply
with the Congressional request to provide added information on TCUs;
and $2 million is requested for endowments under Title III of the Act.
Also, we support $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and
$2.25 million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology; the fiscal year
2006 submitted budget once again recommends eliminating funding for
these two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions.
AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs funded under
separate authorities within Interior Appropriations, namely: Haskell
Indian Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute;
and The Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the
independently submitted requests for funding the institutional
operations of these institutions.
background and funding disparities
In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges established AIHEC to
provide a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC
represents 35 Tribal Colleges and Universities in 13 states, created
specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
Annually, they serve approximately 30,000 full- and part-time students
from over 250 Federally recognized tribes.
The vast majority of TCUs is accredited by independent, regional
accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher education,
must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis to
retain their accreditation status. In addition to college level
programming, TCUs provide much-needed high school completion (GED),
basic remediation, job training, college preparatory courses, and adult
education. Tribal colleges fulfill additional roles within their
respective communities functioning as community centers, libraries,
tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development
centers, public meeting places, and childcare centers. An underlying
goal of TCUs is to improve the lives of students through higher
education and to move American Indians toward self sufficiency.
Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic
institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per
federally recognized tribe based on a full-time American Indian student
enrollment formula. The Tribal College Act was first funded in 1981.
Today, 24 years later and notwithstanding an increase of $6 million in
fiscal year 2005, these colleges are operating at $4,447 per full-time
Indian student count (ISC), less than 75 percent of their authorized
level of $6,000 per ISC. If in 2005 the TCUs were to be fully funded at
$6,000 per ISC, with inflation factored in, they would have the same
buying power as their initial fiscal year 1981 appropriations, which
was $2,831 per ISC. This is not simply a matter of appropriations
falling short of an authorization; it effectively impedes our
institutions from having the necessary resources to grow their programs
in response to the changing needs of their students and the communities
they serve.
justifications
(a) Tribal colleges provide critical access to vital postsecondary
education opportunities.--TCU reservations are located in remote areas,
and their populations are among the poorest in the nation. On average,
median household income levels are only about half of the level for the
U.S. population as a whole. As a result, the cost of attending a
mainstream institution, which for many reservation communities is
several hours away, is prohibitively high, especially when tuition,
travel, housing, textbooks, and other expenses are considered.
(b) Tribal colleges are producing a new generation of highly
trained American Indians as teachers, tribal government leaders,
engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed
professionals.--By teaching the job skills most in demand on their
reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic
growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the
high rates of unemployment of reservations, 74 percent of recent tribal
college graduates are employed and using the skills gained through
their educational experiences. Many of these graduates are employed in
``high need'' occupational areas such as Head Start teachers,
elementary and secondary school teachers, and nurses/health care
providers. Just as important, the overwhelming majority of tribal
college graduates remain in their tribal communities, applying their
newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most needed. Nearly
one-half of the faculty and staff of Little Big Horn College in Crow
Agency, Montana are graduates of the college.
(c) Tribal colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream
accreditation boards and offer top quality academic programs.--Several
TCUs have attained a ten-year accreditation term, the longest term
granted to any higher education institution. The quality of the
colleges' programs is reflected in the high rates of satisfaction
reported by their graduates: 91 percent of TCU graduates surveyed
reported being very satisfied or satisfied with courses in their major
field of study and with overall instruction.
(d) Tribal college attendance increases educational success and
serves as highly effective bridges to four-year postsecondary
institutions.--While most TCUs are two-year institutions offering
certificates and associate degrees, their transfer function is
significant. A survey of TCU graduates conducted by Harder + Company
Community Research, San Francisco, CA for the American Indian College
Fund, indicated that more than 80 percent of respondents who attended a
mainstream college prior to enrolling at a tribal college did not
finish the degree they were pursuing at the mainstream college. The
rate of completion markedly improved for those who attended a tribal
college prior to pursuing a degree at a mainstream institution. After
completing tribal college coursework, less than half of respondents
dropped out of mainstream college, and nearly 40 percent went on to
obtain a bachelor's degree. This suggests tribal colleges may have a
profound impact on the persistence of American Indian students in
pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming majority of
respondents felt that their tribal college experience had prepared them
well for further education and noted that it had a very positive impact
on their personal and professional achievements.
some additional facts
(a) Enrollment Gains & New TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
enrolled in them have dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations
have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since 1981, the number
of colleges has increased from 6 to 27 and Indian student enrollments
have risen a remarkable 348.2 percent. Over the last four years, the
enrollments have increased an average of 7 percent. In fiscal year
2005, two newly established TCUs, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College
(Michigan) and Tohono O'odham Community College (Arizona) became
eligible to receive funds under the Tribal College Act. White Earth
Tribal and Community College (Minnesota) is expected to become eligible
for funding in fiscal year 2006. TCUs are in many ways victims of their
own successes. The dramatic enrollment increases, coupled with a
growing number of tribally chartered colleges, have forced TCUs to
slice an already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our fiscal
year 2006 request would fund operations at Title I colleges at
approximately $5,160 per ISC, which after 25 years is still short of
the $6,000 per ISC currently authorized by Congress.
(b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.--While
mainstream institutions have enjoyed a foundation of long-term stable
state support, TCUs must rely on the Federal government for their
operating funds. Because TCUs are located on Federal trust lands,
states have no obligation to fund them even for the non-Indian state-
resident students who account for approximately 20 percent of TCU
enrollments. Yet, if these same students attended any other public
institution in the state, the state would contribute basic operating
funds to the institution.
(c) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on local tax
base revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
reservation tax base. On reservations where tribal colleges are
located, anywhere from 32.4 to 59.3 percent of the eligible workforce
is unemployed. In comparison, the national unemployment rate for March
2005 is 5.2 percent.
(d) Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of tribal colleges is a
direct result of the special relationship between American Indian
tribes and the Federal government. TCUs are founded and chartered by
their respective American Indian tribes, which hold a special legal
relationship with the Federal government, actualized by more than 400
treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior Congressional action,
and the ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal
government. Beyond the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs
are providing a public service that no other institutions of higher
education are willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal
government fulfill its responsibility to the American people,
particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only students that
are enrolled members of a Federally recognized Indian tribe are counted
when determining the level of operating funds, TCUs have open
enrollment policies and do not discriminate based on race or ethnicity.
They are simply and effectively removing barriers that have long
prevented equal access to higher education for reservation community
residents.
the president's budget request for fiscal year 2006
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget calls for a $9,766,000
decrease in institutional operating funds, an 18.5 percent cut, to an
already inadequate funding level and once again calls for the
elimination funding for the two tribally chartered vocational colleges.
Despite a $5 million increase in the fiscal year 2005 Appropriation,
the 26 colleges currently funded under Title I of the Act are receiving
$4,447 per full time Indian student (ISC), less than 75 percent of the
authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. The cut proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget, if enacted, would cause some TCUs to no longer
be able to meet minimum requirements for stable funding needed to pay
overhead and the salaries of faculty and staff. This would not only
jeopardize their accreditation status but would most likely force some
of the colleges to close their doors.
aihec's appropriations request for fiscal year 2006
We respectfully request a total appropriation of $69.8 million for
our Tribal College Act authorized programs. Our first priority within
this request is to increase funding for the day-to-day operations of
institutions funded under Titles I & II of the Act, for this we
specifically request $67.5 million; of which, $49.8 million would be
for Title I grants (funding 26 tribal colleges) and $17.7 would be
allocated for Title II (Dine College). This request is an increase of
$9 million for Title I grants and a $6.6 million increase for Dine
College over fiscal year 2005 levels and a total of $24.275 million
over the President's budget request. This increase would bring funding
for the basic operations of the 26 Title I colleges to approximately
$5,160 per ISC, which is still short of the authorized amount of $6,000
per ISC. Additionally, we seek: $215,000 for the technical assistance
contract under Sec. 105 of the Act, an increase of approximately
$100,000 over the President's request. These funds will help address
ever-emerging technical assistance needs and to fund data collection
and analysis necessary to comply with the Congressional requests for
additional information on TCU operations, and $2 million for endowments
under Title III of the Act, an increase of $1,030,000 over fiscal year
2005 and the President's budget request.
For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support
$4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and $2.25 million for
Crownpoint Institute of Technology to restore and expand the funding
for these programs that the fiscal year 2006 President's budget
recommends eliminating.
conclusion
Tribal colleges provide higher education to thousands of American
Indians who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The
modest Federal investment in the Tribal Colleges and Universities has
paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic
development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and
fiscal sense. We very much need your help to sustain and grow our
programs and achieve our missions.
Thank you for your past and continued support of the nation's
Tribal Colleges and Universities and your consideration of our fiscal
year 2006 appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals
bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
On behalf of more than 74,000 supporters or the American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (hereinafter ``ASPCA''), I
respectfully submit the following testimony regarding the Bureau of
Land Management Wild Horse and Burro Program.
In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
Despite the agency's inability to meet this goal, large numbers of
horses were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
maintained through fiscal year 2004. Last year, the agency requested
another increase of $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds) so that it can once
again begin mass roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild
horses and burros on the range from a rough estimate of 35,000 to just
25,000 in a mere two to three years. Yet the agency has failed to
conduct the most basic research to justify its proposed action. Despite
a statutory requirement to base roundups on current data, the agency
now spends less than 4 percent of its budget on range work, including
monitoring and censusing of wild horse populations, even though such
work is critical to the successful management of wild horse and burro
populations and the range itself. In fact, most herd management areas
haven't been censused for at least five years.
The removal of large numbers of horses creates a management crisis,
witnessed by recent events including the slaughter of 41 wild mustangs.
Although the BLM has recognized the shortage of good adoptive homes and
has subsequently opened several long-term holding facilities where
horses are pastured in large groups, it is unclear how the agency can
sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up, additional
facilities are needed. For 2005, BLM intends to round up 9,800 wild
horses and burros but estimates it will only be able to place 7,150
through the adoption program. Already the agency spends some 40 percent
of its annual budget on caring for approximately 21,000 horses removed
from the range, with nearly another 40 percent of the budget going to a
marketing and adoption program that cannot successfully place the
thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up annually.
Furthermore, the BLM has not submitted a biannual report regarding
the status of the wild horse and burro program to Congress, as provided
for in the 1971Act. Astonishingly, 1997 was the last year the BLM
presented a report to Congress, covering the years from 1992-1995.
Since that time, the BLM has, for all intents and purposes, not been
held accountable for its actions. Congress and the general public have
been denied an opportunity to scrutinize the agency's management
actions. Requesting additional funds to conduct massive and
indiscriminate wild horse and burro removals to levels that jeopardize
the welfare of these animals, while at the same time wasting hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars on the environmentally destructive
livestock grazing program, is nothing short of indefensible. The agency
has apparently lost sight of its legal mandate to protect wild free-
roaming horses and burros.
Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
passage of a last-minute rider in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending
package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is imperative
that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
Appropriations bill for several years be included again in fiscal year
2006. The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have
always reflected the understanding that Americans want these animals to
remain free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, we
join with the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection
organizations in urging that the following language be incorporated
into the bill:
``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the sale,
slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
Recent reports that 41 horses went to slaughter directly after they
were sold by BLM highlights the urgent need for this language.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Indian Reservation
The Fort Peck Tribes are pleased to present testimony on the fiscal
year 2006 BIA and IHS Budget. The Tribes are disappointed that the
Administration has proposed a $108 million decrease in funding in BIA
programs, including cuts to the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA)
account, and an $86 million reduction in Indian Health Service
Construction. We urge the Appropriators to reject these cuts and
recognize the need to increase funding for critical tribal programs
like law enforcement, resource management, child welfare and general
assistance, community health nurses, and education.
bureau of indian affairs
The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System
The Tribes request $200,000 for the operation, maintenance and
replacement (OM&R) of the Fort Peck Reservation Water System. Congress
enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000,
Public Law 106-382, to ensure safe and adequate municipal, rural and
industrial water supply to all of the residents of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation. This law directs that funding for the operation of the
water system is to come from the BIA. After several years of
construction, the Tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed
the raw water intake facility and we now seek funding for the
operation, maintenance and replacement costs for this facility as
required by the Act. To date, the BIA has informed the Tribes it has no
OM&R funds to award us for this project.
Funding for Law Enforcement Programs
In the fiscal year 2006 budget, the Administration has failed to
request sufficient funds to fulfill its basic trust responsibility in
the areas of health and safety. The Fort Peck Tribes are particularly
concerned with the failure of the Administration to request any
increase in law enforcement funding across Indian county. The only
increase for this account was directed for the operation and
maintenance of detention facilities. The Tribes are facing a crisis in
direct law enforcement services, most particularly in the area of
staffing. Tribal and BIA law enforcement departments are unable to
compete with local and other federal law enforcement agencies in salary
and benefits packages. Thus, even when a Tribe has the resources to
hire an officer, it is unable to retain him once he is fully trained
and certified.
This problem will become more acute for the Fort Peck Tribes at the
end of this year because the Fort Peck Tribes will no longer be able to
receive Department of Justice COPS hiring retention grants. Without
this federal funding to support the Public Safety Department, the Fort
Peck Department will go from a department of 47 to a department of 14
positions, with only 8 patrol officers, a loss of 70 percent of our law
enforcement personnel. Eight officers cannot adequately patrol a 2
million acre Reservation with a population of over 11,000, with a high
incidence of substance abuse and violent crimes. A survey of current
officers has shown that they will not continue to work for the Tribes
under conditions where they must patrol alone, respond to calls without
backup, and work longer hours for the same or less pay.
To address this need, the Fort Peck Tribes request $907,840 to be
added to the Tribes' law enforcement base budget to ensure the
continued staffing and operation of the Fort Peck Tribes Public Safety
Department. Without these funds, the Fort Peck Tribal Council will
reluctantly be forced to consider returning the operation and
management of the law enforcement department, which the Tribes have
operated under an Indian Self-Determination Act contract since 1995,
back to the BIA.
Tribal Priority Allocations
The BIA's Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give
tribes an additional measure of flexibility to determine how best to
use available fund for local needs. However, the Administration has
requested a $9.3 million reduction (more then 10 percent) in this
account. The basis for this reduction is remised on the need to
reevaluate the TPA funding distribution formula and to divert funds for
the Office of Special Trustee. We do not believe that there is a need
to reevaluate the distribution formula or fund the OST at the expense
of Tribal governments. We are certain that the needs in Indian Country
far exceed the existing level of funding for the TPA account. The
Administration is simply wrong in seeking a reduction in this account.
Particularly alarming are proposed reductions for the welfare
assistance and the Johnson O'Malley programs. Many tribal members or
families who do not qualify for assistance under the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families (TANIFF) program receive welfare
assistance (general assistance for unemployed individuals and child
welfare assistance) from the Fort Peck Agency. The BIA follows the
State of Montana's payment standards under TANIFF when making welfare
assistance payments. Monthly rates just increased by $30. The BIA
estimates that the fiscal year 2006 monthly payment to Welfare
Assistance clients on the Fort Peck Reservation will total $48,000 or
$576,000 for the fiscal year. Unless Congress increases funding for
this program of last resort, eligible tribal members in need of
assistance will be turned away.
Education
Higher Education
We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian
people. The President's budget requests $27.4 million for scholarships
for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools. This
cuts $500,000 from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. Obtaining a
degree in higher education particularly for those individuals from
families that have not previously sent anyone to college takes courage
and often considerable personal sacrifice. We believe it is our
responsibility to support the efforts of our people to attend college.
The Tribes provide scholarship funds available through the BIA program.
However, the current levels of funding are already far too low. For
example, this year the Tribes have identified 230 students who are
eligible for scholarship benefits for higher education but who cannot
be served because of lack of funds. The BIA itself reports that the
level of unmet requests for scholarships nationwide has increased
steadily over the last three years.
Tribal Colleges
We oppose the Administration's proposal to cut tribal colleges
funding by $9.7 million. Tribal colleges are important institutions in
the remote tribal communities that they serve. On our Reservation, we
operate the Fort Peck Tribal College, a fully accredited institution,
offering Associate Degrees in arts, science and applied sciences.
The College offers our students an opportunity to obtain a higher
education without having to leave their homes and families, which can
strain important cultural ties. The need for rural Tribal colleges is
critical for many of our students, especially our single parent
students, who need family members in close proximity so that they can
assist in child care duties. These students do not have the resources
or the network to attend school in Billings or Missoula. If it weren't
for our Tribal College they would have no opportunity to improve their
lives through higher education. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to
increase funding for this vital program that is improving the lives of
Indian people.
indian health service
The President's budget requests for IHS services and construction
is inadequate and will not keep pace with medical inflation rates. The
health indicators in Indian communities consistently demonstrate higher
infant mortality, teenage suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and
heart disease rates among Indian people when compared with other
minorities and the general American population. Yet money directed to
health care, especially preventative care, such as routine checkups and
health education, that clearly improve the quality of life and help
avoid more expensive health care costs in the future, is sorely missing
from the Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget requests. The Federal
government has a trust responsibility reaffirmed through treaties,
legislation, executive orders and policies by Congress and Presidential
Administrations to provide health care to Native Americans, an
obligation that was paid for by the Native people of this county with
millions of acres of land, resources, and our traditional way of life.
While the Administration has lost sight of this obligation, Congress
cannot abdicate its responsibility to meet this well documented need.
The costs that the United States will incur through lost business
productivity, bankruptcies, and disrupted families by not funding
preventive health care needs, and the costs that Indian tribes will
incur through the unmet health needs of their members, will far exceed
the funds Indian tribes will request the Congress to restore to the
fiscal year 2006 budget.
Contract Health
The Tribes' request a near doubling of our inadequate Contract
Health budget to $10.413 million to meet the growing health demands of
our more than 11,000 tribal members. Far too many members are not
referred out for contract health care services which their primary
health care professionals determine are medically necessary. Members
are told that no funds are available for contract health services.
Patients requiring surgeries are mostly given prescriptions for pain
instead of receiving contract health services. The need for Contract
Health care funding only highlights the Tribes need for a fully staffed
and equipped health facility capable of providing a full range of
medical services. The United States boasts the best health care system
in the world. The time for improved health care services in Indian
country is long overdue.
Health Program Specialist
The Tribes' IHS funding request is $132,000 to continue funding
four our Health Programs Specialist. This position was created by the
Tribes in partnership with the IHS to better coordinate the delivery of
preventative and treatment programs for the people of the Fort Peck
Reservation. Specifically, the Health Programs Specialist coordinates
Health and Wellness Promotion, Disease Prevention and Substance Abuse
Treatment programs for all eligible Indian beneficiaries within the
exterior boundaries of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. For fiscal
year 2005, the Indian Health Service was able to utilize carry-over
funds to fund this position, although it was initially thought that the
position would be funded by IHS Headquarters using Health Promotion and
Disease Prevention (HP/DP) program funds. Unfortunately, we have now
been informed by the IHS that if the Tribes want this program to
continue then this position must be absorbed by our already underfunded
Service Unit. We request that the Congress earmark an additional
$130,000 for the Verne E. Gibbs Service Unit to fund our Health
Programs Specialist position. We do not understand why the IHS is
currently advertising for a GS-14/15 Health System Administrator
position for the Billings Area Office at a time when they claim to have
no funds for the Tribes' Health Program Specialist position.
Health Facilities Needs
The Fort Peck Tribes are shocked and dismayed by the
Administration's $86 million cut in IHS facilities construction. The
Fort Peck Tribes are in dire need of an inpatient facility where our
people can receive care and not have to be flown to Billings or
Williston to receive adequate medical care. However, when we discussed
this with Indian Health Service officials, we were told that the IHS
will not consider the Fort Peck Reservation for a new in-patient
facility. We further understand that it will take years to get on the
list for a new facility and receive facilities funding. It is clear
that there is extraordinary need for health facilities construction in
Indian County, which is mostly rural in character and in dire need of
additional medical facilities. We urge the Congress to examine this
matter and restore the IHS facilities construction budget. This is the
first step toward addressing this unmet need in Indian Country. We
request that the IHS Regional Office be instructed to undertake a needs
assessment regarding the proposed facility. Thank you for allowing us
to submit these comments.
LEVEL OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR BUREAU OF INDIANS AFFAIRS AND IHS
FUNDING TO FORT PECK TRIBES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
2005 current 2006 adequate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Fort Peck Agency:
Aid to Tribal Gov't................. .............. $36,800
Social Services..................... $464,681 532,909
Welfare Assistance.................. 289,325 576,000
Wildland Fire Protection............ 173,413 246,807
Economic Development................ 147,705 191,668
Probate............................. 119,621 175,476
IBDP Grants......................... .............. 375,000
Other Rights Protection............. 159,661 205,027
Real Estate Services................ 707,780 989,524
Executive Direction................. 109,907 147,674
Administrative Services............. 282,800 359,510
Trust Services...................... 49,640 90,652
Lease Compliance.................... 67,650 105,682
Safety Management................... .............. 1,800
Road Maintenance.................... 422,000 447,000
Irrigation O&M...................... .............. 299,200
Facilities Op./Maintenance.......... 441,460 494,376
-------------------------------
Total............................. 3,435,643 5,275,105
===============================
Indian Health Services
Fort Peck service unit:
Hospitals & Clinics................. 4,638,300 7,055,100
Direct Operation.................... 6,700 9,100
Dental.............................. 551,500 1,529,800
Mental Health....................... 452,400 767,100
Contract Health..................... 5,671,900 10,413,000
Public Health Hearing............... 326,200 441,000
Maintenance & Improvements.......... 59,100 215,100
Environmental Health................ 316,000 427,200
Facilities.......................... 325,900 521,700
Quarters............................ 40,300 257,300
AIDS Prevention..................... .............. 135,200
-------------------------------
Total............................. 12,388,300 21,771,600
===============================
Tribal Public Law 93-638 BIA
Contracts & grants:
Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water .............. 200,000
System O&M.........................
Scholarships........................ 326,817 345,000
Adult Voc. Tech./Direct Employment.. 277,893 304,000
Johnson O'Malley Program............ 157,945 172,000
Housing Improvement Program......... 222,950 5,179,000
Indian Child Welfare Act............ 66,915 96,915
Sexual Abuse Victim. Prog........... 148,670 150,600
Water Resources..................... 104,561 126,426
Fish & Wildlife..................... 112,000 212,614
Tribal Courts....................... 235,784 549,764
Law and Justice..................... 1,104,299 1,782,372
Detention Services/juvenile services 1,782,372 2,140,764
Appraisals.......................... 50,782 50,782
Water Mang. Planning................ 105,600 105,600
Noxious weed eradication............ 9,630 25,000
Natural resources................... 284,466 333,252
-------------------------------
Total............................. 4,990,684 11,774,089
===============================
Tribal Public Law 93-638 IHS
Contracts & grants:
Tribal Health Specialist............ .............. 130,000
Tribal Health Administration........ 140,255 147,268
Community Health Rep................ 704,838 740,080
Environmental Health Program........ 396,426 101,247
Health Education.................... 150,431 157,953
Nutritionist........................ 70,476 115,475
Janitorial Services................. 121,550 127,627
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,283,976 1,519,650
===============================
Spotted Bull Treatment Center:
Alcohol Prevention/Education........ 783,667 928,566
Residential Aftercare............... 482,164 578,597
Youth Services Center............... 114,700 185,471
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,380,531 1,692,634
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Awwa Research Foundation
Thank you for the opportunity to present Congressional testimony on
behalf of the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF or Foundation) and to
introduce the work of the Foundation to the Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies. For fiscal year 2006, AwwaRF requests your
consideration for a $5 million add-on for drinking water research in
the EPA Science and Technology account. This request is made with deep
appreciation for the past 18 years of support provided by Congress and
with a firm understanding of the future challenges facing the water
suppliers of the United States.
AwwaRF first requested assistance from the VA-HUD-Independent
Agencies Committee 22 years ago and was awarded three separate $1
million earmarks in fiscal year 1984, fiscal year 1985, and fiscal year
1986. AwwaRF matched the $3 million in earmarks by securing funding
from leading water utilities. Priority drinking water research was
initiated, studies were conducted through a process of peer review and
competitive awarding of research grants, and results transferred to the
water supply and regulatory communities. That was the beginning of a
voluntarily funded, industry-sponsored non-profit research effort that
has become an organizational model for environmental research programs
throughout the world.
Beginning in 1985, AwwaRF created the research subscription program
in which water agencies voluntarily placed a research charge in their
rate base. The donations from each participating utility are
collectively used to fund priority research issues of the water supply
community. To ensure the effective application of the funds, AwwaRF
manages a comprehensive program of research identification, grant
awards, and administration of research contractors. Hundreds of
drinking water agencies throughout the United States and Canada have
joined the research subscription program, making AwwaRF the most broad-
based research program in the world. In 1991, AwwaRF approached the VA-
HUD Committee once again, not for continued seed money, but with a
request that the Congress help the water supply community leverage its
own funding in order to address a growing list of drinking water
research issues. The Committee has responded favorably to each of these
requests from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 2005. During this
same period, the number of AwwaRF subscribing utilities has increased
to over 920 including water suppliers in England, Scotland, France,
Australia, The Czech Republic, and South Korea. This underscores the
global nature of drinking water research issues as well as the
collaborative approach to solutions.
The success of this type of public-partnership approach is evident
in the fact that since 1983, the VA-HUD Committee's $52 million in
earmarked add-ons to AwwaRF has been matched with $232 million in
industry funding and $78 million in contributions. This means that the
$52 million in Congressional earmarks has been leveraged to a total
value of $362 million in drinking water research. In these difficult
budgetary times, this kind of partnership is the best way to fund
priority drinking water research.
For fiscal year 2006, we request an earmarked add-on of $5 million,
which is the same amount provided in fiscal year 2005. Among the
priority research areas for fiscal year 2006 are:
water utility security
Foresight allowed the Foundation to quickly provide new tools to
water utilities when the emphasis on security greatly increased after
September 11, 2001. The Foundation's methodology for vulnerability
assessment quickly became the core of the drinking water community's
preparedness planning and is currently being used to conduct
evaluations mandated by Congress.
new and emerging contaminants
As the science of water advances, so does the ability to detect
contaminants in drinking water that may affect human health. Research
information is critical to determine where and to what extent these
contaminants occur, how effective current treatment methods are at
removing them, and what new technologies may be needed. The Foundation
often provides regulators and the water community with the first data
available on new contaminants. The information is used to identify
knowledge gaps and develop research plans. Newly emerging contaminants
such as perchlorate, endocrine-disruption compounds, and MTBE are the
focus of current Foundation studies including the AwwaRF/East Valley
Water District perchlorate research partnership funded through the
efforts of Congressman Jerry Lewis.
infrastructure renewal and replacement
A notable percentage of U.S. drinking water distribution systems
are reaching the end of their reliable lifespan. The CBO estimates that
the national cost to replace this infrastructure is from $12 to $20
billion per year over the next two decades. Research is critical for
water utilities to make cost-effective, long-term capital planning
decisions on how to renew, reuse, or replace their infrastructure.
Fully 30 percent of the Foundation's annual budget has been allocated
to infrastructure-related research. The findings are providing tools
and technologies for cost-effective selection of pipe-renewal
techniques, corrosion-control practices to prolong the life of existing
pipes, and planning and asset management.
new sources of water
Recurring drought and rapid population growth in regions where
drinking water is already a scarce commodity has forced water utilities
to look for new water sources to augment and sustain future water
needs. The use of reclaimed wastewater, surface water and groundwater
of poorer quality, seawater, and brackish water requires the
development and application of new technologies. Foundation research is
evaluating cost-effective and reliable techniques while considering
energy costs and the responsible management of residues. Desalination
and water sustainability are research areas of particular emphasis.
Over 850 research projects have been completed or are ongoing. The
collective result has been an expansion of knowledge that is of great
value to both the drinking water and the regulatory communities.
AwwaRF's initiatives began in the first term of President Reagan
when budget deficits were threatening to choke off federal
discretionary spending. These deficits continue for the fiscal year
2006 appropriations cycle when the post 9-11 world threatens to curtail
discretionary spending. In fiscal year 2006, AwwaRF, supported by 22
years of credibility with Congressional and an internationally
recognized program of drinking water research management, requests $5
million in earmarked funding. AwwaRF has historically provided a
funding leverage of almost $6 for every $1 of Congressional funds. In
fiscal year 2005, this match was $7.52 for every $1 of Congressional
add-on. It is expected that in fiscal year 2006 AwwaRF will continue or
exceed the same level of participation by the water community.
We trust that the urgency of the drinking water research agenda,
AwwaRF's international credibility, and the provision for a significant
funding match, provides a very compelling argument in support of a
fiscal year 2006 earmark of $5 million.
______
Prepared Statement of Cass County, Minnesota
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.2 million
appropriation to the State of Minnesota from the Forest Legacy Program
for the Brainerd Lakes conservation effort.
I have served in the position of Cass County Land Commissioner for
13 years. Cass County is a very fast growing rural county in North
Central Minnesota. The population is increasing at an annual rate of
approximately 5 percent a year. This is placing tremendous pressure on
the quality of our natural environment. One of our main goals is to
maintain the balance between growth and conservation of our natural
resources for future generations.
The Brainerd Lakes area of North Central Minnesota, located just
two hours north of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, is a popular
four-season recreation spot for residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul
as well as other visitors attracted by its lakes, streams, rivers and
forests. Visitors to the area enjoy fishing, hunting, skiing, snow-
shoeing, wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and camping. In the
summer, the population of the Brainerd Lakes area quadruples in size,
and the outstanding recreational opportunities offered throughout the
region are fueling a growing demand for second home development.
As development pressures increase, efforts to protect the
environmental, economic and social values of Minnesota's north woods
are underway. This year, an opportunity exists to complete a
conservation easement on 4,790 acres of privately owned forestland in
the Brainerd Lakes region through the Forest Legacy Program. The
Brainerd Lakes Forest Legacy project is a collaborative effort among
the state of Minnesota, the Potlatch Corporation, and local community
supporters to ensure the continued availability of these strategically
located productive forestlands for multiple benefits. A conservation
easement over these lands, which are immediately adjacent to Crow Wing
and Pillsbury State Forests, will maintain the integrity of this
productive forest, ensure public access and allow for sustainable
forest management, thereby providing raw materials and jobs for the
resource-based economy of northern Minnesota. The protection of these
lands will also create a contiguous block of more than 22,000 acres of
undeveloped forestland, one of the most significant remaining areas of
open space in the Brainerd Lakes area.
The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 includes the
$1.2 million needed for the Brainerd Lakes conservation effort. I urge
you to support the full funding of this project in the fiscal year 2006
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Support for fiscal year 2006 Federal Funding of $5.2 Million for
the Department of the Interior--Bureau of Land Management to assist in
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, with $800,000 to be
designated specifically to salinity control efforts.
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal
year 2006 funding for the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land
Management with respect to the federal/state Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program. This program is carried out as a part of
ecosystem and watershed management pursuant to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320) and the Clean Water Act
(Public Law 92-500).
As you are aware, 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 erosional processes from which soil and
rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited in various stream
beds or flood plains. As a result of this disposition, salt is
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 measures available. These salinity control measures
may be more cost-effective than some now being considered for
implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide
Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In keeping with the
Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the
salinity control program, the Colorado River Board of California
(Colorado River Board) is requesting that Congress appropriate and the
administration allocate adequate funds to support BLM's portion of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
The Colorado River Board, the state agency charged with protecting
California's interests and rights in the water and power resources of
the Colorado River System, requests that Congress appropriate
$5,200,000 of these funds in fiscal year 2006, to accomplish activities
that BLM either has underway or should initiate in order to further
control the concentrations of salinity of the Colorado River. It is
particularly important that the BLM's line item for Management of Lands
and Renewal Resources be adequately funded. The Colorado River Board
urges the Subcommittee to specifically mark, $800,000 from this line-
item for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been
the direction to BLM from the Subcommittee in past years.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), on behalf
of the seven Colorado River Basin states, has submitted testimony to
your Subcommittee. The Colorado River Board concurs in the fiscal year
2006 funding request and justification statements for BLM as set forth
in the Forum's testimony.
California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
economic damages, estimated at $330 million per year, due to the
River's salinity, as stated in a recent report prepared by the Bureau
of Reclamation and The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California. In addition, the federal government has made significant
commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
Basin states with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In
order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in
fiscal year 2006 and in future fiscal years, that the Congress provide
adequate funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its activities
related to salinity control in the Colorado River Basin.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California.
Preservation of its quality through an effective Salinity Control
Program will avoid the additional economic damages to river users in
California.
The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
for this important program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
Community of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jack Giffen, Jr., a
Tribal Council Member of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
Community of Oregon. It is my pleasure to submit the Grand Ronde
Tribe's following comments on the fiscal year 2006 Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Indian Health Service appropriations items:
--Reject the BIA's proposed restructuring of its Operation of Indian
Programs budget and direct the Agency to collaboratively work
with Indian tribes on any revision to the budget format;
--Restore BIA Endangered Species funding in Non-Recurring Programs,
Resources Management, to the $3 million level established in
fiscal year 2002, and
--In IHS, adjust the distribution of Contract Health Services funding
among Regions to reflect the absence of any IHS inpatient care
facilities within a Region.
Our concerns are discussed below.
reject the bia's proposed restructuring of its operation of indian
programs budget and direct the agency to collaboratively work with
indian tribes on any revision to the budget format
Mr. Chairman, to the best of our knowledge, the Confederated Tribes
of Grand Ronde have never received any specific information from the
BIA regarding its proposal to ``restructure'' its Operation of Indian
Programs budget. Nor have we ever been consulted on this proposal. Now
we understand the BIA is asking your Subcommittee to approve this
restructured budget. We urge you to reject that request and direct
instead that the BIA enter into a collaborative effort with tribes to
address perceived concerns with the current budget structure, and that
the collaborators jointly report back to this Subcommittee with any
recommendations for revising the budget structure.
We particularly urge you to reject the BIA's budget restructuring
proposal because we understand such a restructured budget is intended
to pave the way for the BIA changing individual tribal-specific budgets
from stable historically based amounts to so-called ``needs'' based
amounts, which would be fluid and uncertain. Such a proposal is
tremendously complicated and controversial, with very serious and long-
term consequences for tribal governments, our interaction with the BIA,
the federal trust responsibility, and the unique government-to-
government relationship between the tribes and the United States. Such
a change must not be undertaken without the full understanding and
participation of the tribes. After all, it is the tribes--not the
Bureau--that are to be served by the budget.
restore bia endangered species funding in non-recurring programs,
resources management, to the $3 million level established in fiscal
year 2002
Mr. Chairman, our Tribe is what is called a ``restored'' tribe.
After a long, harsh, and unjust termination, the Confederated Tribes of
Grand Ronde were restored to federal recognition in 1983. In 1988, with
the help of Congress, we had a part of our old reservation land base
restored to us--about 10,000 acres of forest in the Coast Range. Upon
the restoration of this land to us, it was removed from BLM
administration and taken into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. At
that time, the BIA had no identified funding for Endangered Species-
related activities. In fiscal year 1991, with the listing of the
Northern Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest, our Tribe, along with
others, worked with Congress to establish a separate $1 million fund
specifically for NSO ESA compliance activities on Northwest timber
reservations. In fiscal year 1995 with the listing of the Marbled
Murrelet, funding was increased to $1.83 million. In fiscal year 1996,
the ESA compliance funds for Northwest timber tribes was combined with
funds to reintroduce the Black Footed Ferret on the Cheyenne River
Sioux Reservation, and the $2.6 million total was established as a
separate Endangered Species program within BIA Non-Recurring Programs--
Resources Management. In fiscal year 2002, the Administration proposed
cutting the program to $1.6 million, but Congress funded it at $3
million. From then until fiscal year 2005, Administration requests and
across-the-board cuts have diminished the program to about $2.2
million.
For fiscal year 2006, the BIA is requesting that all the Endangered
Species Program funding except $210,000 be eliminated. Such a reduction
will eliminate all funding for field-level ESA compliance activities in
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Nowhere else in the Agency's budget is
any funding identified for the conduct of this federal mandate on a
trust resource, the active harvest of which has long provided our
Tribal government an important source of revenue. It is our
understanding the BIA's fiscal year 2006 Budget Justification states
that this reduction in funding ``will curtail the ESA compliance effort
for individual timber sales.'' We agree.
Today, about 6.1 million board feet of timber is harvested annually
from our Reservation. All of this timber supports local non-Indian
sawmills, and is becoming increasingly important as other sources of
timber dry up and as imports place increasing pressure on domestic
lumber prices. The elimination of field funding for the federal ESA
mandate will have a significant impact on our ability to continue to
supply timber into the local market. We will have to either curtail our
harvest, or force the cost of the federal ESA mandate to be passed
along to local mills. Neither is an attractive option for our Tribe or
for the local timber economy.
We understand that the ESA budgets for other federal agencies are
proposed to remain relatively robust for fiscal year 2006, including an
$80 million program for states and territories. We absolutely fail to
understand how, at the same time, the BIA can propose to eliminate its
only source of funding for federally-mandated on-the-ground ESA
compliance for a forest resource it is obliged to manage in trust for
the benefit of tribes, and upon which many tribes heavily rely for
basic governmental revenues. It is unjust and unjustifiable, and we
urge the Subcommittee to restore these funds.
in ihs, adjust the distribution of contract health services funding
among areas to reflect the absence of any ihs inpatient care facilities
within an area
Mr. Chairman, we request that your Subcommittee look into the
equity of the Indian Health Service's distribution of its Contract
Health Services funds among the IHS Areas with regard to the presence
or absence in the various Areas of IHS-funded inpatient health
facilities, and to direct an appropriate adjustment for those Areas
that do not have any such facilities.
The IHS Portland Area, covering Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, does
not have a single IHS inpatient facility. Almost all other Areas
(California may be an exception) have numerous IHS inpatient facilities
offering hundreds of beds, the availability of which provides an IHS-
funded alternative to otherwise sending a Native American patient to a
non-federal hospital. In the Portland Area, we do not have that option,
and all our inpatient requirements must be taken care of at non-IHS
hospitals and charged against our allocation of Contract Health
Services funds. Almost all other IHS Areas have two IHS funded sources
for inpatient care--IHS inpatient facilities and Contract Health
Services, while the Portland Area has only one source that must cover
all our needs--Contract Health Services. We do not believe the current
CHS funding distribution methodology takes this disparity into account,
and that, accordingly, the Portland Area is inequitably penalized.
Mr. Chairman, the ability of the IHS to provide reasonable health
services to all Native Americans is in crisis and getting worse. With
grossly insufficient resources, IHS personnel every day are making
quick ``life or limb'' decisions that often turn people away to
otherwise avoidable or untimely sickness or death. It is exactly
because the IHS system is so overstressed that we urge your
Subcommittee to make sure that the Portland Area, with no IHS inpatient
facilities, is assured of receiving equitably adjusted participation in
Contract Health Services funding. When every dollar is essential, it is
essential that every dollar be equitably distributed. So, we ask you to
review the CHS funding distribution methodology, and adjust it for
Areas that do not have IHS funded inpatient facilities as an option.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
Reservation of Oregon
summary
Mr. Chairman, I am Ron Suppah, Chairman of the Confederated Tribes
of the Warm Springs Reservation. I hereby present the following
requests for the fiscal year 2006 BIA and IHS appropriations:
--Reject the BIA's proposed budget restructuring,
--Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs,
--Restore Endangered Species funding in Non-Recurring Programs to
$3,000,000,
--Restore BIA Water Management Planning & Pre-Development in Non-
Recurring Programs and add $500,000 for Warm Springs water
settlement implementation,
--Add or earmark $750,000 for Warm Springs in BIA Law Enforcement,
Special Programs and Pooled Overhead,
--Add $2.5 million to IHS Hospitals and Clinics to fulfill U.S.
commitments in the Warm Springs IHS Joint Venture Agreement
Pilot Project,
--Fully fund BIA's JOM and Welfare Assistance programs,
--Direct the OST to fully consult with tribes on the implementation
of OST's trust reform initiatives and that BIA funds shall not
be diverted to OST, and
--We request the Committee work with the NW Portland Area Indian
Health Board to revise the Medicare Modernization Act to
respect the unique legal relationship between Indian tribes and
the federal government.
reject the bia's proposed restructuring of the operation of indian
programs budget
In the early 1990s, Warm Springs participated in the Tribal-BIA
Joint Task Force that developed the current BIA budget system, which
the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees adopted in fiscal year 1993,
to delineate those parts of the BIA budget subject to tribal control
and eliminate opaque BIA budget practices. The current Tribal Budget
System continues to be supported by the tribes.
The BIA now asserts that the budget format, which they helped
develop and under which they have been operating for twelve years, is
``confusing and complex,'' and is urging Congress to adopt a new budget
format that has not been reviewed by the tribes, provides less detail,
enables increased internal transfers without oversight or explanation,
and is intended to facilitate a drastic and fundamental change in the
sensitive fiscal relationship between tribes and the Bureau--changing
from a stable and predictable historically based tribal budget to an
uncertain, shifting and murky ``needs'' based tribal budget. These
changes entirely favor the BIA and disadvantage the tribes. Yet the BIA
budget is for the benefit of tribes, not the BIA. Especially when
budgets are tight, the federal obligation should be to the tribes and
not the BIA. There is no need to rush to adopt the BIA's proposal, and,
in fact, there is great reason to proceed with caution and due
deliberation. The BIA must explain to its ``stakeholders'' why it feels
budget change is needed, and then work with the tribes, as it did in
the early 1990s, to address whatever budget structure adjustments might
be warranted. We urge the Subcommittee to direct the Bureau to do so.
add $2 million to bia tpa forestry designated for warm springs
We request the addition of $2 million to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation budget specifically for the BIA
Forestry program at Warm Springs. The insufficiency of BIA Forestry
funding has been documented many times. The IFMAT-II report found
federal Indian forest funding to be strikingly below that for National
Forests and recommending that BIA Forestry funding be increased by $119
million annually to achieve funding parity. At Warm Springs, we
recently were awarded a $14 million judgment in a lawsuit against the
BIA for timber mismanagement. Since 1996 when the Tribe received its
initial ruling that the BIA had breached its trust responsibility, BIA
Forestry funding has not increased on our Reservation, and in fact has
declined from the early 1990s. The $2 million increase for Warm Springs
is necessary for BIA to fulfill its trust responsibility for our forest
resource.
restore endangered species funding in non-recurring programs to
$3,000,000
This budget item is the only BIA funding for northern spotted owl
and marbled murrelet ESA compliance, and was initiated by Congress in
fiscal year 1993. Since then, BIA has twice sought to significantly
reduce it, but Congress has steadily maintained the program. Now, for
fiscal year 2006, BIA requests only $210,000, eliminating all field
funding and acknowledging in the Justification the cut will ``curtail
the ESA compliance effort for individual timber sales.'' For fiscal
year 2006, we ask that the program be restored to at least the fiscal
year 2002 level of $3,000,000, because our commercial timber harvest
and economy are so dependant on funding of this federal mandate.
restore bia water management planning and pre-development in non-
recurring programs to $7.7 million and add or earmark $500,000 for warm
springs water settlement implementation studies
We request $500,000 be specifically provided for the Warm Springs
Tribe to complete the studies and planning necessary for Water
Management Planning and Pre-Development on the Reservation. In 1997,
Warm Springs was the first tribe in many years to reach a negotiated
water settlement with the United States and the State of Oregon. This
settlement left most of the water in the Metolius and Deschutes Rivers
and eliminated the need for the expensive water development legislation
that normally accompanies tribal water settlements. But financial
support is still needed for the Tribe to realize many of the benefits
of the settlement, including development of a Comprehensive Warm
Springs Water Development Plan, conduct of water quality modeling for
the Deschutes River Basin, and examining potential energy development.
Adding or designating $500,000 will allow the Tribe to pursue these
projects and will allow the Tribe and the United States to realize the
benefits of settlement.
add or earmark $750,000 for warm springs in bia law enforcement,
special programs and pooled overhead
Beginning in the early 1960's, as our Tribe began to assert more
jurisdiction and authority over Reservation law enforcement, the BIA
responded by gradually transferring federal funding elsewhere. For
fiscal year 2006, we note that the Administration has requested an
increase of more than $11 million for Law Enforcement programs.
However, only $2.5 million of that increase is for officers and
equipment. Our concern is that this fiscal year 2006 requested increase
will be directed to those locations where tribes have left law
enforcement responsibility entirely up to the BIA. Tribes such as Warm
Springs that have stepped forward to help share local law enforcement
responsibilities must not be penalized for having done so, and should
share in BIA LES funding increases.
The needs at Warm Springs are severe. Our tribal police force is
extremely overextended. Major crime has increased on our Reservation to
the degree that the FBI has assigned an additional agent in the area.
Additionally, the Warm Springs jail, designed and built by the BIA,
fails to meet current federal requirements, especially for juvenile
offenders. BIA must meet its responsibilities for the public safety of
the Warm Springs Reservation. Accordingly, we request that the Congress
direct an increase of $750,000 in BIA Law Enforcement Services for Warm
Springs.
add $2,500,000 to ihs hospitals and clinics to fulfill u.s. commitments
in the warm springs ihs joint venture agreement pilot project
From fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005, the IHS budget
increased by an average of 3.1 percent annually, but the real
purchasing power of the IHS budget was diminished by an estimated $886
million. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates that
it will take an increase of $371 million in fiscal year 2006 to
maintain current program services levels nationwide. The 2.1 percent
fiscal year 2006 increase amounts to only $62.9 million. Moreover,
after covering mandatory pay increases and new facilities staffing at
$27.4 million, only $34.5 million is available for program increases.
This increase will amount to less than 10 percent of the amount of
purchasing power that will be lost to medical inflation. It is truly a
``drop in the bucket''.
In 1993 the Congress, Indian Health Services (IHS) and the Warm
Springs Tribe entered into an innovative ``Joint Venture Pilot
Project'' where the Tribe financed and constructed a new clinic to
federal standards and the Congress and IHS agreed to fully fund and
staff an enhanced health care program in the new facility. However, IHS
has failed to live up to its promise. And inadequately funded federal
mandates have further diminished health services at Warm Springs. Due
in part to these financial pressures, the Portland Area Office has
begun to renege on the terms of the JV agreement. We request a $2.5
million increase in funding IHS Hospitals and Clinics to offset
unfunded pay costs, to adjust for 12 percent medical inflation and to
provide full direct services for Warm Springs.
fully fund bia's jom and welfare assistance programs
The BIA's welfare assistance program cut of $6.4 million, more than
7 percent, is cruel and short-sighted. The vaunted economic recovery
has yet to arrive in Indian Country, and the 30 percent unemployment
level at Warm Springs is more than twice the level in the second-most
depressed county in rural Oregon.
Regarding JOM, in 1960 our Tribe entered into an agreement with the
State and the local public school district to provide our students with
a better K-12 education. Since that time, the BIA's Johnson O'Malley
program has provided partial but critical funding to support our
students in the local school district. The 53 percent cut to the JOM
program will result in the loss of vital school programs. We urge the
Committee to reject these cuts.
direct the ost to fully consult with tribes on the implementation of
trust reform initiatives and that bia funds not be diverted to ost
The Administration's budget includes a significant increase for
trust management within the Office of the Special Trustee (OST). It
appears that millions of dollars and significant FTE are being
transferred from the field where they are most needed to centralized
operations and bureaucracies in Albuquerque, NM and Washington, DC. It
makes little sense to transfer funding, staff and management authority
from the very resource management programs needing improvement in the
name of ``trust reform''. Many of the trust management problems facing
the BIA have resulted from inadequate systems and insufficient staff in
the field necessary to properly fulfill their fiduciary trust duties.
Funding levels for field staff functions including resources
management, appraisals, inspections, enforcement, collections, title,
records and probate must be increased and their administrative systems
overhauled to improve fiduciary trust operations to the ``most
exacting'' standards. Further, appropriate trust reform improvements
must provide flexibility necessary to deal with the unique needs,
circumstances and differences among tribes.
we request the committee work with the nw portland area indian health
board to revise the medicare modernization act to respect the unique
legal relationship between indian tribes and the federal government
For the past several years the Committee has assumed that both IHS
and tribes will increase Medicare and Medicaid collections and assumes
an $8.4 million increase in fiscal year 2006. However, these same
programs are implementing changes that will result in the reduction of
collections. The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) will reduce IHS
Medicare reimbursements, including reductions of up to $25 million for
prescription drugs provided through IHS and tribal programs. Also, the
President has proposed $48 billion in Medicaid cost savings over the
next 10 years. The Oregon Health Plan is already reducing patient
eligibility for the program as well as adding new payment restrictions,
which will increase annual costs to the Tribes' Managed Care Program
from $600,000 to $1.2 million annually. They will also reduce
reimbursements for health care services provided by the WSSU. Rationing
of certain health care services is the logical result if these cuts
continue. Further compounding this problem is the Administration's
departure from past policy that acknowledged the federal government's
unique legal responsibilities to provide services to tribes and
Indians. We urge the Committee to remind the Administration of the
unique trust obligation to tribes and Indian people.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the Warm Springs' fiscal year 2006
testimony on BIA and IHS.
______
Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
Defenders of Wildlife is a national non-profit organization
dedicated to saving and restoring wildlife and wildlife habitat. We
have substantial concerns about the administration's fiscal year 2006
budget and make recommendations in the following priority areas.
1. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Endangered Species (ESA)
Program.--Defenders urges a total of $212 million for the four
endangered species operations accounts, an increase of $68.8 million
over fiscal year 2005 allocated as follows: $30 million for Listing, an
increase of $14 million; $15 million for Candidate Conservation, an
increase of $5.8 million; $110 million for Recovery, an increase of
$40.1 million; and $57 million for Consultation, an increase of $8.9
million. In addition, we request revision of the annual earmark for
California condor recovery through the Peregrine Fund to include
funding for all three recovery areas, including central California,
rather than only for Arizona and Southern California as has been done
historically.
We are extremely disappointed that the President's $140.1 million
request cuts FWS ESA implementation by $3 million or 2 percent below
enacted. Although the administration contends that increases in grant
programs will meet the same needs, these cannot substitute for mandated
FWS obligations under the ESA. Recovery funding is substantially cut by
nearly $6 million or 10 percent even though FWS has said that more than
200 already listed species are on the verge of extinction, primarily
due to insufficient recovery funds. The administration requested a $2.2
million sorely needed increase in listing, but it is paid for by cuts
in other endangered species accounts--and even that amount will not
begin to cover the more than $150 million listing backlog and at least
286 candidate species. While consultation does receive a modest
increase, candidate conservation is cut by $1 million, yet both of
these programs are in need of significant increases. Demand for efforts
to conserve the long list of candidates while they await protection far
exceeds funding; increases are needed to fund projects with local
stakeholders and partners. In addition, the number of projects reviewed
under the Consultation program has increased from 40,000 in 1999 to
more than 75,000 in 2004 and further increases are expected. Finally,
the development and implementation of Habitat Conservation Plans
(HCPs), which allow activities to proceed while still protecting
species, continues to expand, with funding critically needed to help
ensure timely and effective development and monitoring of 440 existing
and nearly 300 new HCPs and to alleviate the two to four year waiting
period for new HCP applications.
2. Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wildlife Refuge System
Operations and Maintenance.--Defenders and the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement, a diverse coalition of 21 conservation, recreation
and scientific organizations, are requesting an fiscal year 2006
increase of $16 million over enacted for a total of $397 million. We
greatly appreciate the subcommittee's support in the past and ask that
it be continued. We further request that any increase provided be
directed to the System's highest operational priorities rather than to
the ``Cooperative Conservation Initiative,'' as proposed in the
president's budget, which is administered at the departmental level and
does not address the most pressing operational needs. The National
Wildlife Refuge System is our nation's only public lands system
dedicated to wildlife conservation. Each year, 40 million people visit
and enjoy wildlife refuges--there is a refuge in every state and within
an hour's drive of most American cities. Despite its crucial role in
the conservation of our nation's wildlife, the Refuge System has been
crippled for years by severe funding shortfalls. Current information
indicates that the full operations and maintenance backlog totals $2.7
billion--the operations backlog is $1.4 billion of which the highest
priority needs total $290 million, while the maintenance backlog is
$1.3 billion.
3. Fish and Wildlife Service: Multinational Species Conservation
Fund (MNSCF).--Defenders urges $10.5 million, an increase of $4.8
million over the fiscal year 2005 level for this small but highly
successful program aimed at providing resources for on the ground
conservation of endangered wildlife in foreign countries. This Fund
uses small amounts of money appropriated by Congress to leverage a 3 to
1 match in private dollars for every government dollar. These dollars
have funded anti-poaching patrols for rhinos in Indonesia and rebuilt
wildlife reserves destroyed by war in the Congo. Despite this
tremendous success and the already meager funding for these programs,
however, the administration has proposed cutting the Fund by $1.4
million, a damaging 25 percent reduction from last year. Defenders is
also opposed to a proposal in the budget to place the Neotropical
Migratory Bird Fund under the MNSCF, a move that will help further the
administration's tendency to play budgetary shell games. Moreover, the
two programs are administered through different FWS divisions, so it
makes no sense to combine them.
4. Fish and Wildlife Service: Wildlife Without Borders.--Defenders
urges a total of $2.5 million, an increase of $0.5 million over the
2005 level of $2 million for Wildlife Without Borders. This is an
important program that supports the Department of the Interior in
meeting its obligations to conserve species of international concern
around the globe. We are particularly concerned that a $394,000
reduction proposed in the president's budget appears to eliminate most
of the Mexican portion of the program which helps train indigenous
people to care for the environment through agricultural methods that
reduce economic dependency on their forests and lands thus protecting
important habitat for species such as pronghorn sheep and monarch
butterflies. This program is an important funding mechanism for trans-
border work. It is especially important in light of increasing
pressures on habitat from NAFTA-stimulated development, growing
Department of Homeland Security activities (fencing, lighting,
vegetation removal, motorized access into remaining remote areas) and
urbanization of the border region. Wildlife Without Borders supports
win-win, collaborative, multi-party and entrepreneurial approaches to
conservation.
5. Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Sage Grouse and Range
Improvement Fund.--Defenders supports the $7.6 million request in the
president's budget for conservation of the sage grouse and other
sagebrush dependent species. Fully funding the BLM's sage grouse
conservation efforts is essential if the BLM National Sage Grouse
Habitat Conservation Strategy, released in November of 2004, is going
to have a chance at success. In light of the Fish and Wildlife
Service's decision not to list the sage grouse under the ESA, BLM, as
the largest manager of sage grouse habitat in the country, is now the
primary responsible agency for sage grouse conservation. In addition,
Defenders is concerned that the administration's failure to request an
appropriation from the Range Improvement Fund to fund range improvement
projects will result in direct conflict and competition with already
under funded BLM wildlife programs through the Challenge Cost Share
program. If not funded through the Range Improvement Fund, these
projects will be forced to compete with legitimate wildlife
conservation projects.
6. Forest Service: Wildlife and Fisheries Programs.--Defenders
urges funding at no less than last year's level of $134.7 million for
the Wildlife and Fish Management account. The president's budget
slashes this account by almost $10 million, more than a 7.8 percent
cut. The 193 million acre National Forest System is critically
important to the conservation of wildlife, fish and their habitat--more
than 425 species listed under the Endangered Species Act and an
additional 3,200 at risk species occur on Forest Service lands. Fish
and wildlife resources on our National Forests are important to people
all across the nation--about 40 million visits per year are primarily
for hunting, fishing or wildlife viewing. We also are concerned that
funding for the Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air activity under the Forest
Service Research and Development program appears to be substantially
declining. Several years ago, the budget for Forest Service R&D was
consolidated such that amounts for individual activities are no longer
explicitly shown in the president's budget. Agency information shows
that funding levels for Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air dropped from $52
million in 2003 to $39.9 million in 2004, nearly a 25 percent cut and
were only at $45.3 million for 2005 despite a steady increase in the
R&D budget.
7. Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Programs.--Defenders
supports the President's request of $41.6 million for Migratory Bird
Management, an increase of nearly $6.2 million over the fiscal year
2005 level, and we urge at least $1 million over the fiscal year 2005
$4 million level for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act.
As currently funded, these programs cannot fulfill their mandates to
adequately monitor and plan for the conservation of 825 species of
migratory birds, of which more than 750 species are non-game birds.
Nearly 100 non-game birds are listed under the ESA and 131 species are
on the FWS current list of Birds of Conservation Concern. Thus, over 25
percent of all U.S. migratory birds are in serious need of conservation
to assure their long-term survival.
8. Bureau of Indian Affairs: Native American Fish and Wildlife
Society.--Defenders supports an allocation of $750,000 for the Native
American Fish and Wildlife Society through the Bureau of Indian Affairs
resources management account, an increase of $282,000 over the static
$468,000 level allocated to the Society for many years. The Native
American Fish and Wildlife Society is a national tribal organization
incorporated in 1983 to develop a communications network for the
exchange of information and management techniques to assist Native
Americans with the conservation, protection and enhancement of their
wildlife resources. Efforts on tribal lands are critical to the
conservation of our nation's biodiversity and Defenders believes that
the Society and its role will become increasingly important in this
work.
9. Conservation Trust Fund (CTF).--Defenders urges full funding of
the CTF (conservation spending category) at its dedicated fiscal year
2006 level of $1.8 billion for the Interior appropriations subcommittee
portion of the fund. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts the
fund by nearly a billion dollars or 52 percent below its dedicated
fiscal year 2006 level. While we greatly appreciated the subcommittee's
strong support for fully funding and maintaining the integrity of this
historic dedicated fund during its first two years, we are dismayed
that in subsequent years the subcommittee has backed away from its
commitment. We understand that the subcommittee continues to be under
substantial funding constraints not within its control, and we again
will be working to generate congressional support for a 302(b)
allocation sufficient to allow full funding for the CTF. Defenders
continues to believe that establishment of the CTF was the greatest
piece of conservation funding legislation enacted in our lifetimes and
a commitment that must be kept.
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.--Defenders and the more
than 3,000 organizations nationwide in the Teaming With Wildlife
Coalition request at least $85 million, $16 million above the 2005
level, for this important program for fiscal year 2006 under the CTF.
Within this amount, we strongly support increases for the tribal
portion of the program which provides crucial funding for wildlife
projects and assessments to conserve the many declining species on 100
million acres of tribal lands. We are grateful for the subcommittee's
support and while we appreciate the administration's requested increase
of $5 million, the amount still falls far below the need. This
important program gives states desperately needed funding to develop
and implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect declining
species and their habitats before protection under the ESA is
necessary. The key to the program's success in its ability ultimately
to avert the need to list numerous species in the future is the
planning process which requires states to produce a comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategy by October 2005. We urge the
Subcommittee to continue its oversight of this critical process.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--Defenders urges funding
of at least $450 million for LWCF under the CTF, $194 million above the
enacted level: $350 million for federal LWCF and $100 million for state
LWCF. We further urge Congress to maintain the integrity of the LWCF
and reject the administration's continued attempts to use it to fund
other programs. Despite the administration claim that LWCF is funded at
$680 million, the total for true LWCF purposes is only $132 million.
Fifteen other important but non-LWCF programs are used to make up the
difference. In particular, we urge inclusion of $3 million for 2,500
acres in the Suwannee Wildlife Corridor in Florida between Osceola
National Forest and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and funding for
acquisition in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in
Texas which protects the highest diversity of birds in the National
Wildlife Refuge System--lands planned for acquisition are jeopardized
by rapidly increasing development and more than 40 willing sellers are
available.
Other Important Fish and Wildlife Service Grants.--Defenders
recommends $90 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, $10
million over the 2005 level and supports the request of $40 million for
Landowner Incentive Grants and $10 million for Private Stewardship
Grants under the CTF. Eighty per cent of habitat for more than half of
listed species occurs on non-federal lands. The Cooperative Endangered
Species Fund provides grants to states for conservation activities on
non-federal lands both for listed and candidate species. Landowner
Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants provide funding to states and
private landowners for efforts to conserve species at risk on private
lands. In addition to supporting the president's request, Defenders
also supports allocation of $6 million of the total $40 million
Landowner Incentive Program request to strengthen the technical
capacity of the national network of state Natural Heritage Programs. By
making a small proactive investment, Congress can strengthen the
ability of the network to provide the empirical data needed to inform
voluntary conservation efforts and natural resource decisions. This
request would provide funding to each of the 50 states to improve their
natural heritage information resources, and to NatureServe to ensure
the national consistency and quality of these state-based data.
______
Prepared Statement of the Doris Day Animal League
The Doris Day Animal League is a non-profit, member supported
animal advocacy organization located in Washington, D.C. On behalf of
our more than 350,000 members and supporters, we respectfully present
to the subcommittee testimony pertinent to the Bureau of Land
Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program.
In 1971, Congress charged the BLM with preserving America's wild
horses and burros via passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro
Act. The Act declares that ``wild free-roaming horses and burros are
living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West . . .
[who] shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment or death.''
Further, they are to be considered as ``an integral part of the natural
system of the public lands.'' We are gravely concerned that the BLM is
failing to fulfill this mandate.
In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
Despite the agency's failure to meet this goal, large numbers of horses
were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
maintained through fiscal year 2004.
Last year, the agency requested another monumental increase of
$10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act funds) so that it can once again conduct mass
roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild horses and burros on
the range from an estimated 39,000 to 25,000 in just two to three
years. Yet the agency has failed to conduct the most basic research to
justify its proposed action. Despite a statutory requirement to base
roundups on current data, the agency now spends just 3 percent of its
budget on range work, including monitoring and censusing of wild horse
populations, even though such work is critical to the successful
management of wild horse and burro populations and the range itself. In
fact, most herd management areas haven't been censused for at least
four years.
The need for such basic field research cannot be over stressed.
Multiple roundups in recent years brought in significantly fewer horses
than had been anticipated. One explanation is the BLM's reliance on old
data. Further, the agency operates on the premise that wild horses and
burros have an annual population growth rate of 20-25 percent when the
rate may be closer to 18 percent. The very real possibility exists that
the agency may actually take the wild horse and burro population well
below the arbitrary target Appropriate Management Level of 25,000
animals, simply because it doesn't actually know how many horses and
burros roam the range today.
The removal of such huge numbers of horses also creates a
management crisis. Although the BLM has recognized the shortage of good
adoptive homes and has subsequently opened several long-term holding
facilities where horses are pastured in large groups, it is unclear how
the agency can sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded
up, additional facilities are needed. Already the agency spends some 40
percent of its annual budget on caring for some 21,000 horses removed
from the range, with nearly another 40 percent of the budget going to a
marketing and adoption program that can never be expected to
successfully place the thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up
annually. Allowing these animals to be sold without limitation, as is
now allowed via a recent amendment to the 1971 Act, is no answer
either. The recent slaughter of dozens of mustangs sold under this new
authority demonstrates this in the starkest of terms.
Ironically, while the government is spending millions to remove
wild horses and burros from the range, it spends millions more to
subsidize livestock grazing on public lands, a practice that has been
cited by the General Accounting Office as being the primary cause of
range degradation: ``. . . the primary cause of degradation in
rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic livestock (primarily
cattle and sheep) grazing . . . wild horses are vastly outnumbered on
federal rangelands by domestic livestock . . .'' (Rangeland Management:
Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program, GAO, 1990). Despite
some grazing reductions in recent years, domestic livestock still so
dramatically outnumber wild horses on BLM land (the ratio is estimated
to be 50:1) that the removal of tens of thousands of horses has not had
a significant impact on the health of the range.
Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
passage of the last-minute amendment in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus
spending package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is
imperative that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the
Interior Appropriations bill for several years now remain intact. The
Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have always
reflected the understanding that Americans want wild horses and burros
to remain free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, it
is imperative that this following language be incorporated into the
Interior Appropriations bill:
``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the
slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
______
Prepared Statement of the Endangered Species Coalition
On behalf of the undersigned organizations and the millions of
members we represent nationwide, we urge you to fully fund programs of
the Endangered Species Act at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at a
level of no less than $212 million for the fiscal year 2006
appropriations process.
The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants and
fish that are on the brink of extinction. This law successfully helped
to bring back our nation's majestic symbol, the American Bald Eagle. We
have a responsibility to future generations to protect endangered
species and the special places they call home. However, for years, the
Endangered Species Act has been under funded, making it difficult for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts to carry out their
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
The four Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operating
accounts are key to effective implementation of the Endangered Species
Act, however, President Bush requested a total of only $140.1 million,
a cut of $3.1 million or 2 percent in his fiscal year 2006 budget.
These important accounts should be funded at a level of no less than
$212 million for fiscal year 2006.
The undersigned organizations request the following funding
increases for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species
operating accounts:
listing
The listing line item funds the addition of species to the
endangered and threatened species list and the designation of critical
habitat. This line item has suffered years of chronic under funding.
Due to the lack of resources, a backlog of listing decisions and
critical habitat designations has built up over the years. There are a
total of 286 species currently awaiting protection on the Candidate
List. An astounding 65 species have been languishing without protection
since 1975. The Fish and Wildlife Service has estimated a need of at
least $153 million to alleviate the backlog. The President's budget
requested $18.1 million. While this is an increase of $2 million above
2005 enacted levels, it is still well below the actual need. To begin
to address the backlog, Listing should be funded at no less than $30
million for fiscal year 2006.
recovery
While the Endangered Species Act has been extremely successful at
preventing wildlife from going extinct, the purpose of the Endangered
Species Act is to protect and recover endangered and threatened fish,
plants and wildlife. The President's budget requested $64.2 million for
recovery, a cut of $5.6 million, or nearly 10 percent, below last
year's enacted levels. By turning its back on recovery funding, the
Bush administration is setting the Endangered Species Act up for
failure. The administration claims that the increases in the grant
programs will benefit recovery. However, there are no assurances that
funding provided through the grant programs will help the Fish and
Wildlife Service meet its mandatory responsibilities under the Act to
research, develop and implement recovery plans; to monitor the
populations of listed species; or to oversee species recovery. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has indicated that more than 200 currently listed
species may be extremely close to extinction because of the lack of
resources dedicated to recovery. Recovery should be funded at no less
than $110 million.
consultation
The consultation program is the ``look before you leap'' mechanism
that the federal departments and agencies must go through in order to
proceed with a federal project in areas where endangered and threatened
species are located. This process reviews the impacts to species, while
identifying alternatives and mitigation measures needed to ensure that
the federal government is not driving species to extinction through its
actions. It is an important part of the checks and balances system to
ensure that endangered fish, wildlife, and plants are protected on the
ground. Shortage of personnel in this program area causes delays of
project reviews thus creating conflicts between agencies. The
consultation budget also funds the Service's work with non-federal
entities for permitting and development of Habitat Conservation Plans;
lack of funding prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from ensuring
that these plans are properly developed, implemented and monitored. The
President's budget requested $49.4 million for consultation, an
increase of approximately $1 million over the fiscal year 2005 enacted
amount. Consultation should be funded at no less than $57 million.
candidate conservation
This program protects species before they are actually listed, thus
in theory averting the need to ever list them at all. The theory fails
to hold up when not enough money is provided to arrest the decline of
candidate species. The President's budget request is $8.3 million, a
cut of $1 million below last year's level. Candidate Conservation
should be funded at no less than $15 million.
The Endangered Species Act is a broadly supported and very
successful law. Without the necessary funding, an increasing number of
species will slip closer to the brink of extinction. We ask the members
of the Appropriations Committee to fully fund the Endangered Species
Act this year.
Abyss Marine Technologies, Hunstville, AL; Alaska Wilderness
League, Washington, DC; American Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC;
American Malacological Society, Wilmington, DE; American Rivers,
Washington, DC; Animal Protection Institute, Sacramento, CA; Animal
Protection Voters, Santa Fe, NM; Arizona Native Plant Society, Tucson,
AZ; Aveda, Minneapolis, MN; Black Bear Conservation Committee, Baton
Rouge, LA; California Turtle and Tortoise Club, Van Nuys, CA;
Californians for Radioactive Safeguards, Atherton, CA; Center for
Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ; Center for Native Ecosystems, Denver,
CO; Colorado Wild, Durango, CO; Conservation Science Institute, Front
Royal, VI; Conservation Havens LLC, Boulder, CO; Defenders of Wildlife,
Washington, DC; Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Oneonta, NY;
Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles, CA; Endangered Species
Coalition, Washington, DC; Environmental Commons, Gualala, CA; First
Class Fitness, Inc., Hicksville, NY; Forest Guardians, santa Fe, NM;
Foundation for Global Sustainability, Knoxville, TN; Glen Canyon
Institute, Salt Lake City, UT; Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association,
Newtonville, NJ; Greendale Environmental Group, Greendale, WI; Green-
Rock Audubon Society, Beloit, WI; Habitat Education Center, Madison,
WI; High Country Citizens Alliance, Crested Butte, CO; Humane Education
Network, Menlo Park, CA; The Humane Society of the United States,
Washington, DC; Jumping Frog Research Institute, Angels Camp, CA;
Kittatinny Group, Sierra Club, Kutztown, PA; Mass Audubon, Boston, MA;
Maricopa Audubon Society, Tempe, AZ; National Audubon Society,
Washington, DC; National Forest Protection Alliance, Missoula, MT;
National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC; Native Plant Conservation
Campaign, San Francisco, CA; Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, DC; New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, MA; New
Mexico Audubon Council, Los Alamos, NM; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance,
Bellingham, WA; Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Huntington, WV;
Pacific Green Party, Portland, OR; Predator Conservation Alliance,
Bozeman, MT; Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility,
Washington, DC; Puget Sound Urban Wildlife Photography Club, Issaquah,
WA; The Rewilding Institute, Albuquerque, NM; Rogue Valley Audubon
Society, Medford, OR; Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Chandler, AZ; Salem
County Watershed Task Force, Woodstown, NJ.; Southern Appalachian
Biodiversity Project; Asheville, NC; Southern Maryland Audubon Society,
Inc.; Waldorf, MD; Stanford Open Space Alliance, Stanford, CA; Students
for the Environment and Animal Life, Barrington, IL; T&E, Inc.;
Cortato, AZ; Tennessee Native Plant Society; Nashville, TN; Turtle
Island Restoration Network, Forest Knolls, CA; U.S. Public Interest
Research Group, Washington, DC; Western Nebraska Resources Council,
Chandron, NE; Wild Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; and The Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
Refuge
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Heidi Wittenborn, President of Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National
Wildlife Refuge, and on behalf of the Friends organization I would like
to express my appreciation for this opportunity to submit our
testimony. Friends urges you to appropriate $1.9 million from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
acquire a conservation easement for Balcones Canyonlands National
Wildlife Refuge. The property to be protected is key Golden-cheeked
Warbler habitat and would connect the two largest blocks of habitat on
the Refuge, creating a continuous habitat corridor. Its acquisition
would be a significant step towards the long range goal of completing
the Refuge. Acting now is particularly important, as the window of time
is closing rapidly as a result of urban expansion, and the opportunity
for protecting the species is at risk.
Friends is a nonprofit, volunteer organization. Its mission is to
support, complete, and enhance Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
Refuge and its diverse ecology, and promote its use for recreational,
educational, and scientific purposes. The organiza-tion's membership is
drawn primarily from Central Texas communities situated near the
Refuge.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge is located in the Texas Hill Country
northwest of Austin, Texas and resides in Burnet, Travis, and
Williamson counties. The Refuge was formed in 1992 to conserve habitat
of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler as a step towards recovery and
eventual delisting of the species. In addition to the Golden-cheeked
Warbler, the Refuge serves to protect the habitat of the endangered
Black-capped Vireo and numerous other wildlife species.
State-sponsored biological studies show that to stabilize and
sustain these endangered songbirds, Balcones Canyonlands needs a total
of 46,000 acres of habitat. It presently has some 21,000 acres. The
Refuge augments a similarly named Preserve in Austin, comprised of
nearly 30,000 acres and operated by the City and Travis County. The two
parts were established for the same purpose and together are intended
to provide habitat needed to enable recovery of these species.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, although 13 years old, is not yet half
complete. It is important to act now as time is a critical
consideration in completing the Refuge. Because of the proximity of the
Refuge to the Austin metropolitan area, urban expansion is a serious
threat to habitat needed by the Refuge. There are already three real
estate developments within the acquisition boundary of the Refuge.
This year, a conservation easement is available on the 623-acre
Armstrong property, which contains a substantial amount of Golden-
cheeked Warbler habitat, and on which this important bird has been
sighted. Portions of the property also may be suitable for management
of Black-capped Vireo habitat. The property is in a strategic location
and will connect major segments of the Refuge, alleviate cumulative
habitat fragmentation within the approved acquisition area of the
Refuge, and preclude development and land uses that would be
incompatible with the Refuge's objectives. It is anticipated that the
conservation easement covering this segment of the Refuge could be
acquired for $1.9 million and that the transaction could be consummated
within 6 months following appropriation of the needed funds.
In addition to the recovery of these endangered species, Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge is a source of eco-tourism for the surrounding area.
Over the longer term, the Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major
draw for birders interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and
Vireo, for which this area provides unique habitat. The Refuge has been
described as one of the Last Great Places by the Nature Conservancy and
as an ``Important Bird Area'' by two national conservation groups based
on its ``global importance'' to the endangered Warbler and Vireo.
Also, Balcones Canyonlands offers Central Texas a variety of
recreational opportunities compatible with wildlife protection. Once
completed, Balcones Canyonlands will be a step towards providing
additional accessible public outdoor areas, identified as a critical
need in a recent study for Texas Parks and Wildlife.
For all of these reasons Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National
Wildlife Refuge strongly recommends that you set aside $1.9 million
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Balcones Canyonlands
Refuge for fiscal year 2006.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement to
the Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Big South Fork National River and
Recreation Area, Inc.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony on
behalf of the Friends of Big South Fork National River and Recreation
Area, Inc. The Friends of the Big South Fork is a non-profit group of
interested citizens formed to support and promote the Big South Fork
National River and Recreation Area by raising funds to preserve,
restore and enhance the park's natural and cultural resources, to
provide improved services and facilities for visitors, to increase
public awareness and support of the park and to enhance educational and
interpretive activities, thus increasing public appreciation,
understanding and protection of the park. The Friends recognize the
Park as both a National Treasure and one of our most important Local
Resources. We Proactively Assist the National Park Service in
protecting, preserving and interpreting this National Resource, and
particularly in educating the public to the many resources it offers.
We are requesting in Priority form for the Big South Fork NRRA,
$4,458,300 and for the Obed Wild and Scenic River $3,174,000.
The following are two needs we have in the region in the process of
fulfilling our boundaries for Big South Fork National River and
Recreation Area and Obed Wild and Scenic River. It is important to this
region and the Cumberland Plateau to fully fund these land
acquisitions.
land acquisition for big south fork nrra
There are approximately 5,900 acres of privately held property
within the authorized boundary of the Big South Fork NRRA (125,000
acres). One parcel of 242.6 acres has already been subdivided for
development and is a threat to the gorge. A second parcel of 404 acres
(approximately 90 acres of which fronts the gorge) is currently being
developed by the property owner who says that he intends to develop all
the way down to the gorge. A group of concerned organizations
approached the landowner about buying a portion of the property to
buffer the creek but he said it was all or nothing and wanted $1
million for the parcel.
BISO submitted two NPS LARS for fiscal year 2006 with the following
requests:
Priority 1
Proposed number of tracts: 2
Proposed number of acres: 625
Estimated dollar amount: $2,062,500
Priority 2
Proposed number of tracts: 6
Proposed number of acres: 726
Estimated dollar amount: $2,395,800
land acquisition for obed wild and scenic river
Currently one-third of the land within the park boundary is in
private ownership. The fiscal year 2006 LARS request states, ``Last
year, one of the largest tracts of land in private ownership was sold
to a private developer because the NPS did not have the funds to
purchase the land. This developer plans to subdivide the tract for home
sites. This tract of just under 200 acres included approximately 2
miles of river frontage, an old road that leads to the river, and
several rock shelters. The park is concerned about the developer
reopening the old road and providing access to the river that will
diminish the wild' values for which it was set aside.''
NPS LARS for fiscal year 2006
Proposed number of tracts: 40 (all remaining)
Proposed number of acres: 1,397
Estimated Cost: $3,174,000 \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The park received $750,000 for land acquisition in fiscal year
2004 which will reduce this total dollar amount as well as the number
of tracts and acres remaining to be purchased once the money is
expended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I, Peter J. Defoe, Chairman
of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, would like to thank
you for this opportunity to present testimony on fiscal year 2006
appropriations. The Fond du Lac Reservation was established by Treaty
with the United States on September 30, 1854, and encompasses 100,000
acres of land in northeastern Minnesota. The Band provides employment
or services to nearly 6,500 Indian people living within the service
area of the Reservation. Because federal funds are essential to meet
the needs of Indian people, the Fond du Lac Band urges Congress to
restore or increase funding in the following areas:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
--Tribal Priority Allocation--restore full funding, including $8.8
million for Johnson O'Malley
--Public Law 93-638 Pay Cost Increases
--Fond du Lac Law Enforcement and Resource Management Appropriation--
$10 million increase
--Circle of Flight--$592,000
--Natural Resources--restore full funding to resource management
programs
--Tribal Colleges and Universities--restore $9.8 million
--School Construction and School Operations--restore full funding to
education programs
Environmental Protection Agency
--Indian General Assistance Program (GAP)--restore $5 million
--Clean Water Program--restore $131.8 million
--State and Tribal Assistance Grants--restore $643.9 million
--Clean Water State Revolving Fund--restore $120 million
Indian Health Services
--Increase funding for Indian health care
bureau of indian affairs
The fiscal year 2006 BIA Budget proposes substantial cuts which
would be a decrease of $110 million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted
levels. If implemented, these funding reductions would severely reduce
our ability to provide essential services to our members, educate our
children, care for our elderly and infirm and protect and manage our
natural resources.
Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA).--We request that Congress
restore full funding to the TPA program and specifically restore $8.8
million to the Johnson O'Malley program. TPA funds enable tribes to
provide vital programs and services, including education, social
services, law enforcement, courts, resource management, road
maintenance and administrative services. Johnson O'Malley funding,
which helps Indian children with tutoring, cultural enrichment and
Native language education, is critical to tribal education programs.
Nearly $100 million was cut from the TPA in 1996, and this cut has
never been restored. Proposed cuts for fiscal year 2006 include $8.8
million to Johnson O'Malley, $6.4 million to welfare assistance and
$431,000 for energy development programs. If implemented, these cuts
would severely erode this irreplaceable source of funds for essential
tribal government services. The proposed $9.9 million fixed costs
increase does not offset the loss in funds from the permanent, across-
the-board reductions each year, and the targeted cuts in this year's
budget.
Public Law 93-638 Pay Cost.--We ask Congress to restore full pay
cost funding for all tribes in fiscal year 2006, and restore pay cost
funding not received in fiscal year 2002-2005 through a special
appropriations equitable adjustment. The only general increase tribes
could count on each year was a cost of living pay increase, known as
the 638 Pay Cost account. Tribes received only 75 percent of their 638
pay cost funding in fiscal year 2002, only 15 percent in fiscal year
2003 and about 30 percent in fiscal year 2004. As a result, tribes'
core service funding is far less, in real terms, than nearly a decade
ago. I strongly urge the Committee to restore full pay cost funding for
all tribes in fiscal year 2006 and to consider restoring funds not
received in past years.
Fond du Lac Law Enforcement and Resource Management Program.--We
request a one-time appropriation of $10 million to the Fond du Lac
Resource Management Program for law enforcement and natural resource
protection ($1.5 million in base funding for court operations and law
enforcement, $1.5 million for resource management and conservation
enforcement, and $7 million for expansion of office space). We strongly
support the Administration's request for additional funding under the
Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative but request that additional
funds be made available to the Band.
In 1997, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that certain traffic
regulations are ``civil-regulatory'' in nature and are unenforceable on
the Reservation under Public Law 280. In order to fill this void, the
Band established its own police force, using COPS, BIA and Tribal
funds. In addition, the Band has worked with all local law enforcement
agencies to establish a cross-deputization agreement that ensures
maximum law enforcement protection for the Reservation. However,
because of the short-term, limited financial resources available, there
are significant unmet needs in this area, particularly in light of
proposed reductions in COPS funding. Given this increased
responsibility, the Band needs funding to expand the staff and its
capabilities. With this in mind, we request that $1.5 million be added
to our base budget to continue to implement the enforcement systems for
the Band.
The Band is also responsible for enforcing Band law in connection
with members' exercise of hunting, fishing and gathering rights
reserved under Treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1854. The
courts, including the Supreme Court, have expressly reaffirmed the
Band's hunting and fishing rights under these Treaties, which can be
exercised over approximately 8 million acres in northern and central
Minnesota. It is also essential that the Band continue to manage on-
reservation resources in order to meet the demands of an increasing
population. The on-reservation resources and the off-reservation Treaty
rights are vitally important to Band members as they provide the
foundation for our culture, subsistence, employment and recreation.
Therefore, we seek an additional $1.5 million in base funding for the
Fond du Lac Resource Management Division to enable us to protect these
resources for future generations. The funds for this program have not
been increased since 1991. We also request $7 million for the expansion
of office space, as our current building is inadequate to house both
law enforcement and natural resource management staff.
Circle of Flight.--We ask Congress to restore the Circle of Flight
program to the BIA's fiscal year 2006 budget to at least the fiscal
year 2005 level of $592,000, and to consider providing the fiscal year
2006 requested amount of $1.113 million. The Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl
Enhancement Initiative (Circle of Flight) was again eliminated by the
President in his fiscal year 2006 budget request. Circle of Flight has
been one of Interior's most effective resource programs for many years.
Since fiscal year 1991, Great Lakes tribes and our partners have
restored or enhanced more than 66,000 wetland, grassland and native
prairie acres. The program has invested more than $6 million in habitat
projects, and has leveraged these dollars for an additional $18 million
in federal, state, private and tribal funding, yielding an impressive
match ratio of 3 to 1.
Natural Resources.--We support full restoration of funding for all
natural resource programs including: $452,000 to the Central Office
Natural Resources Program, $11.2 million to Non-Recurring Programs and
$2 million for Water Management Planning & Development.
Tribal Colleges & Universities (TCU).--We ask that the proposed
decrease of $9.8 million to the TCU program be restored. Tribally-
controlled colleges are vitally important for Indian education because
the success of Indian students at tribal colleges is much higher than
at other colleges. In 1987, the Fond du Lac Tribal and Community
College--a partnership between the Fond du Lac Band and the State of
Minnesota--opened its doors. The College currently serves 492 Indian
students, with a full-year equivalency of 269, a 135 percent increase
from 1998. The proposed cut would reduce the grant amount available to
individual colleges. In order to prevent closure of tribal colleges or
loss of educational services, we ask Congress to fully fund this
program. Funding for TCUs must be increased from fiscal year 2005
levels to account for inflation and increases in student enrollment.
TCUs are significantly under-funded compared to state community
colleges and desperately need funding for increased operations costs.
Education: School Construction.--We support restoration of the
$89.5 million proposed cut to education construction and the
restoration of proposed cuts to other education programs. School
construction and operation funding is essential for tribes to provide
comprehensive educational services to children of all ages. The Fond du
Lac Band was fortunate to be one of the few tribes in recent years to
receive funding for new school construction and in 2002, the Band
completed construction of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe School, which is an
example of the successful use of tribal education construction funding.
Education: School Operations.--We support restoration of $1.3
million to BIA school operations funding and full funding for
Administrative Cost Grants. While a portion of the proposed budget
would increase the Indian School Equalization Program (formula funds),
which we fully support, that increase cannot be offset by other
reductions in education funding as those other funds are essential for
tribes to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. We
also recommend full funding of the Administrative Cost Grants at $64
million to meet 100 percent of need. These funds provide critically
needed administrative support for tribally-controlled schools similar
to contract support costs. The BIA has acknowledged that currently it
only addresses 70 percent of need for the Administrative Cost Grants.
environmental protection agency
The Fond du Lac Environmental Program has been addressing a number
of important environmental problems and projects on our Reservation. We
support restoration of the following proposed cuts to the EPA budget,
which would impact our ability to provide environmental services:
--Restore $5 million to the Indian General Assistance Program (GAP),
which is essential for development of tribal environmental
programs and provides vital support for further expansion and
improvement of the Band's program.
--Restore $131.8 million to the Clean Water Program, which provides
grants to tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to
protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. We use this
funding for water quality monitoring, data collection, and
protection and restoration of aquatic ecosystems.
--Restore $643.9 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants. This
program is the source of funds for our air quality monitoring
project.
--Restore $120 million to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This
program provides funds for and state and tribal wastewater
treatment systems.
indian health service
The proposed increase of $72 million is inadequate, considering the
substantial unmet need for health care in Indian country. The Band
supports the efforts of all Indian tribes to receive 100 percent of the
Level of Need Formula (LNF) so that it can address the serious and
persistent health issues that confront its community. The Band serves
about 5,500 Indian people at its clinics, but the current funding level
meets only 38 percent of our health care funding needs. In addition,
the Band requests an increase in funding for substance abuse and mental
health programs in order to combat the growing methamphetamine problem
on our Reservation.
support for proposed budget increases
Finally, the Band supports the proposed increases in the budget for
the following programs: $31.1 million for Fixed Costs associated with
BIA programs; $2 million for the new Leadership Academy; $23 million in
competitive grants to states and tribes for environmental and health
projects under the EPA State and Tribal Performance Fund; $5 million
for Tribal Wildlife Grants and $18.3 million for the Landowner
Incentive Program, FWS programs addressing the considerable need for
managing shared natural resources. The Band has received grants from
the FWS programs this year, which will be used for important fisheries,
wildlife and wild rice management and restoration projects.
In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian
country remain massive. Preservation of current BIA funding is critical
to maintain program levels. Your consideration of our additional
funding requests will enable us to improve the delivery of services to
Band members and help ensure that we enter the 21st Century with a
renewed sense of hope. If we can provide any additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Anne D.
Noto at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP, 1425 K Street
NW, Ste. 600, Washington D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240(tel); 202-682-0249
(fax); mpavel@sonosky.com; anoto@sonosky.com. Miigwech. Thank you.
______
Letter From the Grand County Council, Grand County, Utah
Grand County Council,
Moab, Utah, April 25, 2005.
Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Ranking,
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC
Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Grand County
Council expressing our support of our local Bureau of Land Management
Moab Field Office's application for 2006 Land Water Conservation Funds
in the amount of $1.2 million.
The money would allow the BLM to purchase 14 acres of private lands
in the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) for
expansion of BLM's Westwater Ranger Station. This expansion would allow
the BLM to add additional parking, campsites and a leach field for
wastewater.
The money would also be used to purchase a conversation easement of
530 acres of riverfront property located downstream of the Westwater
Ranger Station. This easement would prevent development in a habitat
for nesting bald eagles, four endangered fish species and for
enhancement of wetland properties.
We strongly support this application and ask that you do all that
you can to lobby for the Colorado River SRMA project on behalf of the
BLM office in Grand County.
Thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Jerry McNeely, Chairman,
Grand County Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
agencies--bureau of indian affairs and environmental protection agency
1. BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation.--$4.196 million
($325,000 above fiscal year 2005 enacted).
Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs,
Resources Management, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resources Management.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC's allocation of this
line item that it shares with the 1854 Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian
Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and
GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat.
491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and
Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated
tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed
by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$300,000 (fiscal
year 2004 enacted).
Agency/Program Line Item.--Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Programs and Management (funneled through the EPA's Great
Lakes National Program Office).
Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
and treaties cited above.
glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
As Congress has recognized for over 20 years, funding for GLIFWC's
conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement programs: (i)
honors federal treaty obligations to eleven Ojibwe Tribes; and (ii)
provides a wide range of associated public benefits. The lack of a
secure funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC's ability to: (i) implement
federal court orders and intergovernmental agreements governing the
exercise of treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights;
and (ii) participate in cooperative management partnerships in
Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota.
1. BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation.--$4.196 million. As
its primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act
funding base, GLIFWC seeks to:
a. Restore $100,000 of base funding that Congress consistently has
provided since fiscal year 2002 but that the Administration has not
proposed for fiscal year 2006;
b. Restore $75,000 of base funding for annual pay cost adjustments
that the Administration has funded in previous years but has failed to
include in its fiscal year 2006 budget proposal; and
c. Provide $150,000 in additional base funding to sustain
enhancements in conservation law enforcement and emergency services
capabilities.
2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$300,000. As an EPA
funding base for its primary environmental program elements, GLIFWC
seeks to:
a. Provide $189,700 for basic scientific/technical capabilities to:
(i) continue participation in a number of Great Lakes initiatives
(including the Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior,
the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP), and the Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration); (ii) carry out habitat and human-health
related research; and iii) provide the requisite analysis and data to
support participation in regional initiatives and to assess the impact
of particular projects on tribal treaty rights.
b. Provide $110,300 to undertake three habitat and human health-
related research projects regarding: (i) GLIFWC's fish consumption
mercury advisory program; (ii) ceded territory sulfide mining site
evaluation and monitoring; and (iii) a Lake Superior herring
contaminant assessment.
ceded territory treaty rights--glifwc's role and programs
Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
agency for its 11 member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory
(off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. Its
mission is twofold:
--Ensure that its member Tribes are able to exercise their rights for
the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic, cultural,
medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
--Ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports
those rights.
GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of the
Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act (Public Law
93-638). It is governed by a Constitution developed and ratified by its
member Tribes and by a board comprised of the Chairs of those Tribes.
GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting, fishing,
and gathering rights protection/implementation program through its
staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement
officers, policy specialists, and public information specialists.
Its activities include: (i) natural resource population assessments
and studies; (ii) harvest monitoring and reporting; enforcement of
tribal conservation codes in tribal courts; (iii) funding for tribal
courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (iv) development of
natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; (v)
negotiation and implementation of agreements with state, federal and
local agencies; (vi) invasive species eradication and control projects;
(vii) biological and scientific research, including fish contaminant
testing; and (viii) development and dissemination of public information
materials.
justification & how the requested funds would be used
For over 20 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost
efficient agency that plays a necessary role in: (i) meeting specific
federal treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC's member Tribes;
(ii) fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement
functions required by federal court decisions affirming the Tribes'
treaty rights; (iii) effectively regulating harvests of natural
resources shared among the treaty signatory Tribes; and (iv) serving as
an active partner with state, federal and local governments, with
educational institutions, and with conservation organizations and other
non-profit agencies.
And, particularly relevant to the requested EPA funds, Tribal
members rely upon treaty-protected natural resources for religious,
cultural, medicinal, subsistence, and economic purposes. Their treaty
rights mean little if contamination of these resources threatens their
health, safety, and economy, or if the habitats supporting these
resources are degraded.
With the requested stable funding base, GLIFWC will:
1. Maintain its Core Capabilities to Conserve Natural Resources and
to Regulate Treaty Harvests.--As was the case with the BIA funding base
provided by Congress for the past 4 years, GLIFWC would: (i) restore
program cuts caused by chronic under-funding; \3\ (ii) provide cost-of-
living pay increases to staff; \4\ and (iii) solidify law enforcement
and emergency response infrastructure improvements that have been
instituted with a combination of BIA and U.S. Department of Justice
COPS funds.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, the previously restored funding base was used to:
(i) reinstitute fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys to previous
levels; (ii) restore tribal court and registration station funding
cuts; (iii) restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish
assessment programs; (iv) restore GLIFWC's share in cooperative
wildlife and wild rice enhancement projects; (v) replace aging
equipment; (vi) meet expanding harvest monitoring needs; and (vii) meet
uncontrollable increases in employee benefit costs.
\4\ Since fiscal year 2002, the Administration has not included
funding for GLIFWC employee cost of living pay adjustments in GLIFWC's
base funding levels. Failure to include these adjustments in succeeding
budgets negates their very purpose and results in recurring de facto
budget cuts if the adjusted salaries are to be paid in subsequent
years.
\5\ GLIFWC has: (i) upgraded its patrol capabilities with new
vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, and off-road vehicles; (ii) increased
officer medical training and upgraded first aid equipment; (iii)
upgraded its radio systems to be compatible with surrounding agencies;
and (iv) established ongoing joint training with federal, state, and
local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific
Contributor in the Great Lakes Region.--With the requested EPA funding
base, GLIFWC would maintain its ability to bring a tribal perspective
to the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers.\6\ It also
would use its scientific expertise to study issues and geographic areas
that are important to its member Tribes but that others may not be
examining.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the
Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior, International
Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration, and the development of agreements to regulate water
diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
\7\ With the requested fiscal year 2006 EPA funds, GLIFWC would:
(i) continue its long-standing program to collect and test fish for
mercury and to communicate testing results through health care
providers and GIS maps; (ii) assess the impacts of contaminants leaking
from a closed mine in Wisconsin; (iii) conduct water testing and
baseline monitoring of heavy metals in the area of a proposed sulfide
mine in Michigan's Upper Peninsula near pristine Lake Superior
tributaries where native coaster brook trout spawn; and (iv) assess
mercury, PCB and organochlorine levels in Lake Superior herring, the
second most commercially-harvested fish in the United States waters of
Lake Superior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of a secure, ongoing EPA funding base jeopardizes GLIFWC's
role as a trusted environmental management partner and scientific
contributor in the Great Lakes Region. The federal government's treaty
obligations to GLIFWC's member Tribes compel more than the mere
opportunity to compete for a diminishing patchwork of discretionary EPA
grants. This is particularly true given important current initiatives
such as the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration in which GLIFWC
participates as a full partner.
3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From its
Programs.--Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued
partner in natural resource management, in emergency services networks,
and in providing accurate information to the public. Because of its
institutional experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC provides
continuity and stability in interagency relationships and among its
member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the context of
ceded territory treaty rights issues.
Over the past 20 years, GLIFWC has built many partnerships that:
(i) provide accurate information and data to counter social
misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded
territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner's financial
resources; (iii) avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iv) engender
cooperation rather than competition; and (v) undertake projects and
achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone.
other related appropriations concerns
1. BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC asks Congress to direct the
BIA to fully fund contract support costs, as GLIFWC has experienced a
$341,000 shortfall since 1995 despite its consistently low indirect
cost rate of less than 15.25 percent and its current rate of 14.93
percent.
2. BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Initiative.--
Once again, Congress should fully fund this long-standing tribal
contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that the
Administration again proposes to eliminate.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior
and Related Agencies Subcommittee on several funding items of
importance to The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its
8.6 million supporters nationwide. As the largest animal protection
organization in the country, The HSUS urges the Committee to address
these priority issues in the fiscal year 2006 budget.
law enforcement division of the fish and wildlife service
After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology and
a full complement of Special Agents are essential if law enforcement is
to have any hope of effectively enforcing the nation's endangered
species trade laws. We commend the Administration's $1.295 million
increase for the Law Enforcement Division in fiscal year 2006. The HSUS
strongly supports an additional increase of $8.3 million over the
Administration's request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
Enforcement Operations and Maintenance, to better house and equip the
Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and to hire and train additional new
Special Agents for proper enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety
Act.
The Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which was signed into law in
December 2003, as Public Law 108-191, was passed unanimously in both
the House and Senate and takes aim at the epidemic of private ownership
of dangerous big cats as pets. We are disappointed that the Service is
more than eight months late in promulgating the regulations necessary
for enforcement of this important law. According to some estimates,
there are up to 15,000 big cats kept as pets in the United States. A
small increase of $1.3 million over last year's level should be
appropriated to hire and train one new Special Agent for each of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's seven regions. Additional funds will allow
for adequate enforcement of this new law.
Investigating sophisticated wildlife smuggling operations requires
the latest in law enforcement technology. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory is capable of providing assistance in the
prosecution of wildlife crimes by analyzing claws, teeth, feathers,
tissue, blood, and other wildlife samples. The laboratory is
indispensable in the vigorous enforcement of the nation's wildlife
trade laws. The HSUS urges the Committee to appropriate $7 million to
enable completion of the renovation of the dermestid colony, and
morphology, bio-level III containment, and firearms facilities, as well
as new additions for pathology, an atrium that would include a 60-seat
conference room for agent and inspector training and scientific
conferences.
multinational species conservation fund
The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in requesting an
increase over the Administration's request for the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF). The MNSCF is a fund established by
Congress to benefit African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great
apes, and neotropical migratory birds and marine turtles. Congress has
been very supportive of these programs in the past. Unfortunately, the
Administration's fiscal year 2006 request falls short of the funds
necessary to carry out these valuable missions. We ask that you
continue to support these highly threatened mammals and birds in fiscal
year 2006 by appropriating $2 million each for the African Elephant
Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, the Great Ape
Conservation Fund, and the new Marine Turtle Fund. We further request
$2.5 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund,
and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Birds Conservation Fund,
for a total of $15.5 million.
While there are threats to the long-term survival of elephants,
rhinos, tigers, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds, there have
been improvements attributable to funds made available through the
MNSCF. Grants made from the MNSCF provide a stable funding source that
has leveraged over four times as much in additional contributions from
range states, non-governmental organizations, and others.
While The HSUS wholeheartedly supports increased funding for the
MNSCF, we are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities
for funds from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote
trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--
including live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment
for public display industry--under the guise of conservation for these
animals. Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent
with the spirit of the law.
environmental protection agency--office of research and development
In 2000, the passage of the ICCVAM Authorization Act into Public
Law 106-545 created a new paradigm for the field of regulatory
toxicology, one that promotes chemical testing methods that are often
faster, more economical than existing methods, as well as more
responsive to the concerns of many members of the public about the
continuing use of animals in toxicity testing. The new paradigm
requires federal agencies to ensure that new and revised animal and
alternative test methods be scientifically validated prior to
recommending or requiring use by industry. An internationally agreed
upon definition of validation is supported by the 15 federal regulatory
and research agencies that compose the Interagency Coordinating
Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), including
the EPA. The definition is: ``the process by which the reliability and
relevance of a procedure are established for a specific use.''
In recent years, thanks to Congressional leadership, efforts to
provide specific funding for and prioritization of research,
development and validation of non-animal and other alternative test
methods have helped to guide EPA's approach to this necessary thrust
for sound and efficient science that also replaces, reduces or refines
the use of animals in toxicity testing. However, recent dialogue with
the EPA has demonstrated a lack of prioritization for funding
validation studies of non-animal and other alternative methods. This is
the equivalent of developing a new car that is intended to provide
reduced emissions without assessing the validity of the reduced
emissions claim, ensuring the car will never be marketed.
For several years, the enacted budget for the Office of Research
and Development has hovered at approximately $500 million, comprising
just 9 percent of EPA's total budget. Animal protection organizations
have consistently supported a request for a mere 1-2 percent of this
budget to go specifically for research, development and validation of
non-animal, alternative test methods. Chairman Walsh secured a $4
million appropriation first-ever directive for research, development
and validation of non-animal test methods in the fiscal year 2002
budget for EPA. And while the animal protection community is greatly
appreciative of this directive, we have yet to receive a detailed
accounting of the expenditure of funds. The agency has stated that
funding has been provided for bench science that may have future
relevant applications. EPA contends it has used monies from the Science
and Technology Account for the Office of Research and Development to
fund research and development of non-animal and other alternative test
methods; but the funding stops at the stage when a test method must be
scientifically validated in order to be considered for incorporation
into recommendations or requirements. Unfortunately this approach does
little to support the final development or necessary validation studies
for non-animal test methods with potential current application in
reducing costs and increasing efficiency in existing EPA programs.
Moreover, no detailed reporting on the actual expenditure of funds
under the Computational Toxicology Program to promote alternative
methods has ever been submitted to the Congress. Therefore, we join
with the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection groups in
support of including the following report language in the
appropriations bill:
``The Committee recognizes the EPA's commitment to developing a
Computational Toxicology Program to reduce the use of animal testing
and the cost of such testing. It is the Committee's expectation that,
commensurate with Committee approval for full funding of the
Computational Toxicology Program for the last several years, EPA
demonstrate real progress not only in development of computational
toxicology methods, but importantly, in validation of new and revised
test methods, non-animal methods, and alternative methods so that these
can be utilized in regulatory program activities. The Committee
encourages EPA to develop and implement specific plans for validation
studies of new and revised, non-animal and alternative methods for
chemical screening and priority setting. The Committee requests that
EPA submit an annual report detailing results of its Computational
Toxicology program, to include a section on EPA's overall activities
and itemized expenditures focused specifically on development,
standardization and validation of new, revised test methods, non-animal
methods, and alternative methods. The Committee further requests the
EPA to report annually on how it is working through public/private
partnerships to promote newer and more efficient safety testing schemes
that will reduce animal use and enhance environmental and human
safety.''
bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
In fiscal year 2001, the BLM received a $9 million budget increase
to halve the number of wild horses on the range within four years.
Despite the agency's inability to meet this goal, large numbers of
horses were removed from the range and this new level of funding was
maintained through fiscal year 2004. Last year, the agency requested
another increase of $10.5 million (plus another $2.3 million from
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act funds) so that it can once
again begin mass roundups to drastically reduce the number of wild
horses and burros on the range from an estimated 35,000 to 25,000 in
just 2 to 3 years. Yet the agency has failed to conduct the most basic
research to justify its proposed action. Despite a statutory
requirement to base roundups on current data, the agency now spends
less than 4 percent of its budget on range work, including monitoring
and censusing of wild horse populations, even though such work is
critical to the successful management of wild horse and burro
populations and the range itself. In fact, most herd management areas
haven't been censused for at least 5 years.
The removal of large numbers of horses creates a management crisis,
as witnessed by recent events. Although the BLM has recognized the
shortage of good adoptive homes and has subsequently opened several
long-term holding facilities where horses are pastured in large groups,
it is unclear how the agency can sustain this plan of action; as more
horses are rounded up, additional facilities are needed. For 2005, BLM
intends to round up 9,800 wild horses and burros but estimates it will
only be able to place 7,150 through the adoption program. Already the
agency spends some 40 percent of its annual budget on caring for
approximately 21,000 horses removed from the range, with nearly another
40 percent of the budget going to a marketing and adoption the program
that cannot successfully place the thousands of wild horses and burros
rounded up annually.
Furthermore, the BLM has not submitted a biannual report regarding
the status of the wild horse and burro program to Congress, as provided
for in the 1971 Act. Astonishingly, 1997 was the last year the BLM
presented a report to Congress, covering the years from 1992-1995.
Since that time, the BLM has, for all intents and purposes, not been
held accountable for its actions. Congress and the general public have
been denied an opportunity to scrutinize the agency's management
actions. Requesting additional funds to conduct massive and
indiscriminate wild horse and burro removals to levels that jeopardize
the welfare of these animals, while at the same time wasting hundreds
of millions of taxpayer dollars on the environmentally destructive
livestock grazing program, is nothing short of indefensible. The agency
has apparently lost sight of its legal mandate to protect wild free-
roaming horses and burros.
Most importantly, in light of the huge number of wild horses and
burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers and the
passage of a last-minute rider in the fiscal year 2005 omnibus spending
package to allow for the slaughter of wild horses, it is imperative
that the ``no-kill'' provision that has been attached to the Interior
Appropriations bill for several years be included again in fiscal year
2006. Recent reports that 41 horses went to slaughter immediately
following the sale by the BLM underscore the need for this language.
The Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act's core principles have always
reflected the understanding that Americans want these animals to remain
free from slaughter or other forms of killing. Therefore, we join with
the Doris Day Animal League and other animal protection organizations
in urging that the following language be incorporated into the bill:
``No appropriations made herein shall be available for the sale,
slaughter or destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros
in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''
protection for walruses
We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
2006 to fund much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. New promising
methodologies for surveying walrus populations are being developed and
require funding support. Walruses are targeted by Native hunters for
subsistence, despite a paucity of data regarding their current
population status or population structure. Hundreds of walruses are
killed annually; in some years this number has climbed to as many as
7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages, females and their calves are
preferentially killed, against the recommendation of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and standard management practice. A portion of these
funds could also be used to assist and improve the Walrus Harvest
Monitor Project, which collects basic management data.
endangered species act
The four Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species operating
accounts are key to effective implementation of the Endangered Species
Act. However, President Bush requested a total of only $140.1 million,
a cut of $3.1 million or 2 percent in his fiscal year 2006 budget.
These important accounts should be funded at a level of no less than
$212 million for fiscal year 2006.
Listing.--This line item has suffered years of chronic under
funding. Due to the lack of resources, a backlog of listing decisions
and critical habitat designations has built up over the years. The Fish
and Wildlife Service has estimated a need of at least $153 million to
alleviate the backlog. The President's budget requests an increase of
$2 million above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, but it is still well
below the actual need. To begin to address the backlog, Listing should
be funded at no less than $30 million for fiscal year 2006.
Recovery.--While the ESA has been extremely successful at
preventing wildlife from going extinct, the purpose of the Act is to
protect and recover endangered and threatened fish, plants and
wildlife. The President's budget requested $64.2 million for recovery,
a cut of $5.6 million, or nearly 10 percent below last year's enacted
levels. By turning its back on recovery funding, the Bush
administration is setting the Endangered Species Act up for failure.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that more than 200
currently listed species may be extremely close to extinction because
of the lack of resources dedicated to recovery. Recovery should be
funded at no less than $110 million.
Consultation.--The consultation program is the ``look before you
leap'' mechanism that the federal departments and agencies must go
through in order to proceed with a federal project in areas where
endangered and threatened species are located. Shortage of personnel in
this program area causes delays of project reviews and creates
conflicts between agencies. The consultation budget also funds the
Service's work with non-federal entities for permitting and development
of Habitat Conservation Plans; lack of funding prevents the FWS from
ensuring that these plans are properly developed, implemented and
monitored. The President's budget requests an increase of approximately
$1 million for consultation, over fiscal year 2005. Consultation should
be funded at no less than $57 million.
Candidate Conservation.--This program protects species before they
are actually listed, thus in theory averting the need to ever list
them. The theory fails to hold up when not enough money is provided to
arrest the decline of candidate species. The President's budget request
is $8.3 million, a cut of $1 million below last year's level. Candidate
Conservation should be funded at no less than $15 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District
I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
provide the following:
An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management Appropriation;
Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery
Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan River Recovery
Implementation Program.'' These funds are needed to support the FWS
Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are responsible for program
management and support of all Recovery Program activities.
The enactment of Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-
375, authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 million of
cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
construction projects. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106-392 authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to accept up to $17 million of
contributed funds from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, and to
expend such contributed funds as if appropriated for these projects;
and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
forward.
The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
appreciated and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition
On behalf of the Highlands Coalition, I would like to offer
testimony in support of several important projects proposed for the
fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that
would significantly advance conservation of the four-state Highlands
region. The Highlands region has now been the subject of two federal
studies that have highlighted its importance for conservation of public
drinking water supplies, wildlife habitat, and recreational
opportunities. And last year Congress unanimously approved the
Highlands Conservation Act recognizing the ``national significance of
the Highlands region to the United States.'' The projects described
below would help assure that this region can continue to meet the needs
of the more than 25 million Americans who live within an hour's drive
of the Highlands.
The Highlands Coalition includes 117 national, regional, state and
local organizations working to protect the more than 2 million-acre
Highlands region that stretches from southeastern Pennsylvania through
north-central New Jersey, the Hudson Valley of New York and into the
Litchfield Hills of Connecticut. The Highlands Coalition was galvanized
by the landmark regional study of the New York-New Jersey Highlands,
published in 1992, that found the Highlands region to be of national
significance due to the diversity and quality of its natural resources
and landscape, all located so close to the nation's most densely
populated area.
In 2002, the U.S. Forest Service published a detailed study update
that reinforced the findings of the 1992 Highlands Study and recognized
accelerating land use pressures on the region. The study update noted
that the Highlands are the backyard and lifeblood of a metropolitan
complex extending from Philadelphia through Newark and New York City
and up to Hartford, supplying clean drinking water to over 15 million
people, hosting 14 million recreational visits annually and providing
habitat for 247 threatened and endangered species.
The study update further revealed that over 5,000 acres of land in
the New York-New Jersey Highlands are lost each year to suburban sprawl
and that the rate of loss of forests and wetlands in particular has
quadrupled, threatening the quantity and quality of public drinking
water supplies. Statistics indicate that if the status quo continues,
the population of the region will increase by nearly 50 percent,
impacting water quality in over 70 percent of Highlands watersheds and
causing water demand to exceed supply in many areas. Wildlife habitat
and recreational outlets in the Highlands will be similarly impacted if
the current rate and pattern of development continues.
The Highlands Coalition supports several projects proposed for the
fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that
would help improve our understanding of the Highlands region and
provide immediate protection for some of its most high value resource
areas:
forest legacy program
The Highlands Coalition supports three important Forest Legacy
projects in the Highlands that have been put forward by the States of
New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.
The Sparta Mountain South tract in the northwestern section of the
N.J. Highlands seeks $3.9 million to extend the Sparta Mountain
greenway in rural Sussex County. These 2,200 acres of rugged mountains
and streams provide an important greenway corridor between Allamuchy
State Park and the Sparta Mountain Wildlife Management Area. Sparta
Mountain South provides habitat for many endangered species and
neotropical migratory birds.
The Surprise Lake project in the New York Highlands seeks $1
million to conserve 648 acres most notable for wonderful recreation
values and watershed protection. The project lies in the middle of a
network of protected lands that is being assembled across the Hudson
Highlands, a scenic area accessible from New York City by public
transit or automobile in less than an hour. The Surprise Lake project
area features scenic vistas from high ridgelines, long distance hiking
opportunities, and represents one of the highest quality mountain
recreation opportunities within close range of the New York
metropolitan area. The project area also protects the Breakneck Brook,
a key tributary of the Hudson River, and provides valuable wildlife
habitat.
The Skiff Mountain project, part of a contiguous network of 7,000
acres in Western Connecticut, seeks $2.3 million to preserve 937 acres.
Skiff Mountain is part of the Housatonic River Watershed, which extends
from western Massachusetts to Long Island Sound. The mountain's
northern uplands-transitional hardwoods forest contains Class A streams
and habitat for black bear, bobcats, coyotes and neotropical songbirds.
Skiff Mountain borders on the Appalachian Trail, and is ranked number 1
among Connecticut projects this year.
highlands conservation act
The four states of the Highlands Coalition support the
appropriation of $10 million to preserve one Pennsylvania project, one
New Jersey project, one New York parcel, and three smaller Connecticut
properties, as listed below, plus $1 million for technical support.
--Oley Hills, PA
Cost: $2,800,000
HCA Request: $1,400,000
Size: 1,133 acres
The Oley Hills consists of a grouping of properties in the Oley
Hills core conservation area of the Reading Prong, the geologic
formation that lies at the heart of the Pennsylvania Highlands. The
Oley Hills project area boasts of three state-designated ``exceptional
value'' streams--Pine Creek, Oysterville Creek, and Saucony Creek.
These pristine waterways provide important water quality protection for
the Schuylkill River and are the subjects of state-funded watershed
protection plans.
--Wyanokie Highlands, NJ
Cost: $7,700,000
HCA Request: $3,850,000
Size: 1,288 acres (4 parcels)
The Wyanokie Highlands form the headwaters of Burnt Meadow and West
Brooks that flow into North Jersey's Wanaque Reservoir, which provides
drinking water for nearly two million NJ residents. The acquisition of
these four parcels will help complete a critical greenway in the
Wyanokies linking Long Pond Ironworks State Park with Norvin Green
State Forest. These parcels are the largest portion of the missing link
and include waterways of exceptional ecological significance, which
drain into the Wanaque Reservoir.
--Arrow Park, NY
Cost: $6,141,000
HCA Request: $3,000,000
Size: 267 acres
Arrow Park is the last significant property buffering Sterling
Forest State Park from residential and commercial development in the
Town of Monroe. This Project provides habitat for threatened species,
and protects wetlands critical to the health of the watershed in and
around Sterling Forest, which, in turn, provides drinking water to
millions of residents of New York and New Jersey. Matching funds for
this Project are anticipated from New York State and private
organizations. Arrow Park will be included in Sterling Forest State
Park and managed by the State of New York in accordance with the
Sterling Forest Master Plan.
--Jones Mountain, CT
Cost: $1,000,000
HCA Request: $500,000
Size: 151 acres
This 151-acre forested mountain provides the visual backdrop for
the Town of New Hartford that, along with the Farmington River, defines
the character of the fast-developing community of New Hartford. The
property consists of rugged old forest (primarily oak, black birch and
red maple), meadow and intermittent streams. Preservation of this area
is critical as half of the property drains into the East Mountain
Brook, a tributary to the Farmington River, a Federally designated Wild
and Scenic River. Any development would likely cause erosion that would
impact the watershed.
--Sweeton Pasture Lot, CT
Cost: $200,000
HCA Request: $100,000
Size: 44 acres
The Sweeton Pasture Lot is largely forested. Its forest is
primarily hardwood, with red oak, chestnut oak, black birch, white
birch, beech, hickory, as well as some stands of eastern hemlock and
white pine. The property also contains wetlands. The topography
primarily slopes to the east and south. There are scenic views in
several directions from a hilltop in the northwestern part of the
property. Acquisition of this property will protect habitat for a
number of migratory songbirds and large mammals, including black bear,
fisher, coyote, and bobcat.
--Embree, CT
Cost: $1,000,000
HCA Request: $500,000
Size: 80 acres
The site is located off of Route 37 on the Sherman/New Milford
border, and abuts several protected properties and non-subdividable
lots. The property would create a large undisturbed corridor within a
proposed trail system, and offer an ideal outdoor classroom for local
schools, universities and environmental organizations. The project
contains the highest point in the Town of Sherman and is the Town's
priority parcel for acquisition. This forested property is steep with
numerous rock outcrops, and contains an exceptionally large undisturbed
(ca 3-4 acre) vernal pool. It is very likely that the vernal pool
contains numerous species of reptiles and amphibians, many of which are
declining precipitously in the northeastern United States. The site
contains ideal habitat for Timber rattlesnake, bobcat and black bear as
well as a suite of other mammals and neo-tropical migratory birds.
Preservation of this site would be an important connection to already
protected properties in Sherman.
The $11 million includes $1 million for technical support and
research supplied by the U.S. Forest Service as specified in the HCA
bill, which will be used to extend the 2002 USFS study update to
Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
In conclusion, the Highlands Coalition is grateful for the
considerable federal investment that has been made over the last decade
to support conservation of the Highlands region. We would appreciate
the subcommittee's support for the important projects outlined above to
continue the fine partnership with states and local communities that is
steadily securing valuable natural resources across the region.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hoosic River Watershed Association
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
acquisition of Broad Brook watershed project in the Green Mountain
National Forest.
The Hoosic River Watershed Association is a 501(c)3 non-profit
citizens' group founded in 1986 and dedicated to the restoration,
conservation and enjoyment of the Hoosic River and its watershed,
through education, research, and advocacy. We envision a watershed that
is ecologically sound and adds to the quality of life of its residents.
The Broad Brook watershed is a subdivision of the Hoosic watershed. We
strongly support its acquisition because this is an unusual opportunity
to protect an entire tributary drainage basin. The potential benefits
go well beyond protecting habitat and water quality in the Broad Brook
basin itself. Both published literature and the results of our own
research in the Hoosic drainage have demonstrated that the type of land
use in tributary basins has a significant impact on the water quality
of the river mainstem. Thus the Hoosic's ability to support a healthy
coldwater fish community depends in large part on the cool, clean water
from tributaries that traverse forested landscapes. But it is
unrealistic to expect that these relatively pristine and commercially
desirable tributary basins will remain undeveloped in the coming years.
As their landscapes shift from forest and field to higher-impact land
uses, water quality and habitat will degrade throughout the watershed.
Making the Broad Brook subwatershed a part of Green Mountain National
Forest will be an important counter-measure against this trend.
The acquisition will provide other benefits as well. The Green
Mountains of Vermont are one of the northeast region's most popular and
heavily-visited areas, which each year draw millions of tourists
attracted to its scenic beauty. The Green Mountains region contains
outstanding natural resources such as wildlife habitat for black bear,
deer, and neotropical songbirds, as well as extensive timber resources.
The area boasts excellent trout streams and encompasses the watersheds
that provide drinking water for many Vermont communities. The
acquisition of properties in the Green Mountain National Forest
protects recreational opportunities that have long been important to
residents and visitors alike, such as camping, hiking, hunting, and
cross-country skiing.
Available for acquisition and completion in fiscal year 2006 is the
3,921-acre Broad Brook watershed property, located in the southernmost
portion of the forest just north of the Massachusetts border. For many
years, the Massachusetts city of North Adams, which owns this parcel,
used the Broad Brook watershed as a source of drinking water for city
residents. However, several years ago the city ceased depending on
Broad Brook for its water and is now interested in selling the
property. Located within the boundaries of the Green Mountain NF in the
towns of Pownal and Stamford, the Broad Brook property would be an
outstanding addition to this forest, known for its excellent
recreational opportunities and critical wildlife habitat.
The state of Vermont has mapped this parcel as being entirely
within black bear production habitat, regions which support high
densities of cub producing females. On the property there can be found
a large and healthy population of the state threatened Large Whorled
Pogonia (Isotria verticillata), and close to 7 miles of pristine
headwater streams. A portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail,
which in this part of Vermont coincides with the Long Trail, passes
across the Broad Brook property. The tract is adjacent to other Forest
Service ownership, the Stamford Meadows Wildlife Management Area--a
state-owned sanctuary--as well as other conservation lands near the
town of Pownal.
On November 2, 2004, the town of Pownal voted 2-1 in favor of
purchase of the Broad Brook parcel by the GMNF. With that approval and
with an additional $2 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2006, the
USFS can move to complete this critical acquisition. The forest is also
pursuing other high priority acquisitions totaling $1.5 million,
allowing for continued management of important wildlife species as well
as ensuring public access to the Appalachian Trail and other recreation
opportunities in this popular national forest.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska
Native Culture and Arts Development
summary of fiscal year 2006 request: $10.5 million
IAIA's fiscal year 2006 federal budget request for operations,
endowment, and matching funds for capital construction of a center for
lifelong education are as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2006 Institutional Operations.................... 6.5
Capital Construction Matching Funds to a W.K. Kellogg 4.5
Foundation Challenge Grant..................................
----------
Total Request of Fiscal Year 2006...................... 10.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
executive summary
IAIA promotes Native American cultural life and its artistic
expression through post-secondary instruction, research, artistry and
scholarship. The Institute enables its Native students to deepen and
rediscover their living heritage of language, history, and culture
through the creative arts.
Academic Programs.--IAIA offers Associate and Baccalaureate degrees
in Studio Arts (AFA, BFA), Visual Communications (AAS, BFA), Creative
Writing (AA, BFA) and Museum Studies (AFA and BA).
Accreditation.--IAIA is fully accredited by the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) and by the National
Association of Schools of Arts and Design (NASAD), the only national
professional accrediting agency in higher education covering the entire
field of art and design that is recognized by the U.S. Department of
Education.
In 2004 IAIA underwent rigorous evaluations and an accreditation
site review by NCA and NASAD. Both visiting teams not only approved the
continued accreditation of the Institute, but raised the Institute's
standing to a ten-year status--the highest level of achievement
possible for colleges and universities. However, the accreditation
final report concluded that further emphasis be placed on the
stabilization of the Institute's base federal funding for operations,
endowment, and capital construction. In accordance with accreditation
mandates, this budget request lays out specific recommendations for
sustained operations, along with appropriate funding increases, for the
further stabilization and strengthening of IAIA's education programs
and facilities.
Operating Budget Request of $6.5 million.--To begin to address
defined five-year goals, including important assessment and
accreditation mandates, IAIA's federal budget request represents a
$500,000 increase over fiscal year 2005 funding. The accreditation
reports require a stronger assessment and stability of financial
systems. Because core funding is not obtained from the State of New
Mexico, it is essential that a particular emphasis be placed on core
federal support. The Institute will continue to leverage funds to
ensure jointly supported planned improvements. Further justifications
for this request are found in the previously submitted comprehensive
budget.
Request for Federal Matching Funds of $4 million to meet a W.K.
Kellogg Challenge Grant.--As authorized by its legislation, the
Institute is committed to the creation of a center for lifelong
education, scholarly research and cultural exchange to express the
various dimensions of Native cultures to all peoples. As presented in
previous federal requests, IAIA won a national competition for a $2
million grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to plan and design this
new center, which will be located on IAIA's campus. The new center is
projected to serve 16,000 participants annually. Construction and
development costs are projected at $37 million, of which $21 million
has been secured. Diversified support for remaining costs is being
secured through private, state, and tribal partnerships.
Of critical importance, the Kellogg Foundation has committed an
additional $16 million, but requires a federal match of a total of $8
million. Thus far, IAIA has secured almost $4 million in federal
dollars through appropriations and competitive programs. IAIA's fiscal
year 2006 request of the remaining $4 million will secure this large
private sector grant opportunity for the direct benefit of Indian
peoples and their communities.
background and key facts
IAIA, originally established in 1962, has produced the majority of
North America's most successful Indian artists. Founded as a Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) high school, IAIA has evolved into a federally
chartered four-year college, building its own campus and operating the
national American Indian Arts Museum in the historic plaza of Santa Fe.
Charter and Mission.--IAIA moved out of the control of the BIA into
a Congressionally chartered institution in 1988 and is authorized under
Public Law 99-498, as amended. This law affirms and acknowledges that
Native cultures and arts are critical to the nation and deems it
appropriate and essential for the federal government to provide base
support to IAIA in the advancement, preservation, and promotion of
diverse Native cultures and arts. IAIA's mission is to serve as the
national center of research, training, language and scholarship for
Native Americans and Alaska Natives through the dedicated study,
creative application, preservation and care of our Native cultures and
arts.
Governance.--IAIA is governed by a board of trustees (majority
Native) appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed
by the Senate.
Funding.--As a national post-secondary institution, IAIA's
operations are funded through direct federal support and a diversified
private sector approach to foundations, corporations, tribes, and
individual donors. It does not receive state support for base
operations.
Museum.--IAIA's enabling legislation also authorizes funding to the
IAIA Museum and specifies its dual purpose of public education and
presentation. Its facilities and collections provide hands-on training
for students and faculty, and showcase student and alumni works. It
provides a highly visible venue for public relations, education, and
outreach, attracting over 50,000 visitors annually. The museum also
houses the largest National Collection of Indian Contemporary Art with
more than 6,500 pieces.
Campus.--In 1989, 140 acres was donated to the Institute for the
establishment of a permanent campus. IAIA developed the infrastructure
for site development and created an impressive master campus plan. The
first phase of new campus construction is nearly complete.
Student Body.--IAIA's student body represents virtually every state
in the country, as it enrolls 70-90 percent of the 562 federally
recognized tribes. On average, over 90 percent of enrolled students
come from impoverished reservations located in isolated communities
with family income levels below federal poverty standards. Graduates
become renowned artists and/or highly respected professionals in tribal
communities and mainstream society.
Tuition.--IAIA is strongly committed to assisting its student body
access both federal and private sources of scholarship, financial aid
and other tuition assistance public and private programs. Tuition rates
are similar to community colleges in the Santa Fe area.
Performance Measures.--IAIA undergoes rigorous assessment through
reviews by mainstream accreditation committees and meets strict
evaluation standards. It holds dual accreditation as a four-year fine
arts college by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools
and the National Association of Schools of Art and Design. In 2004 it
achieved 10-year accreditation, the highest standard in higher
education.
Community Outreach and Support.--Through public education and
outreach, IAIA serves over 50,000 students, community members and
national and international visitors annually. Please note that this
budget request has the unanimous support of the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium, All Indian Pueblo Council, National Congress of
the American Indian, and National Indian Education Association.
justifications and highlights of major successes.
Student Graduation Rates.--While IAIA's Baccalaureate degree
programs are new and still under evaluation, IAIA's Associate degree
programs have a 42 percent graduation success rate as compared with the
22 percent national average rate of mainstream higher education
institutions.
Library and Technology Center (LTC).--Through federal, state and
private support, IAIA built a new center for academic learning,
research, and study. The LTC houses a Computer Lab, Learning Resource
Center, a student support center, and extensive book collections and
photographic archives. The library's collection is available locally
and internationally via the online catalog on our Web site.
Native Circle.--A Program for Student Success. IAIA instituted a
groundbreaking initiative to increase student academic success and
retention through culturally-based learning assistance. Native Circle
creates culturally integrated support to meet the needs of our unique
population of students. Native Circle promotes student success and
provides support in all arenas of the student experience.
Film Program for Native American Writers, Directors, and Actors.--
In partnership with ABC Entertainment, Walt Disney, Screen Actors Guild
and the National Museum of the American Indian, IAIA created a new
initiative to further the advancement of Native Americans pursuing
careers in the entertainment industry. Several participants won highly
competitive ABC Talent Scholarships, and Walt Disney and ABC
Entertainment Writing Fellowships.
current challenges
Federal investment has been critical to IAIA's evolution and
numerous achievements. Appropriations for new campus construction were
leveraged by over 60 percent in state, private, and other federal
competitive grant programs, allowing the Institute to establish the
first phase of its own campus.
Although IAIA has developed from a two-year college into a four-
year institution, appropriations increases have averaged less than four
percent from 1998 to 2004. Operating expenses have had to be kept to a
minimum despite the tremendous development of a four-year curriculum.
Although the Institute achieved the highest accreditation for its four-
year programs, it suffers from inadequate resources to build an
appropriate infrastructure to support its new designation.
Institutional assessments conducted by accreditation boards this past
year highlighted key shortfalls within IAIA's infrastructure. The
following three major areas were identified:
--Operations.--Strengthening of current operational systems and
stabilization of core operations financed by the Federal
Government.
--Compensation.--Implementation of an appropriate compensatory
structure to support competitive markets, factoring in Santa
Fe's high cost of living, and the professional development, and
new hires of credentialed faculty for four-year programs.
--New Systems.--Implementation of new systems and reorganization to
address shortfalls in current systems.
conclusion
It is without doubt that the accomplishments of IAIA have been
outstanding over the past five years. We proudly and respectfully
commit this budget request to the United States Congress for review and
consideration. We greatly value our partnership to sustain and
strengthen this important institution, its many achievements, and a
future full of promise for the continuous cultural advancement of our
diverse tribal nations. Thank you for your serious consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Society of Tropical Foresters
As a former member of the USDA Forest Service Research Program and
current President of the International Society of Tropical Foresters, I
am pleased to see an increase of $9.016 million in the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget for Forest Service Research and Development (FS
R&D). Also pleasing are the increases in funding for the Forest
Inventory and Analysis and the Biobased Products and Bioenergy programs
above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These are important and
positive increases.
However, I see problems with the lack of recognition of the need
for additional silviculturists to strengthen the Healthy Forests
Restoration program. Silviculturists in Forest Service Programs
generally (in National Forests, Research and Development, and State and
Private Forestry) have been reduced in numbers at an alarming rate
during the past several years. Yet, they are needed to plan and carry
out thinning of fire hazardous forest lands and in restoring cut and
burned over forest lands through planting or natural regeneration
programs. Silviculturists have always been the backbone of Forest
Service management programs, and they are essential to current Healthy
Forests Restoration programs working together with other specialists in
water, fire, insects, diseases, ecology and wildlife habitat. I
recommend that the Forest Service recognize the need for more
silviculturists in Research and Development as well as in non-research
programs of the Forest Service. This would require at least an increase
in funding of $2 million more for Research and Development and
additional funding for the other two branches of the Forest Service.
The rest of the President's fiscal year 2006 budget looks good,
although I would like to add a little special detail on two
International Research Institutes that are a part of the overall
Research programs.
international institute of tropical forestry in puerto rico
The International Institute of Tropical Forestry (IITF) has a
mission of research that contributes to the sustainable use of forest
resources, the conservation of primary forests, the rehabilitation of
degraded lands and the management of wildlife and watersheds. This work
is conducted in an extensive network of collaborators with the
Institute in Puerto Rico, other Caribbean islands, and in Latin
America. The decrease of $51,000 in the fiscal year 2006 budget for
IITF will impact research on watershed conditions and invasive plants
and animals and the delivery and practical use of all of the research
programs of IITF.
I would like to see the $51,000 decrease restored, and an increase
of $300,000 for silvicultural research aimed at sustainable forest
management practices in the fiscal year 2006 budget for IITF.
institute of pacific islands forestry in hawaii
The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF) in Hawaii has a
mission of research on invasive species, forested wetlands, and
ecosystem restoration. The President's fiscal year 2006 budget for IPIF
includes a $65,000 increase over fiscal year 2005. This increase will
be used to strengthen research on invasive species. However, other
programs that supplement or support research on ecosystem restoration
include watershed research, fire research (especially since invasive
species have created fire prone situations) and wetlands research. This
work needs to continue. The $100,000 decrease in mangrove and wetlands
research, as well as ridge to reef studies, should be restored. An
additional increase of $300,000 for silvicultural research in the
fiscal year 2006 budget for IPIF would greatly enhance work to restore
native ecosystems in Hawaii.
Previous FS budgets have made possible the construction of an
office and laboratory facility to house the IPIF R&D and outreach
programs. The construction of this facility in Hilo, Hawaii began in
early 2004, and I am pleased to see that IPIF will soon occupy these
new quarters.
I would like to be sure that the $65,000 increase in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget for IPIF be retained in the overall
FS R&D budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC)
summary
Mr. Chairman, I am Nolan C. Colegrove, Sr., President of the
Intertribal Timber Council. I am a member of the Hoopa Tribe and serve
as their Forest Manager. I am pleased to present the following
recommendations for fiscal year 2006 Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
Forest Service and Department of Energy appropriations:
(1) Reject the BIA's proposed restructuring of the BIA budget,
(2) Restore Endangered Species funding in Non-Recurring Programs--
Resources Management, to $2.6 million and add $4 million for activities
involving ESA,
(3) Implement IFMAT II report recommendations to--
(a) increase BIA Forestry base funding by $119.6 million, and
(b) integrate Interior BIA fire funding into the BIA base
Forestry budget,
(4) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Real
Estate Services, and retain the $1.6 million proposed increase for
Regional Office Land Titles and Records,
(5) Within Wildland Fire funding in BLM, direct BIA to develop a
Native American fire crew leadership training program,
(6) Add $17.5 million to Forest Service State & Private Forestry to
fund recently authorized Tribal and State Forested Watershed Assistance
Programs,
(7) Restore Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management funding in
Forest Service State and Private Forestry to the fiscal year 2005 level
of $47.6 million, and
(8) Add $100 million in Energy Department Energy Conservation for
biomass programs being authorized in H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of
2005.
intertribal timber council background
The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a twenty-nine year old
organization of seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native
organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.7
million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.5 million
woodland acres that are under BIA trust management. These lands provide
vitally important habitat, cultural and spiritual sites, recreation and
subsistence uses, and through commercial forestry, income for the
tribes and jobs for their members. In Alaska, the forests of Native
corporations and thousands of individual allotments are equally
important to their owners. To all our membership, our forests and
woodlands are essential to our physical, cultural, and economic well-
being, and their proper management is our foremost concern.
reject the bia's proposed restructuring of the bia budget
Mr. Chairman, the ITC urges Congress to reject the BIA's proposed
restructuring of its Operation of Indian Programs budget for fiscal
year 2006. The restructuring undermines tribal government and Self-
Determination, and provides the BIA with greater autonomy to shift
funding as it chooses. In the current climate of intense budget
pressures, the BIA should have increased responsibility to inform the
tribes about the use of the money that is supposed to be provided to
meet tribal needs and federal trust obligations. Greater detail,
transparency, and accountability are needed, not less. Restructuring
would eliminate TPA and create amorphous pools of funds that will be
easier for the BIA to manipulate, out of view of the very tribes the
budget is to assist. The current budget system was developed and
implemented by tribes, the BIA and Congress in fiscal year 1993 to
clearly identify all BIA funds subject to tribal control. The BIA
budget is intended to serve the tribes, not the bureaucracy.
Restructuring the BIA budget is exceptionally complicated and
controversial; tribal involvement and consultation must be required
before the BIA is granted the authority to implement what it has
characterized as a ``needs-based budget.'' The BIA is already failing
to adequately fund almost all of its programs, including its trust
resource obligations; giving the BIA virtually carte blanche authority
to shift and distribute this scarcity among the tribes will be an
unending source of BIA mischief and increasing distrust among the
tribes. At the very least, any such plan would be disruptive and
extremely controversial. Shifting funds would destabilize both Self-
Governance tribes and direct service tribes. Further, the proposed
budget justification is vague and apparently anticipates differential
administrative treatment. ``One set of standards should apply to
programs managed directly by BIA. Another set of standards should be
applied to BIA's management of grants under Indian Self-
Determination.'' BIA-OIP-1.
restore endangered species funding in non-recurring programs--resources
management, to $2.6 million and add $4 million for activities involving
the esa
We request that the BIA Endangered Species program be restored to
its fiscal year 2001 level of $2.6 million, and that another $4 million
be added to address unmet needs for funding to support tribal
activities involving the ESA. Even at current levels, for instance, the
BIA Pacific Region states its ESA program is so underfunded it cannot
fund one full-time biologist, yet there are over 290 federally listed
species and 102 federally recognized Indian tribes within the Region.
For fiscal year 2006, BIA is proposing to cut its ESA program to
$210,000, effectively eliminating the only funding identified in the
BIA budget for field-level ESA compliance activity. The fiscal year
2006 BIA Justification frankly acknowledges this on page BIA-NRP-17,
stating ``the reduction will curtail the ESA compliance effort for
individual timber sales.'' We fear that the virtual elimination of the
ESA program would increase the difficulty of harvesting Indian timber
in accordance with tribal management plans and violate the federal
trust responsibility. Tribal governments would be deprived of needed
jobs and revenue, and tribal forests themselves would be placed in
jeopardy of catastrophic loss due to wildfire, insects and disease
because of the inability to properly manage forest stocking levels. It
is sadly bizarre that the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife
Service budget is proposing $80 million for ESA grants to states and
territories, for which the United States does not have a trust
responsibility.
implement ifmat ii report recommendations to--(a) increase bia forestry
base funding by $119.6 million, and (b) integrate interior bia fire
funding into the bia base forestry budget
The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act (Public Law
101-630) Section 312 (25 U.S.C. 3111) requires the Interior Secretary
to provide for an independent assessment and report on the status of
Indian forests and forest management every ten years. The first Indian
Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT-I) report was issued in
November, 1993, and the second (IFMAT-II) in December, 2003. In
addressing its statutory mandates, the IFMAT II report recommends, and
the ITC urges, that BIA base Forestry funding be increased by $119.6
million to bring it into per acre funding parity with the Forest
Service (IFMAT-II page 98). This increase would include funding for
several unfunded federal mandates that expose tribal timber sales to
the prospect of challenge and shut-down, hindering forest health and
depriving tribes of revenue; for example, the current BIA budget
provides no identified funds for archeological surveys required by the
National Historic Preservation Act.
The IFMAT-II report also recommends that fire funding be made a
permanent part of BIA's base Forestry funding in order to efficiently
address forest health as part of overall Indian forest management
(IFMAT-II page 60). The ITC agrees and requests the Committee to shift
funding for BIA fire and fuels management and preparedness to Forestry
in Non-Recurring Programs. IFMAT-II stresses the contribution that
fire-related funding (fuels management, preparedness, and emergency
stabilization) has made to tribal forestry since 1991. For 2001, the
total BIA Forestry budget including base program funding and fire
funding is $9.38 an acre, or two-thirds the $13.70 per acre combined
base and fire funding for the Forest Service. While fire funding has
helped reduce the funding disparity with National Forests, integration
of BIA fire funds with funding for other programs would lead to more
effective and coordinated management, while avoiding duplication of
effort and other inefficiencies.
add $8 million to cadastral surveys in non-recurring real estate
services, and retain the $1.6 million proposed increase for regional
office land titles and records
We request that fiscal year 2006 BIA funding for cadastral surveys
be increased to $16 million. We also note that the BLM itself has
statutory responsibilities to provide cadastral surveys on Indian trust
lands, and we ask that the BLM be directed to institute such a program
as part of its baseline responsibilities. Reliable and accurate
boundaries and clear, current title are essential for the management of
Indian trust lands and resources. Without them, land use and management
are clouded, its income subject to question, and its protection
jeopardized. A lack of surveys is a major cause of timber trespass.
We support the requested fiscal year 2006 increase of $1.6 million
for Land Titles and Records in Regional Office Trust Services, although
we remain concerned about the adequacy of funding for this program.
within wildland fire funding in blm, direct bia to develop a native
american fire crew leadership training program
We request that the BIA be directed to develop a Native American
fire crew leadership training program. Native American crews constitute
25 percent of the line fire work force and have proven to be invaluable
assets for protecting both Indian and non-Indian forests and
communities. There is an increasing need for fire crew leadership
training to improve the readiness and field effectiveness of tribal
fire crews. Failure to do so could endanger the safety and hinder the
deployment of otherwise fully trained and able tribal fire crews.
add $17.5 million to forest service state & private forestry to fund
recently authorized tribal and state forested watershed assistance
programs
We request funding to initiate both tribal and state watershed
assistance programs in fiscal year 2006. Title III of the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act (Public Law 108-148) establishes needed
watershed forestry assistance programs for states (Section. 302, $15
million) and for tribes (Section 303, $2.5 million). The combined
authorized funding for these two programs is $17.5 million a year. With
drought now encroaching on the West, healthy forested watersheds are
becoming especially important for their role in capturing, holding,
filtering, and releasing steady supplies of clean water, providing
riparian and other habitat, and assuring sustainable fire-resistant
forest stands. Fire and drought imperil watersheds that often span
jurisdictional boundaries. Funding of both the tribal and state
watershed programs is essential to help communities, particularly
smaller rural communities like those found on Indian reservations, to
actively participate in collaborative watershed management.
restore cooperative lands forest health management funding in forest
service state and private forestry to the fiscal year 2005 level of
$47.6 million
Pest, disease, and invasive species management on Indian trust land
is funded in USFS Forest Health Management for Federal Lands, and the
ITC supports maintaining the adequacy of that budget. The ITC also
urges that funding for Forest Health Funding on Cooperative Lands be
restored to its fiscal year 2005 level. It is essential to address
forest health on a broad landscape basis; where ownership patterns are
complex, inadequate coverage on Coop lands increases the prospects of
damage to neighboring Federal and tribal lands, with a consequent loss
of forest productivity.
add $100 million in energy department energy conservation for biomass
programs being authorized in h.r. 6, the energy policy act of 2005
Many timber tribes are pursuing biomass to reduce costs of forest
health treatments by generating electricity, and we urge that $100
million be added to the Dept. of Energy budget in anticipation of the
programs being authorized in Section 939 of H.R. 6.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
As President of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this testimony,
which reflects the needs, concerns and issues of the tribal membership
arising from the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget.
indian education
Johnson O'Malley. We urge the Subcommittee to restore $8.8 million
to the Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program.--The Administration proposes
substantial cuts to education funding, and Indian education has been
especially hit hard. Of particular significance to the Band is the
proposed $8.8 million decrease in JOM funding--cutting funding for this
program in half. The JOM program provides funding for supplemental
education programs for Indian students attending public schools.
Because the Band's member children attend public schools, this funding
forms the core of the Band's education program. We urge the
Subcommittee to restore full funding to this program.
Lac du Flambeau Education Program. The Band also requests an
additional appropriation of $93,000 for its education program.--The
Band's education program has been historically under-funded. It is
impossible to demonstrate the successful performance required by the
Administration for continued funding when the program has never been
fully funded in the first instance.
The Band received only $56,134 in JOM funding in fiscal year 2005.
Of this, $45,000 supports an Indian Student Mentor at the local high
school, and the balance is used to partially fund the Tribal Education
Coordinator. The mentor program is very important to our freshman
students, who arrive at the high school as a minority after graduating
from the majority-Indian Reservation grade school. The mentor provides
support and intervention to ease this transition. However, we have 520
grade school students who are not served by the JOM program due to lack
of funding. An additional $93,000 is required to meet the basic needs
of these students.
natural and cultural resources
Circle of Flight. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to restore
$592,000 for the Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative
(Circle of Flight), which the Administration proposes to eliminate
entirely.--Congress has restored this funding when it was targeted in
past years, and the Band would like to thank the Subcommittee for
understanding how important this program is in restoring and preserving
our Nation's wetlands and waterfowl populations. The preservation and
restoration of wetlands is vital to the culture and economy of the
Great Lakes region. Moreover, in addition to waterfowl habitat and
gathering areas, wetlands are important in providing flood control,
clean water and recreation, benefiting residents up and down the
Mississippi Flyway. Your strong support of this program is required
again.
Wildlife and Parks. We urge this Subcommittee to restore full
funding to the Wildlife and Parks budget, including the proposed $4.2
million cut to tribal management and development programs.--Tribes are
leaders in natural resource protection and this funding is essential to
maintain these programs. The Band has a comprehensive Natural Resource
Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in natural
resource and land management. Our activities include raising fish for
stocking, conservation law enforcement, data collection on water and
air quality, developing well head protection plans, conducting wildlife
surveys and administering timber stand improvement projects on the
86,000-acre reservation.
The Band also requests the Subcommittee set aside $200,000 for Lac
du Flambeau--$100,000 for Fish Hatchery Operations and $100,000 for
Management and Development.--The Wildlife and Parks budget has not
increased significantly since 1990, and the Band requires additional
funding to continue its fish hatchery and management programs.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. The Band requests that $9.9
million be allocated within the Historic Preservation Fund for Tribal
Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).--In 1995, Congress began
encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as
part of self-determination. There are currently 54 tribes in the United
States--six in Wisconsin--approved by the Secretary to administer
historic preservation programs. These programs conserve fragile places,
objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history and
sovereignty.
As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding
every year. In fiscal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average
award of $154,000; in fiscal year 2005, there are 54 THPOs, and the
Band will likely receive $48,000. Paradoxically, the more successful
the program becomes overall, the less each tribe receives to maintain
professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. The requested
appropriation would provide a modest base funding amount of $180,000
per THPO program.
Lac du Flambeau Boarding School Historic Restoration. The Band
requests an appropriation of $337,653 from the Saving America's
Treasures Account for the restoration of the Lac du Flambeau Boys and
Girls Indian School, as a historic site.--From 1895-1932, the Lac du
Flambeau boarding school was operated with the purpose of assimilating
Indian children from the region. The school's history represents a
snapshot of a painful era of American Indian policy faced by our
ancestors. Unfortunately, this story is rarely told in present day
textbooks. The Band's goals in restoring the buildings are to provide a
place to tell the story of the boarding school era--a story of cultural
survival and personal endurance in the face of seemingly insurmountable
obstacles--and to honor those who kept our tribal traditions alive in
these difficult circumstances. Funding would cover exterior and
interior restoration and associated infrastructure, personnel and
engineering costs.
Forestry. The Band requests that the Subcommittee earmark $107,000
for the Lac du Flambeau Forestry Department.--The Reservation contains
46,000 acres of forested land that supports hunting, gathering and
employment opportunities for tribal members. Proper management of the
forest is essential not only to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but
also to provide economic growth for the Band. Two foresters and one
technician undertake a broad range of management activities, including
tree planting, prescribed burning, forest road design and maintenance,
and timber sale establishment and administration. The total cost of
operating the forestry program is $217,000, but the program received
only $98,672 in fiscal year 2005--a decrease from previous years--and
has not received a substantial funding increase since 1991. Additional
funding is needed to maintain forest development, timber sale
management and wildfire control activities. Forest management requires
secure, long-term funding to be cost-effective and demonstrate results.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. The Band also
supports funding for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC) in the amount of $4,196,000 to meet the needs
outlined in the Commission's testimony submitted to this
Subcommittee.--The Band is a member of the Commission, which assists
the Band in protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting,
fishing and gathering rights.
pay cost shortages for bia public law 93-638 employees
We urge the Subcommittee to restore full Public Law 93-638 pay cost
funding for tribes in fiscal year 2006 and to restore pay cost funding
not received in fiscal year 2002-2005 through a special
appropriation.--Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, many tribes
have assumed responsibility for providing core services to their
members. If these services were provided by the federal government,
employees would receive pay cost increases mandated by federal law.
While tribal governments have assumed this responsibility, Congress and
Interior have failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes
have the same resources to carry out these functions. Tribes received
only 75 percent of the pay cost adjustment in fiscal year 2002, 15
percent in fiscal year 2003 and approximately 30 percent in fiscal year
2004. This inequity threatens to undermine tribal self-determination.
The Band also requests an appropriation of $59,600 to provide a 5
percent cost of living increase for its employees.--Funding for the
Band's most critical core services, including law enforcement, courts,
education, natural resource management and social services, has eroded
significantly in recent years because of the lack of appropriate pay
cost increases. The requested appropriation would cover a 5 percent
cost of living adjustment for the Band's program employees within TPA,
Management and Development and Fish Hatchery Operations.
environmental protection agency
Indian General Assistance Program. The Band requests that the
Subcommittee increase funding for the Indian General Assistance Program
(GAP) by $10.8 million.--GAP funding is the primary federal mechanism
available for tribes to protect our lands. These funds, which provide
support for many of our programs, enable tribes to assume environmental
responsibilities delegated by EPA. We ask the Subcommittee to restore
the proposed $5 million cut to this program and to increase GAP funding
to at least $68.3 million to enable tribes to continue developing
environmental management infrastructure. We also ask you to clarify
that GAP funding can be used for development, implementation and
continued support of tribal environmental programs, not merely
``capacity building.''
Clean Water Program. We request restoration of full funding to the
Clean Water Program, including restoration of $171,000 from this fund
for the Band's Water Resources Program.--The Clean Water Program
provides grants to tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to
protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems. We received $171,000 in
fiscal year 2005, the minimum required to support the Band's program.
In fiscal year 2006, the Administration proposes to reduce this to
$150,000. Continued operation of the program requires restoration of
this $21,000 cut.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants. The Band supports restoration
of $643.9 million for State and Tribal Assistance Grants.--These grants
are used to support a variety of tribal environmental programs,
including water quality programs, and are an essential source of tribal
environmental funding.
indian health
We urge the Subcommittee to significantly increase funding for
Contract Health Care (CHC).--Federal funding for health services has
fallen dramatically behind the rising cost of health care over the past
five years. In fiscal year 2000, The Band's shortfall for health care
was $1.2 million. We anticipate the fiscal year 2005 shortfall to be in
excess of $2.9 million. This deficit has increased 136 percent or an
average annual increase of 27 percent. Despite rising costs, the
Administration proposes an increase of only $27 million for CHC. A
substantial funding increase is needed to address the need across
Indian county. In addition, we urge the Subcommittee to look at ways to
reduce costs for Indian health care. For example, currently vendors for
CHC are paid at full rates, rather than medical assistance rates. A
rate change would cut the Band's health care budget shortfall in half.
The Band also requests an appropriation of $8 million for
construction of a new clinic facility.--The inadequate design of the
present facility, which was not intended for use as a clinic, restricts
access to patient care and limits the quality of service we are capable
of providing to community. A new facility would improve patient access
to providers, enable the Band to provide wellness education and health
screenings for cancer and diabetes, and reduce payments to outside
vendors because more high cost services could be provided on-site.
______
Prepared Statement of the Mesa County Commissioners
The Mesa County Commissioners urge you to support the proposed $1.5
million appropriation to the Bureau of Land Management from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Colorado Canyons National
Conservation Area.
As you may be aware, Mesa County lies on the Western border of
Colorado and covers 3,309 square miles. The percentage of public lands
in Mesa County is 71 percent. We work very closely with the Bureau of
Land Management.
Located in west central Colorado and straddling a 23-mile stretch
of the Colorado River within Colorado and Utah, the 122,300-acre
Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area (NCA) contains a multitude
of nationally significant resources. This landscape supports a varied
range of recreational uses--activities such as floating the Colorado
River, big game hunting, hiking, camping, mountain biking, horseback
riding, and fossil viewing.
The 1.5-mile ``Trail Through Time'', administered by the BLM and
the Museum of Western Colorado, interprets fossilized dinosaur remains
found in a 140-million-year-old quarry. Twenty-five miles of the
internationally renowned Kokopelli Mountain Bike Trail pass through
Colorado Canyons NCA. The Kokopelli Trail receives 31,000 annual
visitors, and usership is projected to double by 2025. In addition, a
53-mile trail network, known as the Kokopelli Loop, lies within the
NCA.
In fiscal year 2006, the BLM has the opportunity to acquire and
protect a number of private parcels both on the Colorado River and at
other critical locations within the NCA from willing sellers, and which
represent the last significant in-holdings in the NCA.
Without protection, these properties face imminent threats from
rural residential development. Conserving them this year will
consolidate federal ownership within the Colorado Canyons NCA and
protect the area's unique richness of essential natural and
recreational resources.
Again, we urge you to give this project your strongest support
during the Congressional deliberations of the fiscal year 2006 Interior
Appropriations bill.
Thank you for your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is the only
national nonprofit conservation organization that advocates exclusively
for the national parks. Through public education, advocacy, and citizen
outreach, NPCA works to protect, preserve, and enhance America's
national parks for present and future generations. On behalf of
approximately 300,000 NPCA members, we appreciate the opportunity to
share our funding priorities and respectfully request the Committee
consider these views as you shape the fiscal year 2006 Interior budget.
operations of the national park system
A top NPCA priority is to significantly increase funding for Park
Service operations. NPCA is requesting an increase of $100 million
above the President's fiscal year 2006 request, $150 million above
current fiscal year 2005 spending levels, for a total of $1.8 billion
for Operations of the National Park System.
NPCA appreciates and supports the efforts in the President's budget
to cover fixed costs. In recent years, the parks have been stretched
thin by unbudgeted cost-of-living increases, un-reimbursed storm
damage, and insufficient funding for homeland security needs, which
have contributed to and compounded the burden of the annual operating
deficit.
However, the increase of $50.5 million for Operations of the
National Park System does not leave room for any programmatic increase
in the base operating budgets for the 388 NPS units. Without increased
programmatic funding to the parks, visitor service and resource
protection needs remain unmet at parks throughout the system.
NPCA greatly appreciates the effort of the Committee to work on a
bipartisan basis to address the core operating needs of the parks,
particularly the successful effort last year to significantly increase
the base operating budget of the parks. Continuing this effort in the
fiscal year 2006 is crucial.
Land Acquisition
NPCA supports a number of projects included in the President's
fiscal year 2006 National Park Service Federal Land Acquisition budget
request including: $8 million for Big Thicket National Preserve, $1.6
million for Lewis and Clark National Historic Site, $5.8 million for
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, $1.9 million for Wrangell-St.
Ellias National Park and Preserve, $3 million for Pinnacles National
Monument, $1.6 million for the Carter G. Woodson National Historical
Site, and $4.3 million for Flight 93 National Memorial.
In addition, NPCA respectfully requests the consideration of a
number of priority NPS land acquisition projects listed below.
--Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, TN
Request.--$2,062,500
Description.--Funding is needed to purchase 625 acres (2 tracts)
within the authorized boundary of the Big South Fork NRRA. There are
approximately 5,900 acres of privately held property within the
boundary of the park, much of it threatened by development near the
gorge.
--George Washington Birthplace National Monument, VA
Request.--$2,000,000
Description.--Funding is needed to purchase two tracts of land in
the expanded boundary of the park. Public Law 107-354, signed into law
by President Bush in 2002, authorized expansion of the park's boundary
by 112 acres. Now being marketed by commercial real estate interests,
this land is surrounded by parkland, the Potomac River, and its
tributary, Pope's Creek.
--Gettysburg National Military Park, PA
Request.--$2,000,000
Description.--Funding is needed to purchase in-holdings from
willing sellers. Of the 5,989 acres inside Gettysburg's boundary,
nearly 20 percent or 1,154 acres remains privately owned. The last
funding provided to acquire threatened lands at Gettysburg was in
fiscal year 2001.
--Grand Teton National Park, WY
Request.--$4,600,000
Description.--Funding is needed to purchase from willing sellers
4.37 acres adjacent to the Moose-Wilson road, known as the ``Hartgrave
Property.'' This property is a critical wildlife area and highly
visible to park visitors.
--Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, WV
Request.--$3,000,000
Description.--Funding is needed to acquire Schoolhouse Ridge
properties inside the park boundary. Public Law 108-307 authorized the
addition of 1,240 acres (191 acres which is privately owned) to the
park. The $2.9 million approved in fiscal year 2005 will be applied to
acquisition of two tracts totaling 111 acres. This land outside
Washington, DC faces significant development threats.
--Lewis & Clark National Historic Park, OR/WA
Request.--$3,750,000
Description.--Funding is needed to complete acquisitions to
coincide with the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration in November
2005. Public Law 108-387 re-designated Fort Clatsop National Memorial
as Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, expanding the boundary of
the park. The President's fiscal year 2006 Budget includes $1,600,000
to purchase approximately 160 acres of property from Cathlamet Timber
to complete the Dismal Unit in Washington. An additional $2,150,000 is
needed to acquire property from the Garvin family and complete the new
Station Camp unit in Washington, and a smaller acquisition adjacent to
Fort Clatsop to complete the acquisition from Weyerhauser in Oregon.
--Mount Rainier National Park, Carbon River Valley, WA
Request.--$4,000,000
Description.--Funding is needed to complete acquisition of 800
acres from willing sellers to address seasonal flooding and improve
road access to the park. Local land conservancies are purchasing
options on these lands to protect the lands from development adjacent
to the park.
--Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN
Request.--$3,174,000
Description.--Funding is needed toward the acquisition of 1,397
acres to protect from development the wild values for which the park
unit was established. Currently one-third of the land within the park
boundary is in private ownership. $750,000 was appropriated in fiscal
year 2004 for such purposes.
--Petrified Forest National Park, AZ
Request.--$5,000,000
Description.--Funding is needed to begin the purchase of private
lands incorporated into the park through the Petrified Forest National
Park Expansion Act signed into law by President Bush in 2004 (Public
Law 108-430). The expansion will protect globally significant
paleontological resources, as well as nationally significant
archeological resources. There are currently approximately 79,500
privately owned acres within the expansion.
--Valley Forge National Historic Park, PA
Request.--$4,500,000
Description.--Funding is needed to acquire lands north of the
Schuylkill River. Nearly 400 acres within the park boundary remains
privately-owned in one of the fastest growing areas in the state.
Valley Forge preserves, protects, and maintains the cultural and
natural resources associated with the encampment of Gen. Washington's
Continental Army.
--Virgin Islands National Park, USVI
Request.--$850,000
Description.--Funding is needed to acquire a 1-acre high priority
land tract (Penn Property) located adjacent to the 376-acre Maho Bay
Estate. This area is under significant development pressure that
threatens to disrupt the character of the park, including the
spectacular views of Maho Bay and public access to the scenic shoreline
and waters of the park. This fragile area contains large nesting
colonies of brown pelicans, as well as migratory warblers and terns
that make their winter homes on St. John.
--California Desert Parks, CA (Death Valley NP, Joshua NP, Mojave
National N. Pres)
Request.--$1,000,000
Description.--Funding would be used in fiscal year 2006 toward the
purchase of desert park in-holdings from willing sellers. There are
substantial numbers of private property parcels located within the
boundaries of the Mojave National Preserve, Joshua Tree and Death
Valley. For example, within Mojave alone there are over 1,100
privately-owner parcels and over 300 willing sellers. These funds would
match private dollars raised by the National Park Foundation, which has
already worked to identify, map, and prioritize in-holdings for
purchase from willing sellers.
Construction
--Death Valley National Park, CA--Install Photovoltaic System on
Visitor Center/Headquarters Complex and Replace Roof
Request.--$606,000
Description.--The roof on the Furnace Creek Visitor Center and
Headquarters Complex needs to be replaced. It currently leaks and
drains into the visitor center at the front desk area where visitors
pay entrance fees and receive information. Death Valley proposes to
replace the old roof and install a new one with a 50 kW photovoltaic
(PV) system. The PV system would provide approximately 30 percent of
the Furnace Creek complex's annual energy demand. The PV system would
be interpreted to the public to showcase National Parks Service's
sustainability efforts.
--Everglades National Park, FL--Modify Water Delivery System
Request.--$25,000,000
Description.--NPCA supports the Presidents fiscal year 2006 request
of $25,000,000 within the Department of Interior budget for a Modify
Water Delivery System, as well as the $35,000,000 from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. This funding is critical to ensure significant
restoration benefits for Everglades National Park and the South Florida
Ecosystem.
--Hamilton Grange National Monument, NY--Relocation and Restoration
of Alexander Hamilton's Home
Request.--$10,465,000
Description.--Funding is requested to move the Hamilton house to a
new location within Hamilton's original property lines. Public Law 106-
482, signed into law in 2000 authorized the Secretary of the Interior
to acquire by donation suitable land to serve as the new location for
the home of Alexander Hamilton and to authorize its relocation to the
acquired land. The 1995 approved General Management Plan for the Grange
called for its relocation and restoration.
--Seward, Alaska--Mary Lowell Visitor Center
Request.--$9,800,000
Description.--Funding is requested to replace the Park Service's
deficient visitor center/administration facility with a multi-agency
facility in Seward that will serve the Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service and Alaska State Parks. Under previous appropriations,
sufficient land has been acquired for such purposes.
Other
--National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom
NPCA supports the President's Budget request of $482,000 for the
Network to Freedom (NTF) program managed by the Park Service and
respectfully requests an additional $1 million for NTF operations, and
$500,000 for NTF grants for a total request in fiscal year 2006 of
$1,982,000 for the Underground Network to Freedom program.
The Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program was created to
promote and preserve sites, partnerships, and programs that educate the
public about the historical significance of the Underground Railroad.
The current funding level of $482,000 for operations does not
adequately cover staff salaries or basic programmatic needs. The
President's fiscal year 2006 does not include any funding for NTF
grants nor any increase in operations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
This statement shares with the Subcommittee the views of the
National Recreation and Park Association on fiscal year 2006
appropriations for selected programs within its jurisdiction.
Referenced programs are administered by the National Park Service.
We recommend the following:
--$100,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for state
assistance to be invested by state and local governments on a
50/50 matching basis. Funds should be appropriated to the
states as authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act, Public Law 88-578, as amended.
--$25,000,000 to address the most distressed urban recreation
resource conditions and deficiencies identified and aided
through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. This
program funds no land acquisition.
--$9,700,000 for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
(RTCA) program to support field-based technical assistance that
yields conservation and recreation benefits through
collaboration with state and local interests.
--Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service, through
Federal Lands to Parks and related programs, to collaborate
with state and local recreation and park officials and others
on the conservation and use of surplus federal real property.
If substantially adopted, our recommendations will help address an
increasing national imperative to improve physical and mental health
and to sustain the environment.
land and water conservation fund state assistance
Our recommendations relative to LWCF assistance and urban park
restoration are also supported by Advocates for Health, Public Parks,
and Recreation, a broad coalition of health and recreation-related
groups. A statement by that coalition accompanies our statement.
We commend the Subcommittee for continuing national support for
fiscal partnerships with state and local recreation and park
authorities. Concurrently, we believe the President's proposed
termination of LWCF State Assistance and zero funds for fiscal year
2006 is remarkably shortsighted. In our judgment, the administration's
reasons for these actions reflect limited awareness of program purpose,
public and personal health, actual long-term impact and value results
arising from investments, and actual fiscal conditions of state and
local governments.
Ironically, the President's budget continues to recommend that
other programs be funded from the LWCF account, thus creating the
illusion that LWCF is at least partially funded. If the Congress in its
wisdom determines to fund these programs from the LWCF account then all
jurisdictions and agencies presently eligible for LWCF and assistance
engaged in wildlife habitat and forest conservation should be equally
eligible to participate in programs drawn from the LWCF treasury
account.
The Interior Department's claim that state and local governments
should, in effect, go it alone financially ignores one of the key
tenants of the act: That a portion of annual OCS receipts should be
reinvested through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The record of
LWCF grants to both small rural communities and large jurisdictions is
evidence that the LWCF assistance is a highly efficient way to get OCS
receipts back to the people for resource conservation and public
recreation.
The fiscal needs of state and local governments are well
documented. For example, unfunded fiscal year 2004 requests for LWCF
from local and state officials exceeded $836 million, according to
applications submitted to the National Park Service for fiscal year
2006. Our April 2005 interim report on local park and recreation
capital investment needs for the period fiscal year 2005-2009 indicates
that these local governments alone need once $72 billion for park and
recreation facilities and lands. This reflects both the need for
investment and program effectiveness, while suggesting that our request
is very conservative. NRPA's priorities reflect a nationwide demand to
increase the recreation capacity of public systems, especially those
relatively close to home.
We continue to note our concern that the administration's proposed
budget again offers to divert access of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund to a number of other non-LWCF activities. The LWCF act, broad in
its application and resultant diversity of projects, is very specific
in its policy objectives--provision of recreation opportunities to
improve human health through direct access to lands and waters and
recreation facilities.
Non-federal recreation and park resources are essential to quality
recreation experiences for all people. These systems provide the
majority of public recreation destinations, services, and visitor
experiences. They are not incidental to sustaining the social and
environmental integrity of federal land systems.
urban park and recreation recovery program
The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program recognizes the
recreation values associated with conservation of the built
environment. Funds are restricted to restoration and, thus, renewed and
expanded public use of local recreation facilities and sites that have
been worn out by use, age, or the elements. These facilities and sites
are no less important than conservation of other recreation spaces and
places of high ecological and aesthetic value. Demand for Urban Park
and Recreation Recovery Program assistance remains high. It is
reflected in both the number of requests for assistance and the quality
and objectives of projects when the program has been funded. Based on
demand for fiscal year 2001-2003 appropriations, for example, our
recommendation would support from 50 to 90 projects.
national park service intergovernmental activities
Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program
We recommend $9.7 million for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance Program. The program continues to illustrate the critical
importance of federal contributions to public/public and public/private
partnerships for conservation of natural and cultural resources and
public recreation access. The program provides technical assistance to
local governments, citizens, and community organizations, and state
agencies to consider recreation and conservation strategies. The
results include planning, restoration, and development of waterways and
trails, and conservation of open space and greenways, among other types
of projects. In most cases, local governments continue to invest non-
federal funds in projects stimulated by local public interests and
federal technical assistance.
Federal Lands to Parks Program
We recommend an appropriation of at least $1 million to support the
Federal Lands to Parks program, also part of NPS Recreation and
Conservation Assistance activities. The FLP program is an exemplary
service. It guides federal agencies and state and local governments in
the conversion of federal surplus properties to public recreation and
park uses and conservation of historic or wildlife values. The number
of surplus properties potentially available for state and local parks
and demands for assistance has increased beyond the present capacity of
program staff. A large part of this demand was generated by the closure
of several military bases between 1988 and 1995. In recent years,
program staff has assisted in the transfer of about 20-25 properties
annually. There is a current backlog of some sixty pending transfers.
Anticipated base closure and reuse decisions will substantially impact
the capacity of program staff.
While there is today considerable attention and debate on the
stewardship and priorities of the National Park System and National
Park Service, we urge the Subcommittee to not let this situation divert
attention from other congressional authorities in the Interior
department's domain.
Local and state park systems are critical to the health and well-
being of the American people and others who work and reside among us.
With sufficient funds, more appropriate recreation resources will
become accessible and better environmental stewardship will result.
Local systems can better address diverse public interests and our
collective need for quality recreation services for children. Local
agencies, in particular, host programs that serve millions of
nutritious breakfasts, lunches, snacks, and suppers to needy children.
Public recreation and park sites and services help reduce crime and
delinquency, especially during non-school hours, days, and seasons.
Recreation and park policy-makers and managers recognize that at any
given time perhaps 45 million people have a physical disability and
public staff attempt to accommodate their needs for recreation. In
addition to providing public recreation experiences, state and local
agencies contribute importantly to sustaining plant and wildlife
diversity.
We appreciate this opportunity to share the views of our members.
Local Government Park and Recreation Capital Investment Survey--Fiscal
Year 2005-2009
preliminary report
introduction
The National Recreation and Park Association is a 501(c)(3)
education, research, and service organization. It is an advocate for
progressive policy and programs that support sufficient investment in
public recreation and park systems and services. NRPA members are
public executives, managers, elected and appointed citizen policy
makers, and citizen advocates associated with the creation and use of
public recreation and park places and recreation services. Over 20,000
members are associated with public park and recreation agencies and
allies at all levels of governments, individuals engaged in research,
undergraduate and graduate education, continuing education and
training, recreation services and site and program adaptations for
persons with disabilities, and recreation for members of the Armed
Forces and their dependents.
As a national advocate for appropriations from the federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program,
for example, NRPA has a continuing interest in the status of capital
development and infrastructure needs of local park and recreation
agencies. Our work on behalf of local general-purpose governments and
special purpose park and recreation districts requires periodic
assessments of both the short and longer-term fiscal conditions and
capital investment needs. Further, this survey increases our awareness
of both present and longer-term deficiencies and factors that influence
decisions. This survey reveals a total capital investment need of
$72.697 billion for fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009, inclusive.
Funds are needed to increase local parkland by 1.36 million acres, in
addition to development of public recreation facilities.
NRPA surveys of local government park and recreation capital
investment estimates were conducted first in 1990, and have been
conducted every five years since. The present study assesses the fiscal
year 2005 capital development and recreation and park spatial needs of
local agencies. It also projects capital investment program (CIP) needs
for the period fiscal year 2005-2009.
methods
A survey of the National Recreation and Park Association-maintained
chief administrator database was conducted, beginning in December 2004,
to analyze and assess capital investment needs. From a list of 4,787
local public government agencies, a 15 percent random sample (n = 734)
was drawn. Selected agencies were mailed a cover letter explaining the
importance of the study, a survey instrument, and a pre-stamped return
envelope. A post card reminder was sent to each agency three weeks
after the initial mailing; one follow up mailing, again requesting
participation and a second survey instrument, was sent three weeks
later.
During the data collection process, some agency mailings were
returned as undeliverable. Efforts were made to correct the addresses
and re-mail the request to participate in the study. In the end, the
addresses of only four agencies could not be identified. Removing them
from the effective sample, a total of 730 agencies had the opportunity
to participate in the study. A total of 333 agencies responded and
provided usable data for analysis purposes, resulting in an effective
response rate of 45.6 percent.
results
Descriptions of Agencies:
--The overwhelming majority of the respondents (86.7 percent) were
from agencies they described as general-purpose government.
Another 11.5 percent of the respondents described their agency
as being a special purpose district.
--A slight majority of the agencies (42 percent) operate under a July
1 fiscal year, but the number of agencies operating under a
fiscal year that begins January 1 was a close second (38.3
percent). Twelve percent of the respondents used a October 1
fiscal year.
--The largest number of agencies served populations of 10,000-24,999
(26.3 percent). However, there was a fairly even distribution
of the remaining agencies across the spectrum of area
population. For example, 15.4 percent of the respondents served
the smallest category of population (under 10,000); slightly
less than 20 percent served populations of 25,000-49,999;
slightly over 15 percent served populations of 50,000-99,999;
and, 12.4 percent were in communities of 100,000-249,999.
--The number of full-time equivalent employees serving these agencies
ranged from zero to 1,239. Almost 21 percent had no full-time
employees. However, the average number of full-time equivalent
staff was slightly under 57 employees. The median was 9.5 full-
time employees.
--These agencies also depended on an average of 324 volunteers. The
estimated number of volunteers working for these agencies
ranged from zero (26.2 percent) to 15,100.
--The average size of respondent agency land systems was 1,776 acres.
Size ranged from zero (7.3 percent) to 65,528 acres. Of that
total, 28 percent of this acreage was undeveloped.
Agency Finances:
--Agencies reported fiscal year 2005 operating budgets of slightly
under $9.8 million. The smallest 2005 operating budget was
$3,067; the largest budget was over $1.2 billion.
--Between the years 2000-2004, most agencies experienced an increase
in their capital investments (98.4 percent). Only 1.6 percent
reported a decrease. On average, agencies increased their size
by over 520 acres during this period through their capital
investment program. The largest increase reported was 80,000
acres. However, over 42 percent saw no increase in acreage.
--Capital investment programs increased the estimated investment
value of agencies by an average of $4.6 million. One agency
reported increasing their investment value by $160 million.
--The average capital improvement budget for fiscal year 2005 was
$5,366,774. Agency capitol improvement programs (CIP) ranged
from zero (7.9 percent) to over $756 million. Of their total
CIP budget, an average of $479,712 will be used for fee simple
acquisition of land/water. Almost $9,000 will be expended for
leases or easements; over $1.6 million will be spent for new
construction and/or development; and, approximately $1.17
million will be expended for rehabilitation and/or restoration
of existing lands or facilities.
--In fiscal year 2005, agencies estimated that they would acquire
permanent public interest in almost 25 acres of additional
land. Over 73 percent of the respondents would acquire no new
acreage in 2005; two agencies expect to increase by 1,000
acres.
--Only 27.4 percent of the agencies reported having mandatory
dedication laws; slightly more had payment in-lieu of
dedication requirements (29.2 percent). Thirty-five percent
impose impact fees for parks and recreation.
--In fiscal year 2005, agencies expect to receive gifts, bequeathals,
dedications or by other non-purchase means, permanent public
interest in slightly less than 25 acres of land. Almost 80
percent expected to receive no new land via non-purchase means
in fiscal year 2005.
Agency Needs--fiscal year 2005-2009:
--Over the next five years, agencies estimated a need to acquire an
average of 285 acres of recreational land/water. Where 30.4
percent of the agencies indicated they needed no new acreage
over the next five years, others' responded that they needed up
to 16,000 acres.
--During the same five-year period, agencies estimated a need for an
average of $15.3 million for capital improvement programs. Very
few (< 5 percent) indicated no need. One agency reported a need
of $285 million.
--Of agencies' total capital investment needs over the next five
years, agencies reported needing an average of $2.48 million
for fee simple acquisition of land/water. They also reported
needing an average of $98,606 for leases, easements, and other
non-title acquisition, an average of $7.34 million for new
construction or development, and $4.62 million for
rehabilitation and restoration.
--Each of the estimates for space and capital improvement funding was
derived either through staff assessments and estimates (55.8
percent) or a comprehensive public planning process (32.2
percent).
--When asked the purpose of land acquisition, agencies ranked
``expanding public recreational access generally'' as the
foremost reason. This was followed by ``eliminating or reducing
specific recreation deficiencies,'' ``conserving specific
natural resource features,'' and ``shaping and controlling
direction of land use change.''
--Over the next five years, three-fourths of all agencies expect a
shortfall in agency capital investment funding.
--Agencies reported that approximately 42 percent of the CIP funding
would come from general tax revenues. Further, they reported
that local bond and revenue issues would account for 17.5
percent of their funding. State grants (8.9 percent), fees/
charges (6 percent), federal grants (5.4 percent), and private
gifts/donations (2.6 percent) were the other primary sources of
capital investment funding.
--Looking to the future over the next five years, respondents
reported that general tax revenues would decrease as a
proportion of CIP funding (37.6 percent), as would fees/charges
(5.9 percent). Local bonds and revenue issues (20.9 percent),
federal grants (6.4 percent), and private gifts/donations (4.5
percent) would increase in importance over the next five years.
The dependency of agencies on state grants will remain about
the same (8.8 percent).
--A majority of agencies (70 percent) stated that if greater amounts
of federal assistance were available, it would leverage an
increase in capital investments provided through local fiscal
sources. Twenty-eight percent indicated their investments would
remain the same. Very few indicated their local investments
would decrease (2.4 percent).
--Slightly more than half of the respondents indicated their agency
had the powers of eminent domain/condemnation authority for
recreation resource protection and use (58.3 percent). Less
than 10 percent of the agencies had used this authority to
acquire land over the past five years.
--Of those that had used this authority, the reasons for its use was
(1) to purchase resources from unwilling sellers, (2) to allow
the courts to set fair market value, (3) to create clear title
to the property, and (4) to protect the resource from an
imminent threat.
--Local factors or other priorities have negatively influenced
investments in public parks and recreation, in about 68 percent
of local jurisdictions. Agencies reported that ``local economic
budget stress'' was the most important factor depressing
investment, followed by ``homeland security and first
responder'' priorities.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARK AND RECREATION CAPITAL INVESTMENT NEEDS, FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND FISCAL YEARS 2005-2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Est. local
Capital Space needs Capital needs Est. local govt govt space Est. local govt
Population size Percent Factor\1\ budget 2005 2005-2009 2005-2009 capital budget needs-- 2005- capital inv
agencies sample sample mean sample mean 2005 2009 needs--2005-2009
mean (acreage) (acreage)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9,999 and under................... 15.4 737.198 $459,667 10.875 $1,446,136 $338,865,849 8,017 $1,066,088,835
10,000-24,999..................... 26.3 1,258.98 405,684 34.490 2,493,045 510,748,287 43,422 3,138,696,855
25,000-49,999..................... 19.6 938.252 2,789,692 72.153 6,988,100 2,617,433,996 67,698 6,556,599,255
50,000-99,999..................... 15.1 722.837 1,804,671 219.146 10,114,108 1,304,482,842 158,407 7,310,851,531
100,000-249,000................... 12.4 593.588 3,102,271 343.239 28,567,877 1,841,470,969 203,743 16,957,548,760
250,000-499,999................... 4.2 201.054 4,402,255 1,445.830 52,742,385 885,090,876 290,691 10,604,067,396
500,000 and over.................. 6.9 333.303 54,511,580 1,765.170 81,197,401 18,168,873,178 588,338 27,063,337,315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals...................... 99.9 ......... 67,475,820 3,890.910 183,549,053 25,666,965,996 1,360,314 72,697,189,947
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on total population of 4,787 agencies.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
provide the following:
An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 for
this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management Appropriation;
Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery
Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan River Recovery
Implementation Program.'' These funds are needed to support the FWS
Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are responsible for program
management and support of all Recovery Program activities.
The enactment of Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-
375, authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 million of
cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
construction projects. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106-392 authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to accept up to $17 million of
contributed funds from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, and to
expend such contributed funds as if appropriated for these projects;
and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
forward.
The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
appreciated and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of 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
several years, through operations funding and earmarked 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 your support 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 23 of the national scenic
and historic trails for FiscalYear 2006 through these appropriations:
--National Park Service: $9.980 million for the administration of 18
trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
by the Washington Park Service office.
--USDA Forest Service: $3.037 million to administer 4 trails and
$933,000 to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the Park
Service or Bureau of Land Management; Construction: $1.2
million for the Continental Divide Trail, $500,000 for the
Florida Trail, and $1 million for the Pacific Crest Trail.
--Bureau of Land Management: to administer the Iditarod National
Historic Trail: $250,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
National Historic Trail: $389,000, the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail: $150,000 and $3.38 million to manage portions
of 9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest
Service; $407,000 for operating the Casper NH Trail
interpretive center.
--We ask that you appropriate $7 million for the National Park
Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to earmark
$2.5 million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-
third of the remaining $4.5 million (approximately $1.5
million) for the other 17 national scenic and historic trails
it administers 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 earmark the money for the 12
national scenic and historic trails it administers or manages.
--We ask that you appropriate $1.253 million to the National Park
Service National Center for Recreation and Conservation to
support the second year of a five-year interagency pilot
project to develop a consistent system-wide Geographic
Information System (GIS) for the National Trails System.
We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund:
--to the Forest Service: $5 million to acquire land for the Pacific
Crest Trail, $250,000 for management of the Pacific Crest Trail
land acquisition program; $150,000 to acquire land for the
Overmountain Victory Trail in North Carolina;
--to the Bureau of Land Management: $1.5 million to acquire land for
the Pacific Crest Trail and $1.6 million to acquire land for
the Oregon Trail in Oregon;
--to the Park Service: $4 million to grant to the State of Wisconsin
to match state funds to acquire land for the Ice Age Trail.
national park service
We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5-year
interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 24 national
scenic and historic trails. This initiative is described in the August
2001 report (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 2001
appropriation) ``GIS For The National Trails System'' and is built upon
work already underway on the Ice Age, Appalachian, Florida, Oregon,
California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails to develop
consistent information and procedures that can be applied across the
National Trails System. The requested funding will be shared with the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
The $9.980 million we request for Park Service operations includes
increases for many of the trails to continue the progress and new
initiatives made possible by the $975,000 funding increase provided for
nine of the trails in fiscal year 2001 and the $500,000 increases
provided in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005. We ask you to direct
the Park Service to add the $500,000 increase that you provided for
fiscal year 2005 to the base funding of the trails that received it.
$73,000 of our requested increase will finally provide significant
operational support for the Natchez Trace Trail, which currently
receives only $27,000 in annual operations funding. Another $630,000
will enable the Park Service to begin managing three new national
historic trails--Ala Kahakai, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old
Spanish--the latter two administered with the Bureau of Land
Management. These funds will provide full-time management, support
projects for these trails and development of Comprehensive Management
Plans for the Ala Kahakai and Old Spanish Trails. We also request
$200,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail in Kings Canyon/
Sequoia, Lassen, and North Cascades National Parks.
We request an increase of $823,000 to continue and expand Park
Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200
significant sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to develop GIS mapping, and
to fund public outreach and educational programs of the Santa Fe Trail
Association. An increase of $451,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable
the Park Service to work cooperatively with the Trail of Tears
Association to develop a GIS to map the Trail's critical historical and
cultural heritage sites so they can be protected and interpreted for
visitors.
The $100,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City
Trails office will enable the Park Service to continue developing
comprehensive interpretation and auto tour guides for the Oregon,
California, Mormon Pioneer and Pony Express Trails with a library of
images derived from the GIS map database of the trails.
We request $1,777,000 to continue funding the regular operation of
the Lewis & Clark Trail and the operation of ``Corps II,'' a major
component of the Federal government's commemoration of the Bicentennial
of the Lewis & Clark Expedition in the final year of that
commemoration.
All of these trails are complicated undertakings, none more so than
the 4,000 mile North Country Trail. With more than 650 miles of Trail
across 7 national forests in 5 states there is good reason for close
collaboration between the Park Service and Forest Service to ensure
consistent management that provides high quality experiences for
hikers. Limited budgets for both agencies have severely hampered their
ability to practice this effective management procedure. The $845,000
we request will give them that ability for the first time while also
providing greater support for the regional and local trail building and
management led by the North Country Trail Association, hastening the
day when our nation's longest national scenic trail will be fully
opened for use.
The $893,000 we request will enable the Park Service to help WDNR
and other partners to accelerate acquisition of land for the Ice Age
Trail and further development of the Trail GIS to more efficiently plan
resource protection, trail construction and maintenance to correct
unsafe conditions and better mark the Trail for users. The funds will
also provide assistance to the Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation to
better equip, train and support the volunteers who build and maintain
the Ice Age Trail and manage its resources.
Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and
efficient ways for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of
projects for public benefit while also sustaining partnerships
involving countless private citizens in doing public service work. The
Partnership requests that you appropriate $7 million in Challenge Cost
Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2006 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 $2.5
million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third of the
other $4.5 million for the national scenic and historic trails to
continue the steady progress toward making these trails fully available
for public enjoyment. We suggest, as an alternative to the annual
earmarking of funds from the Regular Challenge Cost Share program, that
you establish a separate National Trails System Challenge Cost Share
program with $1.5 million funding.
usda--forest service
As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
additional operations funding to the Forest Service for administering
three national scenic trails and one national historic trail, and
managing parts of 16 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $3.037
million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental
Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez
Perce National Historic Trail. Full-time managers have been assigned
for each of these trails by the Forest Service. Recognizing the on-the-
ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 838 miles
of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North Country
Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de Tierra
Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon
Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail
of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $933,000
specifically for these trails.
Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past five
years, to close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic
Trail. The Florida Trail Association has built 100 miles of new Trail
across Eglin Air Force Base, in the Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress
National Preserve and along Lake Kissimmee and the Choctawahatchee
River. FTA volunteers helped clear trees and other debris scattered
across 850 miles of trail by four hurricanes in 2004. The Partnership
requests an additional $500,000 for trail construction in fiscal year
2006 to enable the Forest Service and FTA to build 90 more miles on
these and other segments of the Florida Trail.
The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service
assistance and funding from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed
the entire 3200 mile route of the Continental Divide Trail documenting
$10.3 million of construction projects needed to complete the Trail. To
continue new trail construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding,
we ask that you appropriate $1.2 million to build or reconstruct 267
miles of the CDT in fiscal year 2006.
A Forest Service lands team is working with the Pacific Crest Trail
Association (PCTA) and the Park Service National Trail Land Resources
Program Center to map and acquire better routes for the 300 miles of
the Pacific Crest Trail located on 227 narrow easements across private
land or on the edge of dangerous highways. We request $200,000 to
continue the work of the fulltime Trail Manager and the lands team and
$100,000 for Optimal Location route planning. We also request $1
million for new trail construction and reconstruction of fire and flood
damaged bridges along the PCT in California and Washington by the
Forest Service and the PCTA.
bureau of land management
While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority
only for the Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old
Spanish National Historic Trails, it has on-the-ground management
responsibility for 641 miles of two scenic trails and 3,115 miles of
seven historic trails administered by the National Park Service and
U.S. Forest Service. The significance of these trails was recognized by
their inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System and, for
the first time, in fiscal year 2002, by provision of specific funding
for each of them. The Partnership applauds the decision of the Bureau
of Land Management to include he national scenic and historic trails in
the NLCS and to budget specific funding for each of them. We ask that
you continue to support the funding for the National Landscape
Conservation System and that you appropriate for fiscal year 2006
$250,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $389,000 for El
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, $150,000 to
continue development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Old
Spanish National Historic Trail, $300,000 for construction of new
sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, $100,000 for
maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and $2.980 million, as
requested by the Administration, for management of the portions of the
seven other trails under the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We
also request $1.5 million for construction of the California Trail
Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, $407,000 to operate the Historic
Trails interpretive center in Casper, Wyoming, and $1 million for
construction of safety and other recreational improvements along the
Iditarod National Historic Trail.
land and water conservation fund
The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900
million annual authorized appropriation from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund and that you make the specific appropriations for
national scenic and historic trails detailed at the beginning of this
statement and in Attachment 2. The $5.250 million we request for the
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail will continue acquisition underway
by the Forest Service and Park Service. The $150,000 requested for the
Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail will protect a key link
and access to a 7-mile section of the trail in the Pisgah National
Forest in North Carolina.
The $3.1 million requested for the Bureau of Land Management will
protect a key section of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and an
important historical site along the Oregon National Historic Trail in
Oregon.
The National Trails System Act encourages states to assist in the
conservation of the resources and development of the national scenic
and historic trails. Wisconsin has matched $6.93 million of fiscal year
2000-2005 LWCF funding with more than $17.5 million to help conserve
the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With this 2.5:1
match of State to Federal funds, Wisconsin has purchased 26 parcels
totaling 5,553 acres and now has another 40 parcels under negotiation,
appraisal or option to purchase. The National Park Service has spent an
additional $3 million to protect the Ice Age Trail interpretive site.
All of the LWCF funds appropriated by Congress for the Ice Age NST have
been spent. The requested $4 million Land and Water Conservation Fund
grant to Wisconsin will continue this very successful Federal/State/
local partnership for protecting land for the Ice Age Trail.
The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed
in Attachment 2.
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 a way to
enlist private financial support for public projects, usually 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 2004 the trail organizations channeled 668,996
hours of documented volunteer labor valued at $11,801,091 to help
sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also
applied private sector contributions of $6,449,719 to benefit the
trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment 1.
ATTACHMENT 1--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2004 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC
TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Volunteer value of Financial
Organization hours volunteer contributions
labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian Trail Conference.................................... 174,902 $3,085,271 $3,099,000
Camino Real Trail Association................................... 3,230 56,977 \1\ 1,000
Continental Divide Trail Society................................ \1\ 1,500 26,460 ..............
Continental Divide Trail Alliance............................... 21,700 382,788 592,948
Florida Trail Association....................................... \1\ 60,000 1,058,400 165,000
Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation................................. 87,256 1,539,196 631,761
Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc........................... \1\ 3,920 69,149 \1\ 80,000
Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza & others......................... .............. .............. ..............
Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona................................. 6,870 121,187 \1\ 12,000
Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation......................... 54,737 965,561 300,000
Mormon Trails Association....................................... 1,390 24,520 2,040
Iowa Mormon Trails Association.................................. \1\ 750 13,230 \1\ 2,080
Nebraska Mormon Trails Association.............................. \1\ 125 2,205 \1\ 2,635
National Pony Express Association............................... 35,647 628,813 25,000
Pony Express Trail Association.................................. 5,685 100,283 38,176
Nez Perce Trail Foundation...................................... 3,140 55,390 5,082
North Country Trail Association................................. 42,297 746,119 205,877
Old Spanish Trail Association................................... 8,081 142,549 43,703
Oregon-California Trails Association............................ 57,926 1,021,815 591,559
Overmountain Victory Trail Association.......................... \1\ 800 14,112 ..............
Pacific Crest Trail Association................................. 34,100 601,524 434,500
Potomac Trail Council........................................... \1\ 1,500 26,460 ..............
Santa Fe Trail Association...................................... \1\ 32,600 575,064 156,400
Trail of Tears Association...................................... 30,840 544,018 60,958
-----------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................... 668,996 11,801,091 6,449,719
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
ATTACHMENT 2--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2006 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE
NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------
Agency/Trail 2006 Project/programs possible with
2005 cong. 2006 admin. partners increased funding
approp. request request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park Service:
Ala Kahakai.................. $229,000 \7\ $231,00 $231,000 Continue preparation of Comprehensive
0 Management Plan (CMP) for new trail;
Appalachian.................. 1,137,000 1,155,000 1,155,000 Operations of NPS A.T. Park Office;
$350,000 of the total supports
volunteer-based trail and land
management guided by ATC; Park ranger
to deal with trail encroachments;
support for GIS work;
Natchez Trace................ 27,000 27,000 100,000 Planning & building new trail &
bridges; backlog maintenance with
SCA;
El Camino Real............... 111,000 \7\ 111,000 242,000 Full-time administrator; implement CMP
with Bureau of Land Management;
California................... 253,000 253,000 278,000 Continue to develop GIS-based
comprehensive interpretation for 4
trails auto tour guides;
Ice Age...................... 579,000 \7\ 588,000 893,000 Accelerate Trail corridor planning and
land acquisition by agency partners;
Increase Trail development,
maintenance and resource management
by IAP&TF volunteers;
Juan Bautista de Anza........ 256,000 \7\ 262,000 262,000 Coordination of Trail site protection,
interpretation & development projects
with local agencies & organizations;
Outreach to schools and Latino
communities;
Lewis & Clark................ 1,749,000 \7\ 1,777,0 1,777,000 Planning, coordination & support for
00 local Bicentennial projects and
``Corps II'';
Mormon Pioneer............... 128,000 128,000 153,000 Continue to develop GIS-based
comprehensive interpretation for 4
trails auto tour guides;
North Country................ 641,000 \7\ 641,000 845,355 Advance Trail construction, route
planning, protection and public
awareness by providing regional
services and technical assistance for
volunteers and partners;
Old Spanish.................. 72,000 72,000 157,000 Full-time administrator; continue
preparation of CMP with Bureau of
Land Management;
Oregon....................... 253,000 \7\ 261,000 286,000 Continue to develop GIS-based
comprehensive interpretation for 4
trails auto tour guides;
Overmountain Victory......... 168,000 171,000 188,000 New route signs & interpretive
exhibits; mapping Trail sites for
protection inventory, feasibility
study for location of Trail
headquarters and visitor contact
site;
Pony Express................. 182,000 182,000 207,000 Continue to develop GIS-based
comprehensive interpretation for 4
trails auto tour guides;
Potomac Heritage............. 250,000 252,000 252,000 Assistance to local agencies &
organizations for planning &
educational projects;
Santa Fe..................... 674,0001 \1\ \7\ 1,516,000 Preserve cultural resources; begin GIS
693,000 mapping; design & distribute
interpretive media with SFTA;
Selma to Montgomery.......... 297,000 \7\ 304,000 304,000 Comprehensive management plan
developed and trail interpretation
begun in collaboration with citizen
support organizations & local
agencies;
Trail of Tears............... 333,000 \7\ 333,000 784,000 Develop GIS, interpret critical Trail
sites & provide new visitor
facilities with TOTA;
NTS-Washington Office........ 294,000 \7\ 297,000 350,000 Program coordination and funding for
special projects and training for
staff & partners;
---------------------------------------
National Trails System..... 7,633,000 7,738,000 9,980,355 Total National Trails System
operations funding
=======================================
Challenge Cost Share............. \2\ 7,343,0 \3\ 4,916,0 7,000,000 $2.5 M for Lewis & Clark; \1/3\ of
00 00 remaining $4.5 M for rest of National
Trails System
Interagency GIS Project.......... ........... ........... \4\ 1,253,0 Development of GIS for National Trails
00 System;
BLM:
Iditarod Trail............... 165,000 179,000 250,000 Coordination and support for
collaborative management with other
Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail
organizations and State of Alaska;
bridges and cabins;
El Camino Real............... 268,000 308,000 389,000 Collaborative administration and
management with National Park
Service; Full-time Trail
Administrator; Site certification and
protection;
Old Spanish.................. 102,000 52,000 150,000 Full-time Trail Administrator;
Collaborative administration and
management with National Park
Service; Continue preparation of
Comprehensive Management Plan; Site
protection and interpretation;
Continental Divide........... 115,000 211,000 300,000 Marking 230 miles of CDT in Wyoming
and work in Idaho, Montana and New
Mexico; Interagency management
collaboration;
Pacific Crest................ 90,000 90,000 190,000 PCT maintenance in California;
Interagency management collaboration;
Juan Bautista de Anza........ 56,000 84,000 84,000 Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail
in Arizona and California;
California................... 163,000 179,000 179,000 California Trail resource inventories
in Utah, Nevada and California;
Lewis & Clark................ 1,818,000 1,976,000 1,976,000 Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
preparations and activities in Idaho
and Montana;
Mormon Pioneer............... 129,000 145,000 145,000 ......................................
Nez Perce.................... 43,000 149,000 149,000 Lewis & Clark Bicentennial
preparations in Idaho and Montana;
Oregon....................... 144,000 210,000 210,000 Interagency management collaboration;
Pony Express................. 121,000 147,000 147,000 Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and
Nevada;
---------------------------------------
National Trails System..... 3,164,000 3,730,000 4,169,000 Total National Trails System
operations funding
=======================================
Casper NHT Center................ 407,000 ........... 407,000 Operating Oregon, California, Mormon
Pioneer, and Pony Express National
Historic Trails interpretive center;
Construction of:
California Trail Interpretive 1,500,000 ........... 1,500,000 Continued funding for construction of
Center-NV. California National Historic Trail
interpretive center in Elko, Nevada;
Iditarod Trail............... ........... ........... 1,000,000 Safety and other recreational
improvements along Iditarod National
Historic Trail;
FOREST SERVICE:
Continental Divide........... 493,000+ ........... 754,000 Continued support for full
administrative responsibility and for
consistent interagency collaboration
for each trail; support for
consistent management with trail
organization and local agency
partners; trail brochures, signs,
project planning etc.; Also $572,500
to plan 382 new miles of CDT;
$200,000 for work of full-time Trail
administrator and $100,000 for
Optimal Location Planning for PCT and
$100,000 to increase Trail
maintenance by volunteers coordinated
by PCTA; $650,000 to continue
collaboration with Florida Trail
Association to inventory 430 miles of
the Florida Trail and further develop
Trail GIS; $500,000 to manage lands
acquired for the FNST; $49,000 to
support education and public outreach
activities of Nez Perce Trail
Foundation;
Florida...................... 493,000+ ........... 1,150,000
Pacific Crest................ 493,000+ ........... 500,000
Nez Perce Trails............. 394,000+ ........... 633,000
---------------------------------------
Total (+ = plus portion of \5\ 2,873,0 1,000,000 3,037,000
$1 million allocation). 00
=======================================
Appalachian, North Country, 906,000 350,000 933,000 Improved trail maintenance, marking,
Ice Age, Iditarod, interpretation, archaeological
California, Juan Bautista de studies, historic site protection and
Anza, Caminos Real Tierra trailhead facilities for trail
Adentro & Tejas, Lewis & segments in National Forests;
Clark, Oregon, Old Spanish, $200,000 to address deferred
Mormon Pioneer, Overmountain maintenance, remove blowdown trees on
Victory, Pony Express, Santa 30 miles of trail, make improvements
Fe, Trail of Tears. and provide liaison for collaborative
management of the North Country Trail
with National Park Service; Re-
location and reconstruction of
sections of the Appalachian Trail,
replacement of major bridges and
installation of toilets at shelters;
Continental Divide Trail..... 986,000 ........... 1,200,000 Trail construction projects along the
Continental Divide Trail:
reconstructing or building 267 miles
of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
Colorado and New Mexico;
Florida Trail................ 493,000 ........... 500,000 Trail construction projects totaling
90 miles in Seminole State Forest,
Aucilla Wildlife Refuge and along the
Choctawahatchee, Kissimmee, Yellow,
and Suwannee Rivers;
Pacific Crest Trail.......... 986,000 ........... 1,000,000 Trail construction projects along the
Pacific Crest Trail, including
reconstruction of fire and storm
damaged bridges and structures in
California and Washington;
Fabrication and installation of
roadside interpretive signs at Trail
highway crossings;
---------------------------------------
National Trails System..... 6,244,000 1,350,000 6,670,000 Total: National Trails System funding
=======================================
Nat. Forest System:
Trail Maintenance............ 41,496,000 ........... ........... Trail maintenance throughout the
National Forest System.
Trail Construction........... 35,278,000 ........... ........... New trail construction and trail re-
construction throughout the National
Forest System.
Capital Improvement & 76,774,000 63,700,000 80,000,000 Trail maintenance and new trail
Maintenance--Trails. construction throughout the National
Forest System.
LWCF FOR TRAILS:
LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest. ........... 1,000,000 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of
lands in southern California, Oregon
and southern Washington to preserve
the scenic integrity of the Pacific
Crest Trail.
LWCF grant--BLM Pacific Crest ........... ........... 1,500,000 BLM acquisition of Sky King Cole Ranch
in the Cascade Siskiyou National
Monument, including land along
Pacific Crest Trail.
LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest. ........... ........... 250,000 Land acquisition program management.
LWCF grant--FS Florida....... 2,000,000 ........... ........... ......................................
LWCF grant--FS Appalachian... 1,500,000 ........... ........... ......................................
1LWCF grant Ice Age-- 1,000,000 ........... 4,000,000 Assistance provided to State of
Wisconsin \6\. Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice
Age Trail corridor and connect trail
segments across private land in Dane,
Chippewa, Columbia.
LWCF grant--BLM Oregon....... 1,000,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 BLM acquisition of land along the
Sandy River in Oregon.
LWCF grant--FS Overmountain ........... ........... 150,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of
Victory. land to protect key link in the
Overmountain Victory Trail in North
Carolina.
LWCF grant--BLM Lewis & Clark 3,500,000 ........... ........... ......................................
LWCF grant--NPS Lewis & Clark 5,000,000 ........... ........... ......................................
---------------------------------------
Total...................... 14,000,000 2,600,000 12,500,000 ......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
\2\ Includes $4.902 million earmarked for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects. One-third of the remaining funds
(about $813,000 of $2.44 million) are earmarked for National Trails System projects.
\3\ Administration request does not allocate any funds for the National Trails System. The Congressional earmark
is needed to accomplish this.
\4\ Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002.
\5\ Appropriation includes: $2.873 million for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific
Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, funding for full-time administrators
for each trail and land acquisition teams for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails.
\6\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.
\7\ Includes portion of $500,000 base operations funding increase provided by Congress for fiscal year 2005
which the Park Service considers available to be reprogrammed to other parks in fiscal year 2006 and
subsequent years.
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
Chairman. We thank the Committee for past support of many tribal issues
and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
Tribe, and to 32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
U.S. Department of Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs.--The
Puyallup Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2006 budget and
submit the following detailed written testimony to the Senate Interior
Subcommittee on the proposed funding bill for the Dept. of Interior and
Related Agencies. In the fiscal year 2005 budget process, the Puyallup
Tribe supported actions of Congress to restore the base level funding
for various programs. We look forward to working with the 109th
Congress to insure that funding levels for programs necessary for the
Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of self-
determination and self-governance for the benefit of Puyallup tribal
members and the members from approximately 435 federally recognized
Tribes who utilize our services are included in the fiscal year 2006
budget. The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe's
priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year 2006.
Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area
contains 17,000+ Native Americans from over 200 Tribes and Alaskan
Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has 21
commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation in
addition to the usual and accustomed fishing areas. The officers are
charged with the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation
seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. We currently operate with
outdated equipment, patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and
insufficient staff levels. With the continuing increase in population,
increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the
impact of the increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the
region, the services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division
are exceeding maximum levels.
A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe's Regional
Incarceration Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
not only impacts the Tribe's ability to house detainees but also the
approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
the modular facility has also impacted the Tribes ability to house
juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, Native American youth
are sent to non-native facilities. These and other issues regarding the
deplorable conditions existing in Indian Detention facilities are
documented in the September 2004 report issued by the U.S. Department
of Interior Inspector General's Office. We respectfully request
congressional support to fund the BIA Law Enforcement program at the
$190 million level proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget to operate
law enforcement services at a safe and effective method. We further
request Committee support to fund the Department of Justice--Detention
Facilities Construction program for fiscal year 2006 at $30 million to
address deficiencies in tribal detention facilities.
The following list is a brief summary of law enforcement needs of
the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement and Detention Facilities programs;
--Juvenile Incarceration Facility $2.5 million (est.);
--Staffing for Juvenile Facility--8 employees @ $320,600;
--Adult Incarceration Facility $3.5 million (est);
--Additional staff for dispatching center--3 employees @ $120,800;
--Additional Officers--4 @ $225,900;
--Equipment; firearms, radios and equipment--$30,000;
Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as
steward for land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and
shellfish areas has treaty and Governmental obligations and
responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
regional community. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries
resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and
Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource
Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the
Puget Sound region of the State of Washington with an obligation to
manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous fish and shellfish
resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the
trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management is
constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement
in the following areas:
--Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and
Maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
Endangered Species Act listings on Bull Trout and Chinook
Salmon which is in an highly urbanized setting more so than any
other Pacific Northwest Tribe. We request Committee support to
increase base contract funding in the amount of $350,000 for
additional fisheries staff.
--Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program.--The TFW Program
has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the
state forest practice rules and regulations that have an affect
on listed salmon populations. In fiscal year 2004 Congress
restored TFW base funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
However, this base funding increase is being proposed to be
discontinued in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget.
Continued funding in this area is essential to facilitate
tribal participation in monitoring, research, data analysis and
adaptive management processes that are a cornerstone to the TFW
process. We request Committee support for base funding level of
$3.555 million to the TFW fiscal year 2006 budget.
--Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights Program.--The Medicine Creek
Treaty secured the Puyallup Tribe and other tribes the right to
hunt on open and unclaimed lands. This treaty right is reserved
in the same paragraph that also reserved the right to fish and
gather shellfish. Unfortunately, the BIA program that is
designed to support this treaty activity has not received
adequate, if any, appropriations in the last several years.
Funds that were made available to tribes have been on a
competitive basis with a maximum amount per program due to
limited funding. The Puyallup Tribe has established a Hunting-
Wildlife Management program that works cooperatively with
signatory Tribes to the Medicine Creek Treaty, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service and the
National Park Service. For further development and
participation in unresolved hunting issues, the Puyallup Tribe
is requesting Committee support for establishment of base
funding of $95,000 for the Hunting-Wildlife Management Program.
Tribal Priority Allocation & Contract Support Costs.--The
President's fiscal year 2006 budget calls for $2.28 billion to be
allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is a decrease of $110
million from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This request includes
$760 million for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a $9.4 million
decrease from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. These decreases
proposed by the Administration are on top of the continued funding
short fall for critically needed tribal programs supported by TPA
funding. TPA budget activity includes the majority of funding used to
support on-going services at the ``local tribal'' level, including; law
enforcement, natural resources management (fisheries), child welfare,
housing, tribal courts and other tribal governmental services. TPA has
not received adequate funding to allow tribes the resources to fully
exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small
increases TPA has received over the past few years have not been
adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a minimum, we request your
support and endorsement in the following:
--Support by Congress to fund the TPA fiscal year 2006 request at the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level as adjusted for inflation, for a
minimum request of $769.4 million.
Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2006
budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request includes $134.6 million to
address the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuing contract support costs.
At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following:
--Support by Congress to fund the Contract Support Cost fiscal year
2006 request at the fiscal year 2005 enacted level as adjusted
for inflation, for a minimum request of $140.6 million. Full
funding of Contract Support is a mandate towards the full
realization of Self-determination and Self-governance.
DHHS Indian Health Service.--Funding for the Indian Health Service
fails to meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The
Puyallup Tribe has been operating their health care programs since 1976
through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93-638. The
Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) is a successful ambulatory
program that provides comprehensive ambulatory medical dental, mental
health, drug and alcohol treatment services to an expanding population
in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. In fiscal year 2002 it was the
most productive Indian health program in the tri-state areas of
Washington, Oregon and Idaho,
Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of
quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS facilities, is being
asked to do more with less. The cost of supplies and staff increases as
does the eligible population increases, yet funding has not kept pace.
IHS has lost $1.9 billion in purchasing power since 1992. Unlike
private practice counterparts, we can not raise fees, negotiate higher
reimbursement from insurance companies or restrict the population we
serve. Preserving purchasing power and ensuring that medical needs are
met must be paramount to IHS and HHS.
Highlights of the IHS Budget request include an increase of $72
million over the fiscal year 2005 level for a total of $3.840 million
for the Indian Health Service in fiscal year 2006. These increases,
however, are off-set by the historic short fall of funding that has
failed to keep up with inflation. We request congressional support for
the fiscal year 2006 IHS budget in the following areas:
--Fund medical and general inflation costs, which have again reached
double digits;
--Fund the increased expenses due to population growth. Although AI/
NA population has a 2.1 percent growth rate, growth has not
been funded for 11 years;
--Funding for Contract Support Coast should be increased to $284
million for fiscal year 2006; and
--Index Contract Care to population growth and the medical inflation
rate. Contract care is most vulnerable to inflation since
services are provided by vendors constrained by IHS guidelines.
There are no IHS hospitals in the Pacific Northwest which makes
our clinic dependent on Contract Care for necessary specialty
referrals and hospital care. Contract Health Services should be
increased to $495 million for fiscal year 2006.
______
Prepared Statement of the Rivers and Trails Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Rivers and Trails
Coalition, composed of local, regional, statewide, and national
organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Americans
nationwide committed to conservation and recreation, respectfully asks
that you fund the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance (RTCA) program at $9.7 million in fiscal year 2006.
Through its Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program, the
National Park Service (NPS) implements its natural resource
conservation and outdoor recreation mission in communities across
America. The Rivers and Trails Coalition formed many years ago to
support this invaluable field-based technical assistance program that
yields enormous conservation and recreation benefits to communities by
fostering partnerships between federal, state, and local interests. The
resulting cooperative efforts restore rivers and wildlife habitat,
develop trail and greenway networks, preserve open space, and
revitalize communities--all contributing to improved quality of life
and close-to-home recreation. RTCA staff provide on-the-ground
assistance solely at the request and invitation of communities in
coordinating projects, facilitating public meetings, serving as a
liaison and convener of government and non-profit groups, assessing and
mapping resources, developing promotional materials and events, and
identifying sources of funding.
RTCA is a very successful and popular program but continues to lack
adequate funding. Current demand for RTCA services greatly exceeds the
program's capacity. Despite RTCA's accomplishments in coordinating
upwards of 300 projects annually, RTCA funding has remained relatively
stagnant during the last decade, virtually flat for the last four
years, and has lagged well behind the rate of inflation, resulting in
real cuts to the program. The program's declining real budget and
funding shortages have resulted in limiting staff positions in several
regions, office closures, and reduced staff participation within
communities and on-the-ground projects, diminishing essential services
of this field-based program. RTCA currently has 80 staff in 33 field
offices, compared to 90 staff in 2002. Flat funding results in an
annual loss of approximately 4 positions, as personnel costs continue
to rise through inflation and cost-of-living increases, while project
costs must be cut back. RTCA faces further reductions in service and
the loss of additional staff in fiscal year 2006 if the program
receives flat or reduced funding.
RTCA is a highly effective and cost efficient program. In 2004
alone, NPS community projects reported more than 680 new trail miles,
more than 330 newly protected river miles, more than 22,700 acres of
newly protected natural areas.
RTCA receives less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of the total funding for
the National Park Service, yet by building local partnerships it
succeeds in attracting substantial local funding every year. In 2004
the program reported more than $40 million leveraged funding from other
sources. This program is an excellent value for the American taxpayer
and merits increased funding to accomplish its mission as a community-
based National Park Service technical assistance and outreach program.
The Rivers and Trails Coalition supports the NPS current strategic
planning effort to include an emphasis on working on issues of common
interest to national parks and gateway communities adjacent to national
parks. This strategy represents a positive, proactive approach to
improving management and brings RTCA and its associated projects and
partnerships into closer contact with NPS superintendents and core
National Park Service missions. However, the RTCA program is best able
to fulfill its mission by assisting all types of communities--urban,
rural, and suburban; local, state, and national--to achieve on-the-
ground conservation successes for their projects, where the technical
assistance is requested and based on true needs. In addition to
regional trail systems and greenway development, open space protection,
and river corridor protection, projects include transportation
alternatives, brownfield redevelopment, youth conservation projects,
and floodplain planning, among numerous other conservation and
recreation initiatives.
RTCA plays a critical role in creating a nationwide, seamless
network of parks and open spaces, supporting conservation partnerships,
promoting volunteerism, and encouraging physical activity. The
Administration's HealthierUS Initiative explicitly highlights RTCA for
its efforts in promoting physical activity through the development of
local trails, greenways, and parks.
The President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2006 calls for a
reduction of $500,000 to the RTCA program. The Rivers and Trails
Coalition respectfully requests that Congress restores funding to this
program and increases the program budget by $1.5 million to meet the
real needs that this program serves.
We see evidence in community after community of the value of NPS
involvement through productive partnerships, and we can report the
unparalleled success of RTCA in bringing greenways, blueways, and
creative conservation partnerships to fruition.
Our requested funding level would allow this extremely beneficial
program to continue current projects without interruption, restore
recent cuts, put staff closer to the people they serve, and meet the
outstanding requests from communities around the nation. We strongly
believe it makes sense to strengthen programs such as RTCA that support
communities through partnerships and capacity-building, enabling local
stakeholders to better manage and conserve their recreational and
natural resources from the bottom-up.
We urge you to fund the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance
program at $9.7 million in the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations
bill to remedy the program's continued erosion, compensate for losses
due to inflation, and enable the program to respond to growing needs
and opportunities in communities throughout the country. Thank you for
your consideration.
Respectfully submitted by the Rivers and Trails Coalition,
comprised of the following organizations:
The Accokeek Foundation; American Canoe Association; American
Hiking Society; American Rivers; American Society of Landscape
Architects; American Trails; American Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain
Club; Association of State Floodplain Managers; Bay Circuit Alliance;
Bikes Belong Coalition; Conservation District of Southern Nevada; East
Coast Greenway Alliance; International Mountain Bicycling Association;
National Association of Service & Conservation Corps; National Audubon
Society; National Parks Conservation Association; National Recreation
and Park Association; New York-New Jersey Trail Conference; New York
Parks and Conservation Association; North American Water Trails;
Outdoor Industries Association; Rails to Trails Conservancy; Scenic
America; Trout Unlimited; Washington Area Bicyclist Association; and
Washington Trails Association.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose,
California
summary
This statement urges the Committee's support of an appropriation
add-on of $4 million from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency in fiscal year 2006 ($2 million under State and Tribal
Assistance Grants and $2 million under Environmental Programs and
Management account).
perchlorate cleanup in santa clara county
Background.--The perchlorate originated from a former highway
safety flare manufacturing plant owned by Olin Corporation, which was
operated for 40 years. Operations ceased in 1996, and perchlorate
contamination was discovered in 2000. The Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Board) is providing regulatory
oversight of the contamination case, which has affected several hundred
drinking water supply wells. Groundwater is currently the only source
of drinking water in this area and over 2,000 families are being
provided with bottled water or treated groundwater. Significant
concerns remain regarding this community's exposure to perchlorate in
their drinking water and perchlorate accumulation in agricultural crops
and livestock. To address these concerns and ensure that the
groundwater basin in this area is aggressively restored and cleaned up,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is requesting Federal
assistance. We request funding to facilitate a prompt and complete
cleanup of groundwater resources in the Llagas Valley, Santa Clara
County.
Perchlorate Investigation and Cleanup Status.--To date, the
District has sampled more than 1,000 water supply wells in the Llagas
Valley. In addition, Olin Corporation has sampled about 600 wells.
Results to date show more than 450 wells with detectable perchlorate
above 4 parts per billion. Bottled water is currently being delivered
to over 1,600 families and businesses in the area. Olin Corporation has
installed perchlorate removal systems on three wells for two small
water systems in the San Martin area that serve a total of about 450
customers.
The full extent of perchlorate contamination has not yet been
determined. Olin Corporation has installed a groundwater cleanup system
at their former manufacturing facility. However, they have not yet
presented a plan for cleaning up the 9.5 mile long plume of
contamination, controlling additional plume movement, or long-term
solutions for well water users who currently rely on bottled water.
Olin has advised state officials that they are not prepared to commit
to cleanup of perchlorate impacts to private wells until a State or
Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for perchlorate is established.
Adoption of an MCL at the State and Federal levels has been delayed.
Additional funding is necessary to determine the best long-term
solution for the entire groundwater basin and initiate cleanup efforts.
Funding for District-led initiatives will help break a regulatory
deadlock with Olin that is currently preventing meaningful action to
protect well owners.
Fiscal Year 2005 Funding.--$1.1 million was appropriated for
Perchlorate activities under State and Tribal Assistance Grants in
fiscal year 2005. Project applications for fiscal year 2005 funds will
include municipal-scale perchlorate removal treatment technology
demonstration projects and staffing to manage projects and complete
technical analysis.
Fiscal Year 2006 Funding Recommendation.--It is requested that the
Committee support an appropriation add-on of $4 million from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency in fiscal year 2006 ($2 million
under State and Tribal Assistance Grants and $2 million under
Environmental Programs and Management account).
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Indian Reservation
On behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation, I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony on
fiscal year 2006 appropriations for BIA and IHS budgets. We are Idaho's
largest tribe, with a reservation population of nearly 8,000 residents,
Indian and non-Indian, spread out over a 753 square mile reservation.
Like many tribes, we have vast unmet needs in law enforcement, health
care, natural resources, education and social services. We oppose the
Administration's effort to further reduce funding for BIA- and IHS-
funded programs. These proposed reductions impact Indian tribes more
severely than other program cuts because Indian programs are
significantly under funded. We are troubled that the President's budget
contains huge increases for the Office of the Special Trustee (OST)
while cutting funds for the BIA programs that most directly serve
Indian people. Congress should not fund the OST at the expense of
tribal governments. We are grateful to the work of this Committee, and
to our senators, for your many efforts to improve the lives of our
members. You recognize the devastating impacts to Tribal communities
which result from a lack of resources, both human and financial.
This year alone the Shoshone Bannock Tribes will supplement funding
for BIA-and IHS-funded programs which serve the Fort Hall Reservation
by over $4 million dollars. This figure does not include the $3.9
million the Tribes pays annually to have a fully-funded insurance
program which in turn allows the IHS health facility at Fort Hall to
bill third party payors. Without such collections, the IHS program
serving our reservation is woefully under funded. Our direct service
IHS ambulatory clinic operates with a $5 million budget, with $1.638
million of that amount financed from third party collections, nearly a
third of its budget. Even with these third-party collections, the
clinic operates at 60 percent of level of need. If the IHS does not
meet its targeted collection figure, the level of need will drop below
60 percent. Simply put, our programs are not meeting the needs of our
members. Congress must prioritize Indian programs.
TABLE 1.--SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES' PROGRAM SHORTFALLS--FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Funding Projected
Program description Funding source amount amount shortfall
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement.............................. BIA.................... $2,022,443 $1,135,395 ($887,048)
Fire/Ambulance............................... BIA.................... 1,375,080 20,417 (1,354,663)
Courts....................................... BIA.................... 1,152,101 214,507 (937,594)
Agricultural Extension....................... BIA.................... 61,164 32,188 (28,976)
Survey & Mapping............................. BIA.................... 88,767 43,072 (45,695)
Chemical Dependency.......................... IHS.................... 888,163 512,069 (376,094)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. ....................... ........... ........... (3,630,070)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 2. TRIBES' TRIBAL HEALTH CONTRACT SUPPORT COST (CSC) SHORTFALLS
(FISCAL YEAR 2000-2004 AND 2005 EST.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year CSC shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................................... ($12,459)
2001.................................................... (42,283)
2002.................................................... (50,072)
2003.................................................... (86,800)
2004.................................................... (229,952)
---------------
Total Five Year CSC Shortfall..................... (421,567)
===============
Estimated FY 2005 CSC Shortfall......................... (342,127)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shortfalls I report to you today do not include shortfalls in
Contract Support Cost (CSC) funding which the BIA, IHS, and tribes have
been unable to convince the Administration or Congress to fully fund.
For the four year period ending in fiscal year 2004, we calculate our
IHS Contract Support Cost shortfall at $421,000. Our fiscal year 2005
shortfall for IHS CSC is estimated to be $342,000.
It is difficult to convey to you how these shortfalls impact our
community. We wish we had more resources so that our Tribes can turn
around a troubled youth and make him a productive member of society,
not a burden to it; to provide a job to a hard working adult so he can
regain his pride and self- worth; to give life-saving medicines to a
sick Tribal elder to restore her health so that she may remain vital
and productive. Our programs work. We simply seek our equitable share
of funds similar to what the federal government provides to states and
local governments. Our reservation residents are counted when
determining the size of a block grant the United States awards to the
State. Without an earmark to pass that grant through to tribal
governments, however, we do not receive our share. The funds Congress
and the Administration choose to provide Indian tribes continue to go
down as our population grows. How great does the crisis need to get
before proper attention is paid? Are not U.S. Census and other
statistics on American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) unemployment
figures, poverty levels, mortality, suicide rates, and motor vehicle
accidents enough, without any request from Tribal leaders, to move the
Congress and the Administration to act on our behalf?
We want to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Federal, state and
local counterparts to improve our reservation's economy, tackle crime
and substance abuse, and keep our members healthy and productive
citizens. Please increase funding above the President's request for the
BIA and IHS budgets for these mostly pass-through funds to Indian
tribal governments.
tribal justice center ($5 million)
We seek an appropriation of $5 million that we will put toward the
construction costs for our Tribal Justice Center. With prior
appropriations by Congress, for which we are grateful, the Tribes
completed designs for our Tribal Justice Center. When completed, the
Justice Center will house a 45-member Police Department, 25-member
Tribal Court, and an 80-bed adult and 20-bed juvenile corrections
facility. The $5 million in construction funds we request comprise less
than 30 percent of the project's estimated cost of $16.8 million
(fiscal year 2005 dollars). We are financing another third of the
project with Tribal funds and we are seeking other loans and grants.
The cost of this project will only increase if we delay funding.
Police.--The Tribal police department has inadequate storage space
for evidence. Our police armory needs more safeguards. There is no
secure booking area. There is no space for confidential interviews with
witnesses. Public business is often conducted outside the building. The
dispatchers work in a crowded, under-ventilated space which often
overheats.
Corrections.--The Adult Corrections facility currently in use does
not have multiple exits, sprinklers, or other fire fighting systems. It
operates at 132 percent over capacity. All these factors create a
hazard to inmates and corrections staff. There is no work-release
available. There is no medical facility. We cannot offer educational
facilities. There is no secure facility for inmates to receive visitors
or to meet with attorneys. There is inadequate plumbing and ventilation
at the facility.
Courts.--The Tribal Court handles 4,000 cases plus 1,500 juvenile
cases. There is inadequate space and facility for the court's records,
and only one courtroom. The buildings do not meet plumbing or electric
standards. There is no space for defendants to hold confidential
meetings with attorneys. This facility also provides inadequate
security.
We are witnessing an increase on our reservation in juvenile
crimes, methamphetamine abuse, and violence. We need to bring our
police, courts and corrections facilities into the 21st century.
community water system ($3 million)
We seek $3 million to continue construction of a Community Water
System. The need for safe drinking water has reached crisis stage on
our reservation. Water for many of the reservation's 8,000 residents
has been contaminated by ethylene dibromide (EDB), a probable
carcinogen. Studies have also found increased levels of nitrate in the
water. Thanks to prior appropriations, we have built about 31 of the
145 miles of water line required to be built on our reservation. We
seek $3.0 million in IHS funds to finance the wells, storage tanks and
pumps to extend the water line throughout the reservation (requiring
design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, environmental
studies, etc.). Despite the Tribes' efforts to secure funding from
multiple sources (IHS, USDA, EPA, HUD, ICDBG) as well as provide its
own funds for the cost of the water line, the cost for pvc pipe has
soared due to the rising cost of oil. We can only finance 5 miles of
pipe rather than 15 miles this year due to the increased cost for pvc
pipe.
gay mine
We have grown very concerned over environmental contaminants,
especially selenium, at Gay Mine, an open phosphate mine located on the
reservation. We, along with the State of Idaho, U.S. EPA, U.S.
Department of the Interior, and five private mining companies, were
signatories to a 2001 Consent Order/Administrative Order on Consent to
identify procedures to ensure cost recovery by governmental entities in
an Area-Wide Investigation into contamination from phosphate mining
operations in southeast Idaho, under CERCLA. The BIA funded an on-site
coordinator (OSC), but since January 2004, this position has been
vacant. BIA officials inform us that funds to finance site
investigations, take samplings, and assess damages under the Natural
Resources Damage and Restoration Program are oversubscribed. We
submitted a $5.6 million budget to BIA to finance staff and to
undertake a site investigation of soil, water, vegetation, livestock,
and big game as well as to build a fence around the affected area.
public law 93-638 fish and wildlife management programs/american falls
reservoir
Resident Fisheries Program ($100,000) and Wildlife Program
($100,000).--The Tribes request additional funding to restore and
protect the reservation's streams and tributaries so that they can once
again support native fish populations. We seek to hire a fisheries
technician to perform fencing projects, sloping, willow planting, rip
rap and other activities to repair stream banks and promote habitat
restoration which have been compromised by land and water use
practices.
The Tribal Fish and Wildlife Program is responsible for the
management of threatened and endangered species, development of hunting
regulations, monitoring of harvests of various species and resolution
of conflicts between humans and wildlife. We cannot fulfill our federal
mandates with current appropriations. Our staff has dropped to two
full-time employees. Additional funding will permit us to hire an
additional wildlife technician to perform tagging, game counts, habitat
work and population counts of threatened and endangered species, and
replace a 17-year old GMC truck.
Columbia River Fish Management Program ($270,400).--Federal
assistance is required in order for the Tribes to participate in the
basic processes that regulate salmon recovery and harvest. The Tribes
seek funding of $270,400 in fiscal year 2006 to hire the necessary
personnel to fulfill our obligations to work with State, federal and
other agencies regarding fisheries management, recovery and harvest
activities. Without increased funding, the Tribes cannot ensure that
adequate numbers of salmon return to reservation streams to spawn.
Current funds do not cover management and harvest tasks.
American Falls Reservoir Restoration Plan ($123,000).--The Tribes
request $123,000 to finance the preparation of a comprehensive
Restoration Plan for the American Falls Reservoir. The plan will
involve community stakeholders. It would evaluate existing
environmental impacts resulting from the Reservoir (stream bank
erosion, sediment buildup, fish and national flyway habitat reduction)
and generate a report outlining recommended actions to restore,
protect, and enhance streams and tributaries and the surrounding
habitats for wildlife and human recreation.
fort hall police dog program ($132,678.72)
The Tribes request an appropriation of $132,678.72 to implement the
Fort Hall Police Dog Program. The Tribes have the duty to serve and
protect all residents of the Reservation. Two major interstates,
Interstate 15 (North to South) and Interstate 86 (East to West), and
U.S. Highway 191 (North to South), pass through the reservation. This
program will assist police officers on patrol, narcotic searches, arson
(accelerant) detection and cadaver searches. The program would also
promote interagency cooperation with surrounding law enforcement
agencies including the Idaho State Police, Bingham and Bannock County
Sheriff's Offices and the City of Pocatello Police Department.
increase funding for bia and ihs contract support costs ($136 million)
Last month, the United States Supreme Court, in Cherokee Nation v.
Leavitt, issued a unanimous decision holding that the Indian Health
Service was liable to Indian tribes for failing to pay full contract
support costs under the Indian Self-Determination Act. Recent figures
of the collective shortfall in the current fiscal year for all
contracts between the IHS and tribes are estimated at $99 million, and
for all contracts between the BIA and tribes are estimated at $37
million. Indian tribes are entitled to receive the funds negotiated in
their contracts. To address this, we propose several options. The
Congress could include language in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations
bill which amends Public Law 93-638 to read:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, necessary amounts are
appropriated to pay contract support costs required under Sections
106(a)(2), 403(g)(3) and 508(c), when not otherwise provided for.''
This proposal will authorize the expenditure of funds from the
Treasury in the absence of an ordinary agency appropriation. Another
alternative would be to ``sweep up'' unexpended and unobligated
balances similar to existing bill language for trust reform. See,
Public Law No. 108-7, 113, 117 Stat. 239.
The United States would not think to shortchange defense
contractors in their government contracts. Why is it acceptable to
shortchange Indian tribal governments when the United States insists
that it is honoring its trust responsibility to Indian tribes? Full
funding of tribal contract support cost needs should not be funded by
Congress by offsetting other programs serving Indian tribes. We are
doing all we can to meet our members' needs. Full funding of Contract
Support Costs helps us better serve our members.
Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes the opportunity
to make known our comments regarding the President's budget proposal
and our needs for fiscal year 2006.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) respectfully
requests the Senate Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior
and Related Agencies appropriate an additional $19.562 million for the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Law Enforcement,
$12 million for certain funds under the Multinational Species
Conservation Fund (including $500 thousand for the Great Ape Survival
Partnership of the United Nations Environment Programme), an additional
$4.4 million for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife
Forensics Laboratory, and $1 million to enforce the Captive Wildlife
Safety Act. SAPL also endorses the testimony of the Doris Day Animal
League in support of restoring the protections from commercial sale and
slaughter of wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land
Management or its contractors.
united states fish and wildlife service division of law enforcement
SAPL urges increased funding to enable the Law Enforcement Division
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to undertake its important,
expanding work. FWS agents are responsible for enforcement of over a
dozen conservation laws including the Lacey Act, Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, African
Elephant Conservation Act, the Wild Bird Conservation Act, and
implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Special agents undertake a
variety of wildlife trade cases involving illegal shipments of caviar,
elephant ivory, shahtoosh, reptiles, primates, African finches, bear
viscera, turtle eggs, coral, exotic big cats, and many other species.
It is well-known that the trade in wildlife is rivaled only by the
trade in drugs in terms of its magnitude in global commerce.
Environmental contaminants and industrial hazards also pose a major
concern to the Law Enforcement Division.
Special Agents
In fiscal year 2004, the FWS Division of Law Enforcement
investigated thousands of cases involving vital wildlife protection
statutes that are important to millions of Americans. For example, in
2004, service special agents conducted 12 manatee protection task
forces and teamed with State officers to complete another six
cooperative enforcement operations to protect manatees from boat
strikes in Florida's costal waters. Such work resulted in the issuance
of over 1,416 citations to boaters speeding in manatee protection zones
and the collection of over $116,000 in fines. Special agents also
conduct crucial anti-poaching and wildlife law enforcement training for
officials in numerous countries across the globe. This training is
essential to protect threatened and endangered wildlife from being
poached in range states. Currently there are 222 agents; however, the
full authorized agent force is 261. We encourage the service to
expedite the filling of the 39 vacancies. The cost to fill these
vacancies is $7.254 million. The operational funds for current agents
are short of that necessary to fulfill each inspector's critical
responsibilities for the entire fiscal year; an additional $9.768
million is needed. Therefore, the total needed for full agent staffing
is an additional $17.022 million.
Port Inspectors
Approximately 100,000 shipments worth more than $1 billion are
processed by FWS inspectors at the 16 Designated Ports of Entry each
year. In response to wildlife smugglers' attempts to use United Parcel
Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) to get their wildlife
contraband into the United States, Memphis (a FedEx hub) and Louisville
(a UPS hub) were established as Designated Ports of Entry. However, to
handle the round-the-clock workload generated by these two hubs, FWS
will need to operate 3 shifts a day. To allow for 24-hour operation,
seven days a week, funds are needed for three shifts with 3 inspectors
each and for an additional special agent to investigate violations
uncovered by the inspectors. $1.8 million additional dollars are needed
to provide this enforcement at these extremely active ports.
Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS)
Implementation
As part of Secretary Norton's law enforcement reforms, all
Department enforcement bureaus are required to implement a uniform
records system for reporting law enforcement information. SAPL requests
$500,000 for implementation of IMARS for the Service's Law Enforcement
Program and its harmonization with the program's existing system, the
Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS).
Implementation of IMARS and its integration with LEMIS will ensure
department-wide access to wildlife enforcement data without sacrificing
the Law Enforcement Program's ability to meet unique wildlife-related
data collection and analysis needs.
Enhancing Computer Forensic Capabilities
Increasingly, criminals engaged in wildlife trafficking are
routinely utilizing computers for their illegal operations. Therefore,
once such computers are seized, computer forensic experts must be
available to conduct examinations of such computers in an effort to
identify and retrieve evidence of wildlife crimes. Currently, the
National Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory has only one computer
evidence examiner and a supervisor who conducts examination part-time.
SAPL respectfully requests that $240,000 be appropriated for the
creation of a centrally located field computer seizure and analysis
unit staffed with two computer forensic experts.
multinational species conservation fund
Since 1988, the United States has shown its steadfast commitment to
global conservation efforts by legislatively creating a series of funds
to assist in wildlife protection in all regions of the world. The
African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation
Fund, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and recently, the
Great Ape Conservation Fund, are vital tools to prevent these species
from declining further and, in some cases, going extinct. SAPL
respectfully requests that $2.5 million be appropriated for the Asian
Elephant Conservation Fund, $2.5 million for the African Elephant
Conservation Fund, $3 million for the Great Ape Conservation Fund and
$4 million for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund.
the african elephant conservation and the asian elephant conservation
funds
These funds have provided important funding for elephant
conservation projects. For decades, poachers and smugglers exploiting
the global ivory trade have targeted elephants. Today, elephants are at
great risk not only for ivory, but also for their meat, which is
consumed as ``bushmeat,'' particularly in Africa. Conservation projects
that have received funding under these Funds include: anti-poaching
assistance, acoustic monitoring of forest elephants, and research
utilizing immunocontraception as a means of population control.
the rhinoceros and tiger conservation fund
This find provides essential financial assistance to protect the
world's remaining five rhino species and tiger subspecies. Rhinos have
been poached historically for their horns, which are used in
traditional Asian medicines, while tigers have been exploited for their
valuable skins, bones and other body parts. In the last century, it is
estimated that the total number of all wild tigers scattered across
their range has plummeted to 5,000 animals. Recent U.S. funding has
contributed to the equipping and operating of anti-poaching patrols,
studies of population dynamics using DNA technology, establishing
conservation education programs in rhino and tiger range states to
increase awareness about these species, and rhino translocations.
the great ape conservation fund
Funds available to address the growing threat of the trade in
bushmeat and the habitat decimation perpetrated on great apes by timber
companies and other extractive industries. Chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla,
orangutan, and gibbon populations have declined substantially, and
there is a serious threat to their long-term survival. Grants from this
fund enable conservation and anti-poaching projects to be established
and effectively implemented to the benefit of these endangered ape
species.
A specific earmark for the Great Ape Survival Partnership (GRASP)
is needed under the Great Ape Conservation Fund. The United Nations
Environment Programme has undertaken a significant, ambitious endeavor
to examine all of the relevant parameters concerning great ape decline
and survival in range states. A modest additional $500,000 from the
United States Congress, administered through the Great Ape Conservation
Fund, would provide support for GRASP's continuing work to undertake
stakeholder workshops and technical missions in range states. This will
assist dramatically in the development of long-term national planning
projects to conserve all remaining great apes.
the clark r. bavin national fish and wildlife forensics laboratory
The Service's forensics lab is uniquely capable of providing
assistance in the prosecution of wildlife crimes and is the world's
only forensic laboratory devoted specifically to wildlife crime. The
lab analyzes teeth, claws, hairs, feathers, tissues, blood, and other
wildlife samples to determine species of origin and connect wildlife
and suspects to the scene of the crime. This lab has always been on the
cutting edge of wildlife prosecutions and must be funded adequately to
fulfill its vital roles. Further, the lab is an internationally well-
respected icon, and the Secretariat of CITES has, for instance, entered
into Memorandums of Understanding with the lab to, among other things,
assist in the analysis of ballistic evidence. At the CITES Standing
Committee meeting in Geneva, Switzerland in March 2004, the CITES
Secretariat specifically recommended that Parties contact the Bavin lab
to assist in the identification of bear parts and derivatives during
investigations.
The laboratory has begun an important and significant
rehabilitation and expansion project, which includes plans to enlarge
lab capabilities with a 27,000 square foot addition, including a
training and conference room, a new pathology lab with a bio-level 3+
containment capability, and a new evidence control area. Sadly, funding
constraints are preventing the Bavin lab from meeting its planned
development goals fully. Last session, Congress appropriated $2.6
million to fit-out the pathology and bio-containment sections of the
building shell, which is still being constructed with fiscal year 2003-
2004 funds. We respectfully urge this Subcommittee to appropriate an
additional minimum of $4.4 million, which represents the balance
necessary to enable the completion of the fit-out of the one-story
expansion of the existing facility. This $4.4 million appropriation
would be extremely modest given the importance of the Clark R. Bavin
National Fish & Wildlife Forensics Laboratory and the actual expansion
and renovation needs for the lab.
the captive wildlife safety act
On December 19, 2003 the President signed into law the Captive
Wildlife Safety Act to prevent the interstate and foreign commerce in
big cats--lions, tigers, leopards, cheetah, jaguars, or cougars or any
hybrid of such species--for personal possession as ``exotic'' pets. In
recent years, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in the
number of these dangerous animals being kept in private hands, with a
concomitantly dramatic rise in the number of unfortunate attacks by
these inherently wild animals. It is imperative that the FWS be given
the tools it needs to enforce this important law, for the benefit of
the animals themselves and the humans who are at risk because of the
big cats who are being kept in captivity. While the legislation
authorized an appropriation of up to $3 million each year for
implementation and enforcement of the Act, no funding has been provided
for enforcement of this relatively new law. SAPL appreciates the
difficult financial situation confronting Congressional Appropriators
this year; as a result, we urge a modest appropriation of $1 million
for enforcement of the Captive Wildlife Safety Act.
protection of the toklat wolf pack in alaska
For more than four decades, the Toklat wolf pack in Alaska has been
the most studied, viewed and photographed family of wolves in the
world. However, the fate of this celebrated wolf pack is now uncertain
as some of its members, including the alpha male and the alpha female,
have recently been trapped and killed by hunters just outside of Denali
National Park. Only six young wolves remain. In order to protect the
last remaining members of the Toklat wolf pack, we respectfully request
that the distinguished Subcommittee urge the Secretary to take
immediate action and expand the protective buffer zone established to
protect wolves which stray outside of Denali National Park. Currently,
this buffer zone measures only 55 square miles in the northeast corner
of the park. With the recent deaths of the Toklat members, it is clear
that this zone has become inadequate to protect the wolves as it was
intended to do.
In addition to hunting and trapping, the survival of the Toklat
wolves is threatened by the Alaska's airborne wolf killing program.
Currently, the state permits the use of aircraft to shoot wolves for
the purpose of boosting game populations. Alaskan residents passed
ballot initiatives in 1996 and 2000 to ban the use of aircraft to hunt
wolves, but the governor reinstated the practice in 2003. We believe
hunting wolves by air violates the federal Airborne Hunting Act (passed
in 1971, primarily to put an end to aerial wolf killing in Alaska). The
Act specifically prohibits shooting or attempting to shoot or harassing
any bird, fish, or other animal from aircraft except for certain
specified reasons, including protection of wildlife, livestock, and
human life. Wildlife, livestock and humans are not being threatened by
the wolf, therefore, we respectfully request that the distinguished
Subcommittee urge the Secretary to clarify that the federal Airborne
Hunting Act does not permit the use of aircraft to chase down and kill
wolves in an effort to increase game populations.
honor the u.s. obligation to phase out steel jaw leghold traps
Approximately 140 of 517 national refuges currently permit use of
steel jaw leghold traps. These traps slam with a vice-like grip on the
limbs of their victims, breaking bones, tearing ligaments and tendons,
severing toes and causing excruciating pain. Alternative traps, which
reduce the suffering of trapped animals are available and can be used
instead.
The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal
Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association and the National
Animal Control Association have condemned leghold traps as
``inhumane''. The vast majority of Americans object to use of these
traps as evidenced by numerous public opinion polls. Massachusetts,
Arizona, Colorado, Washington, and California have prohibited use of
these cruel devices by public referendum. New Jersey, Florida, and
Rhode Island prohibit use of steel jaw traps too.
In response to the widespread international opposition to steel jaw
leghold traps, the U.S. Trade Representative signed an
``Understanding'' with the European Union on December 11, 1997 in which
the United States committed to phase out use of ``conventional steel
jawed leghold restraining traps.'' The U.S. Department of Interior is
responsible for honoring this U.S. obligation on lands under its
jurisdiction and needs to begin implementing a phase out on use of
these devices. So far, no action has been taken by the Department of
Interior to comply with this official agreement. We respectfully
request this distinguished Subcommittee urge the Secretary to take
action this year.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southwestern Water Conservation District
I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests.
I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
provide the following:
An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management Appropriation;
Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery
Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan River Recovery
Implementation Program''. These funds are needed to support the FWS
Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are responsible for program
management and support of all Recovery Program activities.
The enactment of Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-
375, authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 million of
cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring floodplain habitat
and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
construction projects. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106-392 authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to accept up to $17 million of
contributed funds from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, and to
expend such contributed funds as if appropriated for these projects;
and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
forward.
The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
appreciated--and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program
Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials
The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
(STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
(ALAPCO) appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
fiscal year 2006 proposed budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), particularly regarding grants to state and local air
pollution control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air
Act. STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that the budget for federal grants to
state and local air quality agencies, which was proposed at $223.6
million, be increased by $100 million, for a total of $323.6 million in
fiscal year 2006.
STAPPA and ALAPCO are the national associations of air quality
officials in 53 states and territories and more than 165 metropolitan
areas across the country. The Clean Air Act gives state and local air
quality officials the primary responsibility for implementing our
country's clean air program. These agencies must work to limit or
prevent emissions of a variety of pollutants, including particulate
matter, ground-level ozone, toxic air pollution and acid rain, among
others, which are emitted from a variety of sources. State and local
air pollution control agencies are responsible for implementing myriad
activities and programs designed to protect public health. These
activities must address the fundamental and continuing elements of air
quality programs, as well as address emerging problems. Among the many
activities state and local air agencies must carry out are monitoring
ambient air quality, providing compliance assistance to the regulated
community, issuing permits to sources, inspecting facilities, compiling
inventories of emissions, carrying out enforcement actions, providing
public education and outreach, formulating control strategies, and
developing State Implementation Plans.
is air pollution a significant problem in the united states?
Air pollution poses a very serious threat to public health and the
environment. We know of no other environmental problem that presents a
greater risk. Consider the fact that all of us breathe; we need air to
live. Most of us have no control over the cleanliness of the air we
inhale--we are largely dependent on federal, state, and local air
programs to ensure that our air is healthful to breathe. When
determining priorities for federal funding, then, it seems reasonable
to designate the improvement and protection of air quality as one of
the government's highest priorities.
While the United States, at all levels of government, has
accomplished much in terms of improving air quality, we still have
significant problems. For example, more than 160 million tons of
pollution are emitted annually in this country. Over 146 million people
live in areas that violate at least one of the six health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Fine particulate matter alone
is responsible for up to 30,000 premature deaths each year and causes
other health problems, such as aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, damage to lung tissue, impaired breathing,
irregular heart beat, heart attacks and lung cancer.
Hazardous--or toxic--air pollution is another huge problem. Over
200 million people in the United States live in areas where the
lifetime cancer risk from exposure to those pollutants is over 1 in
100,000 and 3 million face a lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 10,000. One
hazardous air pollutant that has received a lot of notice lately is
mercury. Mercury emitted into the air finds its way into the fish we
eat. Forty-five states have issued notices that the fish caught in
their water bodies contain elevated concentrations of mercury. As many
as 15 percent of women of child-bearing age are exposed to mercury
levels that are above those EPA considers safe for a developing fetus.
are there major new activities facing state and local air agencies?
State and local air agencies must carry out a myriad of activities
to address our air quality problems. These activities are ongoing and
continual, in order to both improve air quality and to maintain the
strides that have already been made. In the coming months, state and
local air quality agencies will take on significant additional
activities in an effort to attain new, more stringent health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM<INF>2.5</INF>). Last year, all or parts of
nearly 500 counties were designated as nonattainment for the 8-hour
ozone standard and, in January of this year, EPA designated 225
counties, in whole or in part, as nonattainment for the
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. The nonattainment areas--areas not attaining
these standards--are required to develop State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) identifying the measures they will take to reduce emissions in
their areas in order to attain the standards. They will also have to
demonstrate to EPA's satisfaction that they will attain the standards
as expeditiously as practicable and in any event no later than 2010 for
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and between 2007 and 2024--with areas with more severe
ozone problems getting more time--for ozone. Those who are attaining
the standards will have to work to maintain their air quality and
submit plans to EPA to demonstrate how they will do so. States are
required to submit their plans to EPA by April 2007 for ozone and April
2008 for PM<INF>2.5</INF>.
In addition, on March 10, 2005, EPA finalized a determination that
28 states in the Eastern United States and the District of Columbia
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the ozone and
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standards in downwind states and is requiring these
upwind states to revise their SIPs to include control measures to
reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and/or nitrogen oxides. Under the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), these states are required to submit
these revisions by September 10, 2006.
Accordingly, during the next fiscal year state and local agencies
will be consumed with developing and refining emission inventories,
modeling emission trends, projecting emissions and pollution
concentrations, identifying emission reduction measures and modeling
the impact of these emission reduction measures on pollution
concentrations in their states. In addition, to the extent that any of
the emission reduction measures requires regulatory or legislative
action or funding, state and local agencies will need to prepare
regulatory and legislative proposals to implement these measures.
Furthermore, they will need to follow their administrative procedures
for these plans, requiring many states to begin well in advance in
order to provide a completed plan to EPA by April 2007. For those
states covered by CAIR, all of this work will need to be concluded in
fiscal year 2006, since the plans are due by September 2006.
All of these activities, which are intended to help areas meet the
standards and protect public health, represent significant effort for
which adequate funding is essential. These new activities, as well as
the ongoing responsibilities, lead STAPPA and ALAPCO to recommend an
increase of $100 million in the federal grant program under Sections
103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act (increasing the President's request
from $223.6 million to $323.6 million).
how are air quality programs funded?
Funding for state and local air pollution control programs comes
from several sources, including state and local appropriations; the
federal permit fee program under Title V of the Clean Air Act; state
and local permit and emissions fee programs and federal grants under
Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act. Section 103 has usually
funded specific monitoring efforts (e.g., particulate matter or air
toxics monitoring), while Section 105 supports the foundation of state
and local air quality programs, including, but not limited to,
personnel.
The Clean Air Act authorizes the federal government to provide
grants up to 60 percent of the cost of state and local air quality
programs, while state and local agencies must provide a 40-percent
match (as per Section 105). In reality, however, the federal government
provides approximately 25 percent of the total state/local air budget,
while state and local governments supply 75 percent (not including
income from Title V permit fees, which state and local agencies collect
from major sources and can fund only permit-related activities). In a
time of limited state and local resources, where state and local
governments are straining to maintain existing programs, additional
federal funding is needed to meet the challenges of air quality
programs.
how much money is needed for state and local air programs?
The total amount needed for state and local efforts to implement
the Clean Air Act is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion each year.
If EPA were to supply 60 percent of that amount, as the Clean Air Act
envisioned, federal grants would amount to approximately $600 million
annually.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request for state and local air quality
agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, rather than
being $600 million, is actually $223.6 million. Not only is this far
short of the amount that is needed, but over the past decade, federal
grants for state and local air agencies to operate their programs (not
including the separate monitoring program funded with Section 103
grants) have decreased by 25 percent in terms of purchasing power
(based upon U.S. Department of Labor inflation statistics).
couldn't permit fees be used to fill the gap?
Unfortunately, the permit fee program under Title V of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 is not the answer to the state and local air
agencies' financial problems for several reasons. First, the fees must
support only the operating permit program and must not be used for
other activities. Second, fees only apply to major sources and do not
cover the significant costs related to non-major sources, which include
minor source permits, monitoring, enforcement, compliance assistance,
etc. Third, the current fees already are substantial and there would be
considerable resistance to any increases. Fourth, fee revenue is
decreasing due to reductions in emissions, on which they are based.
Finally, increases in costs for air quality programs (except for permit
programs themselves) are not addressed by permit fee programs.
The Title V fee program, while essential to state and local
efforts, is not the solution to the funding problem. Federal grants
must be expanded to meet the significant resource requirements.
how else would additional funds be put to use?
In addition to the attainment activities discussed above, state and
local air agencies face other high-priority responsibilities on which
they would spend increased grant funds. These include the following,
among others: improving emission inventories of toxic air pollution;
implementing programs to address toxic air pollution; improving risk
assessment capacity; increasing the frequency of inspections of minor
sources; expanding criteria pollutant monitoring; reducing
concentrations of fine particulates; developing SIPs to address
regional haze; increasing public outreach efforts and response to
citizen concerns; improving small business compliance assistance;
purchasing replacements for monitoring equipment that has outgrown its
expected usage; increasing the number of air toxics monitoring
locations to better characterize baseline concentrations and localized
impacts; improving modeling tools to determine the emission reductions
needed to attain public health standards; and addressing minor sources,
including issuing permits.
conclusion
The current budget does not meet the needs of state and local air
agency efforts and, we believe, should be increased substantially.
However, we understand that there are many programs competing for
limited federal funds and that Congress has a very difficult task in
determining how the resources should be allocated. Therefore, although
we believe that air pollution poses a significant threat to public
health and should be among our highest priorities, we recommend that
federal grants to state and local air quality agencies be increased by
$100 million above the President's request in fiscal year 2006, for a
total of $323.6 million. Unless state and local air quality agencies
receive substantial increases in resources, and are granted the
flexibility to target them to the activities that are most appropriate
in individual states and communities, we will find it increasingly
difficult or impossible to obtain and maintain healthful air quality.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming, Office of the Governor
I am writing to request support and action by your Subcommittee to
provide an appropriation of $986,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Ecological
Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element;
``Platte River Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
for fiscal year 2006 to allow FWS to continue its necessary
participation in the development of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program. This is the same level of funding appropriated
to the FWS in fiscal year 2005 for FWS participation in this project.
The $986,000 is needed by FWS Region 6 for its Platte River activities
during this critical time in the development of the Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program. Congress has appropriated funding in
this FWS line item each year since 1998--however, once again, as was
the case last year, the President's recommended budget for fiscal year
2006 ``zeroed out'' the ``Platte River Recovery'' line item. We have
been advised that since the Congress--with the much appreciated
assistance of your Subcommittee--restored this funding last year that
it was ``zeroed out'' in the budget released on February 7, 2005 for
the reason that it was an ``earmark'' in the 2005 appropriations act
providing funding for the FWS. We respectfully request your assistance
to restore this line item so as to provide the requisite funding.
In 1997, the States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U.S.
Department of the Interior signed a Cooperative Agreement for Platte
River Research and Other Efforts Relating to Endangered Species Along
the Central Platte River, Nebraska (Cooperative Agreement). The
signatories to the Cooperative Agreement realize a comprehensive,
basin-wide, cooperative approach for addressing the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) issues in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin region is
the most equitable and effective means to resolve endangered species
conflicts and meet the habitat needs of four threatened and endangered
species--the whooping crane, piping plover, least tern and pallid
sturgeon. Agreement activities presently underway include the
development of a Recovery Implementation Program document, a
programmatic biological opinion and a record of decision. Following
completion of these actions, a Program Implementation Agreement is to
be entered into by the three States and Interior in early 2006.
Given the high level of ongoing activities associated with these
Cooperative Agreement efforts and the fact that the program, when
initiated, will provide federal Endangered Species Act compliance for
existing and new water projects in Colorado, Nebraska and Wyoming, it
is critically important that the ``Platte River Recovery'' funding be
provided for fiscal year 2006. The requested Federal appropriation will
be used in concert with other federal and non-federal cost-sharing
funding in furtherance of cooperatively resolving long-standing
endangered species and water resource conflicts. Your Subcommittee's
assistance in addressing this issue last year was greatly appreciated
and we will be most grateful for your assistance in again solving this
same problem for the upcoming federal fiscal year. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Village of Wellington, Florida
environmental protection agency
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Village of Wellington, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2006 request for funding in the
amount of $2.7 million for the Village's Water Clean Up and Phosphorus
Removal Project. The Village is most appreciative of the $300,000
provided by the VA/HUD Subcommittee in its fiscal year 2005 bill.
project executive summary
The 1994 Everglades Forever Act (EFA) established water quality
goals for the restoration and preservation of the Everglades Protection
Area. It also identified Basin B within the Village of Wellington as an
area that will need to meet the new phosphorus standard by December 31,
2006 for its storm water discharges into the Arthur Marshall
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (Conservation Area No. 1).
The Acme Basin B Discharge project is one of 55 that comprise the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Basin B drainage
area is part of the Acme Improvement District, which was created by the
state of Florida in 1953 to provide drainage for agricultural land in
central Palm Beach County. During the 50 years since its inception,
land uses within the improvement district have changed dramatically.
The Acme Improvement District now serves the Village of Wellington and
over 50,000 residents. Basin B consists of 8,680 acres of low-density
development located in the southern half of the Improvement District.
The western boundary of Basin B abuts the Loxahatchee Refuge.
The benefits created by the CERP Acme Basin B Discharge project are
largely related to restoration of the natural environment. The health
of the Loxahatchee Refuge and Everglades National Park will be enhanced
with improved quality and quantity of water generated from within the
basin. Specifically, the project will provide the equivalent of 28.5
million gallons of water per day to the Everglades, which, without the
project, would be needlessly sent to the ocean via the Lake Worth
Lagoon.
The Village has been working diligently to arrive at a solution to
meet the EFA requirements in an economic and technically feasible
manner. The actual phosphorus standard has been adopted by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) through the Environmental
Regulatory Commission (ERC). Therefore, the Village has been evaluating
numerous alternatives to be used, to arrive at a Basin B Water Quality
Clean Up Solution to meet those requirements.
Some of these alternatives that have been, or are still being,
evaluated, are:
A water quality improvement Pilot Program with CH2M Hill
Constructors, Inc. was completed and results submitted to SFWMD for use
in design of STA's.
Development of a Best Management Practices (BMP) Ordinance with
phosphorous fertilizer limitations and livestock waste handling
procedures among others. Two Ordinances have already been adopted by
the Village.
Preparation of a Request for Proposals and obtaining responses for
a ``Multi-Purpose Storm Water Management Program'' as a design/build/
operate (DBO) contract.
Development of Basin B Water Quality Clean Up alternatives for
further evaluation by the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) through its study consultants, Burns & McDonnell, and Brown &
Caldwell.
Work with SFWMD and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through a
Cooperation Agreement with SFWMD to develop a Basin B Water Quality
Clean Up Plan as an already federally authorized Other Project Element
(OPE) of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).
Implementation of a detailed water quality monitoring program to
identify ``hot spots'' within Basin B for potential individual site
specific clean up.
Construction of a $350,000 filter marsh to provide treatment to a
major ``hot spot'' is set to commence this summer. Construction of a
$1,000,000 Wetlands Treatment Park near another ``hot spot'' is due to
be constructed late summer, early fall.
As part of its Basin B Water Quality Clean Up Initiative, the
Village of Wellington assembled a ``Surface Water Action Team'' (SWAT)
comprised of key personnel and expert consultants. The SWAT Team, while
continuing to work on many of the above initiatives, is presently
working on a Phase III BMP Ordinance, along with an updated Cooperative
Agreement with SFWMD.
The ongoing water quality monitoring program has indicated a fairly
significant decrease in average phosphorus concentrations since 1999.
In 1999, the average Basin B phosphorous concentration discharged to
the Loxahatchee Refuge was 189 parts per billion (ppb). In 2002, the
average concentration has dropped to 88 ppb, which is a 53.4 percent
decrease in phosphorus levels. In 2003 the average concentration had
dropped to approximately 70 ppb. Although inconclusive, it is likely
that the implementation of the BMP Ordinance played a part in this
decrease in phosphorus concentrations.
To date, the Village of Wellington has made a considerable
financial investment (up to $3 million), not including internal staff
hours, and is set to spend another $4.5 million this year in an effort
to meet the standards set by the Everglades Forever Act requirements.
funding needs
For fiscal year 2006, the Village of Wellington, Florida is seeking
$2.7 million from the Environmental Protection Agency through the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2006 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an
international, non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of
biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals
and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth
by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The
Conservancy has more than 1 million individual members and 1,900
corporate associates. We have programs in all 50 states and in 27
foreign countries. We have protected more than 15 million acres in the
United States and Canada and more than 117 million acres with local
partner organizations globally. The Conservancy owns and manages 1,400
preserves throughout the United States--the largest private system of
nature sanctuaries in the world. Sound science and strong partnerships
with public and private landowners to achieve tangible and lasting
results characterize our conservation programs.
stewardship of public lands
The nation's federal lands require enhanced stewardship funding.
Many of our ecosystems are extremely degraded, particularly by invasive
species and poor fire management, and require substantial investments
to restore proper ecosystem function.
National Fire Plan
In past years, inadequate wildfire suppression funding has required
agencies to transfer funds from other key resource programs to cover
suppression costs. We commend the Subcommittee for providing emergency
fire suppression funding in fiscal year 2005 and we urge Congress to do
the same in fiscal year 2006. We also urge Congress to find a long-term
solution to the suppression funding problem, including cost containment
measures and increased emphasis on fire management planning and
wildland fire use.
We support the increase in the President's budget for BLM and USFS
Hazardous Fuels Reduction to $492 million. We recommend that $100
million be directed to hazardous fuels reduction projects supported by
local communities and consistent with long-term, ecologically-based,
landscape-scale plans (within and beyond the wildland urban interface)
with scientifically adequate monitoring protocols. We also support the
President's proposal for a $5 million grant program for biomass removal
on public lands, especially for projects that relate to hazardous fuels
reduction.
Long-term restoration activities are critical to ensuring that
unnaturally severe fires are not followed by invasive species and other
ecologically destructive processes. Congress should provide $15 million
to the U.S. Forest Service for Rehabilitation and Restoration, and
should ensure that funding from other sources is sufficient to provide
effective long-term restoration.
We support the increase in the President's budget for the Forest
Inventory Analysis (FIA) to $68.7 million. The FIA is a critical
program for developing baselines for long-term monitoring of ecosystem
condition and for development of LANDFIRE data.
Forest Health Management
America's forests are under siege by numerous exotic insects and
diseases, and the pace of introductions appears to be increasing. The
Conservancy urges the Senate to enhance the Forest Service's crucial
role in containing or eradicating these devastating organisms and
minimizing their impacts which can cost hundreds of billions of dollars
if they are not contained. We recommend that the Forest Health
Management program (including National Fire Plan funding) be maintained
at the fiscal year 2005 level of $126 million.
State and Private Forestry
We strongly support funding for programs that provide incentives
for forest stewardship on state and private lands, and critical
technical and financial assistance to communities and landowners to
improve forestry practices for conservation. We support funding the
President's request, $37.1 million, for the Forest Stewardship
program and funding for demonstration projects under the Healthy Forest
Reserve title (Title V) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
Invasive Species
Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native species is the most
pervasive threat to native biodiversity on public land. The Conservancy
supports funding at the President's request, or greater, for the
Interdepartmental National Invasive Species Crosscut Budget. It is
important to coordinate Federal agency actions to achieve prevention,
early detection, rapid response, control and management and restoration
of invasive species problems. We also support enhanced funding for
three areas identified by DOI as fiscal year 2006 priorities: leafy
spurge on the Great Plains, tamarisk in the Southwest and invasive
plant control in Florida. We also support continuation of the highly
successful program of spartina eradication in Willapa Bay and request
$700,000 in refuge operations for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and
$700,000 in targeted Partners for Fish and Wildlife funds for this
purpose.
land acquisition
Land and Water Conservation Fund
We strongly support continued federal acquisition of high-priority
biologically important land and urge the Congress to provide funding
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at a far more robust
level than the President's request. The Conservancy specifically
proposes funding of 31 biologically rich land acquisition projects
totaling $80.25 million. Priorities include multi-year projects to
protect Montana's Blackfoot Valley and acquisition of key inholdings at
Cache River NWR, Pinnacles National Monument, St. Marks NWR, and
Chattahoochee NF. We appreciate the Chairman's strong support for
community supported acquisitions in the Blackfoot Valley. Several
projects, including the Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR and BLM's South
Fork Snake River, utilize conservation easements to achieve important
conservation objectives while maintaining the integrity of working
landscapes. We also urge the Subcommittee to restore funding for the
state-side of LWCF.
Forest Legacy
This program is an increasingly popular and successful model of a
non-regulatory conservation approach based on partnerships between
federal and state governments and private landowners. The huge
potential of this program to achieve conservation goals while
maintaining sustainable use of private lands requires a significant
funding increase. We strongly support a $100 million appropriation for
this program, including such priority projects as the Kamehameha School
Lands in Michigan., Walls of Jericho in Tennessee, Nevada Creek-
Blackfoot in Montana and Annaly Bay in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
payments in lieu of taxes and refuge revenue sharing
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Refuge Revenue Sharing programs
provide payments to counties where land has been taken off the local
property tax roles and put into federal ownership. In some counties,
protection of significant natural resources impacts the tax base that
funds local government services, including schools and public safety.
We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these programs and
honor the federal government's commitment to impacted communities.
scientific information
Sound decisions on public and private land acquisition and
management must be based on high-quality scientific information. We
support an additional $500,000 above the President's request for the
U.S. Geological Survey's National Biological Information Infrastructure
to increase capacity for migratory bird, wildlife disease and invasive
species information. We support the President's request for LANDSAT, a
critically important investment for ecological monitoring in this
country and globally and $250,000 for ecological systems mapping.
Within the USGS Water Resources programs, a funding level of $2.5
million for stream gages is required to maintain current levels of
information.
endangered species programs
The Conservancy supports $100 million for the FWS's Cooperative
Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible tool for building
cooperative, voluntary partnerships. The requested increase reflects
the importance and unmet public funding needs of collaborative
conservation strategies to protect critically rare species on non-
federal land, and state and local acquisition of habitat necessary for
the survival of listed and candidate species.
The Conservancy urges significant increases for the FWS's ESA
implementation programs. Funding increases would enhance the Service's
ability to provide important incentive-based, non-regulatory programs
that assist private landowners in protecting species, including the
Candidate Conservation program. Additional funding for Listing would
enable the Service to expand its evaluation of imperiled species for
listing, a critical action that guarantees certain protections under
the law, including the authority to purchase habitat. Increases for
Consultation/Habitat Conservation Planning would permit the Service to
respond to the dramatic increase in the use of HCPs. Similarly,
increased investments in Recovery would permit the development,
monitoring, and implementation of recovery plans and actions for a
rapidly increasing number of listed species. Finally, we support $1.75
million in planning funds to Southern California's Natural Community
Conservation Planning program.
state and tribal wildlife grants
The Conservancy strongly supports this program and recommends
funding of $85 million. The development of state comprehensive wildlife
conservation plans will set the foundation to direct future resources
for state conservation objectives and encourage the states to make full
use of the best existing scientific information, including natural
heritage data.
cooperative conservation partnerships
Private lands provide a portion of the habitat for at least two-
thirds of all federally listed species. The Administration's
Cooperative Conservation Initiative supports innovative partnerships
between private landowners, local communities, states and the federal
government. We endorse the President's request of $40 million for the
Landowner Incentive Program and $10 million for Private Stewardship
Grants. We support the President's request of $14.9 million for the FWS
Coastal Program. We also support the President's request of $44.8
million for the BLM, FWS and NPS Challenge Cost Share programs. These
programs leverage appropriated dollars through 1:1 matches with State
and private partners to implement important restoration and protection
projects. We support the proposed increase to $52.2 million for the
Partners for Fish and Wildlife, including $7.5 million for the Upper
Klamath River Basin Restoration Initiative. We also support earmarked
funding for the High Plains Partnership.
partnership initiatives
--National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.--Federal support to NFWF
continues to yield a return of over two non-federal dollars for
every single taxpayer dollar. We recommend appropriations of
FWS ($9 million), BLM ($4 million) and Forest Service ($4
million).
--North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and Joint Venture
program.--The Conservancy supports funding for NAWCA at the
President's request of $49.9 million or more. More than $1.6
billion in partner contributions has been raised to match $573
million in federal funds in order to save 20.6 million acres of
wetlands. The Conservancy supports an increase of funding to
$15.1 million for Joint Ventures.
--Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission (CRASC).--The
Conservancy supports a $2.1 million level of funding for the
CRASC.
--Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act (GLFWRA).--The
Conservancy recommends $2 million in base funding and $2
million for grants for the GLFWRA.
department of interior--office of insular affairs
The Conservancy supports the President's request for an additional
$1.2 million to support implementation of Local Action Strategies to
address threats to coral reefs. These strategies are the product of
collaborative efforts between federal agencies, states and territories,
and local NGOs. We also support an increase in funding to $1 million
for the Coral Reef Initiative.
international programs
The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of major international
conservation groups, supports the International Conservation Budget,
which calls for $10.5 million to the FWS' Multinational Species
Conservation Funds. This reflects $2 million each for the African and
Asian Elephants and the Great Ape fund, the same for the new Marine
Turtle fund, and $2.5 million for the Rhinoceros/Tiger fund. We support
$5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. We
support $8 million for the Forest Service's International Programs.
environmental protection agency
The Conservancy supports robust funding levels for select EPA
programs, including $22.7 million for the Great Lakes National Program
Office. This program funds and conducts projects to protect, maintain
and restore the chemical, biological and physical integrity of the
Great Lakes--the largest freshwater ecosystem on Earth.
The Coastal Watersheds and National Estuaries Program should
receive enhanced funding to ensure adequate support for the National
Estuary Programs and the development and implementation of
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. This program also
funds other activities benefiting coastal watersheds, including
partnerships to abate threats to coastal habitats and recreational
waters.
We also support funding to increase the capacity of the Non-point
Source Management Program (Section 319). This program, unlike Farm Bill
programs, can be used to address non-point pollution from diverse
sources such as urban runoff and leaking septic systems, not only
pollution from agricultural sources.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the YMCA of Glendale, California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YMCA of Glendale Camp Fox Wastewater Treatment Plant....... $2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of the YMCA of Glendale, California, I want to thank the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our request for funding for
fiscal year 2006.
ymca of glendale, california
The YMCA of Glendale was founded in 1922, born out of the
resident's desire to enrich the quality of life. Overseen by its own
members, who volunteer to serve on the Board of Directors, it is
managed by other volunteers and paid staff. The YMCA has quietly
provided answers to Glendale's changing needs. Today, its 7,000
current, active members represent every section of our community. It
serves thousands more people through outreach programs and its two
camps on Catalina Island.
The most important component of all YMCA programs is character
development. There are four core values that build strong children--
caring, honesty, respect & responsibility. These values are the tools
that help kids overcome the negative temptations of youth, like drugs,
gangs & crime.
The YMCA is a not-for-profit organization that is particularly
relevant to today's society because it fills a void in the community.
It is for everyone--people of all ages, religions, incomes and
abilities. The YMCA builds community!
The YMCA believes that people who cannot afford to pay full costs
deserve the experience the Y offers as much as those who can. Donations
allow the YMCA to provide membership and programs to people in
financial hardship. As part of its effort to help people live a healthy
lifestyle, the YMCA offers a wide variety of fitness programs including
swimming, fitness classes, strength training, racquetball,
consultations with fitness experts and much more. There are over 500
children taking swimming lessons at the YMCA--every month, all year
round. Another 300 children form youth basketball leagues, and over 250
children take gymnastics classes every month of the year. Building
confidence in children by developing their physical skills is one part
of the YMCA's mission. Showing them how to make sound independent
decisions and solve problems is another part. Two camps on Catalina
Island provide a setting for this and serve over 8,000 children a year.
camp fox wastewater treatment project
Since 1924, Camp Fox has been owned and operated by the YMCA of
Glendale. Located on Catalina Island, each year hundreds of youth
explore the ocean and terrain of the island on a year-round basis. With
a weekly capacity of 300 campers, groups have included YMCA family
groups, church retreats, leadership programs and a full summer of
weekly sessions for youth and teens. In addition, during the school
year, Catalina Island Marine Institute (CIMI) conducts outdoor
education programs at the camp for schools throughout Southern
California. Camp Fox has a rich history of memories and life changing
experiences for thousands who have stayed there over the years.
current facility challenge
Because the current septic system that handles the camp's sewage
treatment needs is failing, the YMCA must install a wastewater
treatment plant. As a result of this situation, since January 2004, the
camp has been required to reduce its capacity by 50 percent. Many of
the YMCA lease groups have left the camp to find other large capacity
camps. This decrease in campers has put a tremendous financial strain
on the operation, in addition to disappointing the many people desiring
to visit the island. The decrease in numbers is outlined below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 2003 2004 Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campers.......................... 14,495 8,200 (6,295)
Camper Days...................... 40,096 22,442 (17,654)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacing this system is costly, with a complex scope of work.
Removal of all old landfills at the camp is being required as well. The
new system will be a disinfecting and dechlorinating process which will
enhance the camp environment and the overall environment on Catalina
Island. Because of the limited resources available to our non-profit
organization, I am requesting your assistance in securing funds for
this project through the programs of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Specifically, we are seeking $2 million through EPA's State and
Tribal Assistance Grants Program.
Again, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
To the Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for this
opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute's perspective
on fiscal year 2006 appropriations for geoscience programs within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. The president's budget requests vital and
overdue funding for natural hazards and mapping which AGI greatly
appreciates and fully supports. The administration seeks significant
cuts in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mineral resources and water
programs. The Mineral Resources Program would receive a 53 percent cut,
leaving the program with only $25 million in fiscal year 2006. If
enacted, these reductions would hamper the Survey's ability to carry
out its important missions to ensure adequate natural resources,
monitor environmental conditions and provide assessments for economic
development, safety and national security. Specifically, we ask the
subcommittee to restore funds to the USGS Mineral Resources Program and
the Water Resources Research Institutes.
For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a new responsibility
of this subcommittee, the proposed fiscal year 2006 is $7.6 billion, a
5.6 percent decrease from last year with significant cuts for state
water programs. AGI supports full funding for water programs in EPA and
USGS, given the importance of clean and readily available water for our
citizens, industries, local to federal government agencies and for the
sustainability of a healthy environment.
Geoscience activities are also found in a number of other agencies
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to
support the well-informed, yet fiscally responsible increases in the
administration's budget proposal for the Minerals Management Services
(MMS) the National Park Service Geologic Resources Division, and the
U.S. Forest Service Minerals and Geology Management Program. MMS
manages natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer
continental shelf and disburses more than $5 billion per year in
revenues from federal offshore and onshore mineral leases. Geoscience
programs within the land management agencies provide a scientific basis
for land-use decisions, a role that they share with the USGS.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 42 geoscientific and professional
associations that represent more than 100,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other earth scientists who work in industry,
academia and government. The institute serves as a voice for shared
interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening
geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the
vital role that the geosciences play in society's use of resources and
interaction with the environment.
u.s. geological survey
For the fourth year in a row, the USGS faces cuts in the
administration's request. AGI thanks Congress and members of this new
subcommittee for its past record of restoring critical funds and
recognizing the Survey's essential value to the nation.
AGI is a charter member of the USGS Coalition, an alliance of
nearly 70 organizations united by a commitment to the continued
vitality of the unique combination of biological, geological,
hydrological and mapping programs of the U.S. Geological Survey. 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.
Virtually every American citizen and every federal, state, and
local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
and services. As was made clear by the National Research Council report
Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, the
USGS's value to the nation goes well beyond the Department of the
Interior's stewardship mission for public lands. USGS information and
expertise address a wide range of important problems facing this
nation: earthquakes and floods, global environmental change, water
availability, waste disposal, and availability of energy and mineral
resources. The Survey serves the nation, through specific results that
can be applied elsewhere to broad assessments used for national
planning. At the same time, AGI recognizes that the Survey does have a
responsibility to provide scientific support for its sister land
management agencies at Interior, an important mission that needs to be
well executed if land management decisions are to be made with the best
available scientific information. It is imperative that both these
missions be recognized and valued within the Department and the White
House. AGI asks the subcommittee to continue its efforts to help the
administration better understand the Survey's value to the nation as a
whole.
Mineral Resources Program.--This highly regarded research program
is the nation's premier credible source for regional, national and
global mineral resource and mineral environmental assessments,
statistics and research critical for sound economic, mineral-supply,
land-use and environmental analysis, planning and decision-making. AGI
urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's requested cuts to
this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level
of $54 million. The 53 percent cut, leaving the program with only $25
million in fiscal year 2006 would decimate the program. It would cost
at least 240 full time positions and eliminate the collection of
nation-wide basic geologic and mineral deposit data, the
internationally coordinated global mineral resource assessment, and
many mineral commodity reports. The essence of the program would be
jeopardized at a time when mineral products account for $418 billion of
the U.S. economy and are a growing and valuable commodity.
The Mineral Resources Program (MRP) has 6 divisions with offices
across the United States working on a broad range of initiatives to
secure the nation's economic base and environmental welfare. Each
month, the Minerals Information Services of the MRP responds to 2,000
telephone inquiries and more than 90,000 email or facsimile inquiries
from the federal government, state agencies, domestic and foreign
agencies, foreign governments and the general public. Cutting-edge
research by MRP scientists investigates the role of microbes in the
geochemical cycles of arsenic, mercury, lead and zinc to understand the
transport and accumulation of health-threatening toxins related to
these elements and to distinguish their natural or anthropogenic
sources. An MRP study analyzed the occurrence and distribution of
asbestos-bearing vermiculite deposits in the United States, in response
to the health problems created by Libby Mine's asbestos-bearing
vermiculite deposit in Montana. MRP scientists also investigated and
prepared a report on the asbestos-bearing debris in the aftermath of
the World Trade Center disaster. An MRP report on the diatomite mining
industry concluded that the U.S. industry is mature and stable,
accounting for at least 50 percent of all diatomite exported in 2001,
but may be adversely affected by overproduction in other countries now.
The Global Mineral Resource Assessment Project of the MRP provides
unbiased and timely information about the current and future
availability of mineral resources around the world, which is needed to
understand and anticipate economic, health, environmental and political
factors that will affect how these resources are used in this
increasingly interconnected world.
The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Department of the
Interior, Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Department of State, the Federal Reserve, other federal, state and
local government entities, foreign governments, private companies and
the general public. Analyses based on the MRP data are essential for
guiding economic and environmental policy and for providing options for
land use decisions posed by industry, government and private land
owners. We urge the subcommittee to restore the Mineral Resources
Program to its fiscal year 2005 level of $54 million so that it may
perform its core missions effectively and efficiently.
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.--AGI is encouraged
by the administration's requested 1 percent increase for the National
Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and values Congress' past support
for much larger increases. This important partnership between the USGS,
state geological surveys, and universities provides the nation with
fundamental data for addressing natural hazard mitigation,
environmental remediation, land-use planning, and resource development.
The program was authorized (Public Law 106-148) to grow by about 10
percent to 20 percent per year from a starting level of $28 million in
1999 to $64 million in 2005. The program received $25.2 million in 2005
and AGI would encourage a 10 percent increase for 2006 because the
program provides a timely basis for assessing water availability and
quality, risks from hazards and other major land and resource-use
issues that are of increasing prominence in many states.
Natural Hazards.--A key role for the USGS is providing the
research, monitoring, and assessment that are critically needed to
better prepare for and respond to natural hazards. The tragic
earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean remind us of the need for
preparation, education, mitigation and rapid response to natural
hazards. Last year 27 major disasters were declared because of
earthquakes, landslides, hurricanes, fires and floods. In addition,
Mount St. Helens began erupting again in 2004 and continues to be
active in 2005 with a steam and ash plume eruption reaching 36,000 feet
in altitude on March 8. AGI strongly supports the administration's
request for increased funding for Earthquake, Volcano and Landslide
Hazards and appreciates Congress' past support for these programs. With
great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act
of 1999 called for a significant federal investment in expansion and
modernization of existing seismic networks and for the development of
the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of
shaking measurement systems focused on urban areas. ANSS can provide
real-time earthquake information to emergency responders as well as
building and ground shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking
to understand earthquake processes. ANSS was funded at about 10 percent
of its authorized level during its first 3 years and received about $16
million. The law calls for 7,000 instruments to be deployed. Currently,
62 are active. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) was reauthorized in October 2004 and AGI supports the
appropriation of full funding for this vital program. AGI strongly
supports the proposed increase of $5.4 million for fiscal year 2006 for
earthquake warning systems development related to the Tsunami Warning
Network enhancements. We hope that all of these under funded systems
will receive additional support to meet their timely goals of better
protection and mitigation of earthquake hazards long before we need to
react.
Water Programs.--The president's request calls for the termination
of the Water Resources Research Institutes. AGI strongly encourages the
subcommittee to oppose these reductions and to fully support this
program at its small, but effective fiscal year 2005 level of $6.4
million. AGI is pleased that the administration has requested full
funding for the National Water Quality Assessment and National
Streamflow Information programs, both of which make important
contributions to the nation.
Homeland Security.--Another troubling aspect of the president's
request is the lack of funding for the USGS activities in support of
homeland security and the war on terrorism overseas. All four
disciplines within the Survey have made and continue to make
significant contributions to these efforts, but the fiscal year 2006
request does not provide any direct funding. Instead, those costs must
be absorbed in addition to the proposed cuts. AGI encourages the
subcommittee to recognize the Survey's important role in homeland
security and ensure adequate support for its newfound responsibilities.
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 build up Smithsonian research with steady
increases that are a tiny fraction of the overall budget, but would
dramatically improve the facilities and their benefit to the country.
national park service
The national parks are very important to the geoscience community
as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our
country and offer unparalleled opportunities for both geoscientific
research and education of our fellow citizens. The National Park
Services's Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to
provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction
with USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that
geoscientists are becoming part of an integrated approach to science-
based resource management in parks. AGI would like to see additional
support for geological staff positions to adequately address the
treasured geologic resources in the national parks.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) requests that
Congress provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with at
least $1 billion in fiscal year 2006. This funding level would restore
administration proposed cuts to important science programs, provide a
modest but much needed inflation adjustment, and allow implementation
of important science and information dissemination initiatives. This
funding level would also help USGS address the cost of maintaining
research facilities and better address impending workforce issues.
The USGS provides independent data, information, research support
and assessments needed by public and private sector decision-makers.
The Survey's unique combination of biological, geographical, geological
and hydrological research programs enable USGS scientists to utilize
cutting-edge interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important
questions.
USGS scientists do not work in isolation. Through the Survey's
nearly 400 offices located in every state and partnerships with over
2,000 federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations, the
USGS has built the capacity to leverage additional research expertise.
For example, through the Cooperative Research Units program USGS
scientists are stationed on university campuses.
This proximity to academic researchers helps bring additional
intellectual and technical resources to bear on the biological,
ecological, and natural resource questions USGS seeks to understand.
The value of Cooperative Research Units extends beyond their immediate
research productivity, however. Cooperative Research Units are a vital
component of our national education and training infrastructure. These
research units enable future natural resource professionals to gain the
skills and experience government agencies need. Furthermore,
Cooperative Research Units are one of USGS' mechanisms for providing
data and technical assistance to local, state, and national decision-
makers.
Natural resource managers require reliable, relevant, and timely
information. The Biological Informatics Program develops and applies
innovative technologies and practices to the management of biological
data, information, and knowledge resulting from research, thereby
increasing the value of that research to scientists, planners,
decision-makers, educators, students, and the public. Increased funding
for the USGS would enable the Biological Informatics Program to
continue on-going activities and begin to implement initiatives that
the resource management and research communities have identified as
national priorities.
USGS biological research programs gather important data and
information that academic, private sector, or other government
scientists do not or can not collect. For instance, a clear national
priority is the prevention and mitigation of future losses resulting
from non-native species invading new environments. USGS research is
helping guide our understanding of how invasive species, such as the
zebra mussel, snakehead fish, or tamarisk, colonize new environments.
Decision-makers, whether working for the National Park Service, a state
parks department, or a hydroelectric utility, utilize USGS science to
develop action plans for combating invasive species.
Infrastructure is vital to science. Increasingly, coordinated
networks of databases and data gathering instruments are required to
answer the questions that public policymakers and scientists are
asking. For example, biologists may use real-time data from the USGS
streamgage network to determine how quickly a pollutant travels through
a watershed, impacts downstream fisheries, or enters a community's
drinking water supply.
USGS biologists conduct impartial research that makes it possible
to assess the vitality of waterfowl, songbirds, large mammals,
terrestrial plants, amphibians, and their habitats. These data
subsequently inform state and federal agency conservation planning and
management. As an example, the USGS bird-banding program allows
scientists to better understand bird populations, habitat requirements,
and migration routes. An understanding of these matters is necessary to
inform the development of hunting regulations.
Within the Biological Research and Monitoring account, the budget
request proposes several important funding increases. For instance, the
budget request includes small increases for ecological systems mapping,
the Great Lakes Deepwater Fisheries Program, Science on Interior's
Landscape, support for biological and geological research for better
decision making in the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, and
the development of innovative control methodologies for invasive
plants.
Unfortunately, the budget request calls for cuts of just over $4.0
million in the Biological Research and Monitoring account. These cuts
would end research on the Mark Twain National Forest, pallid sturgeon,
diamondback terrapins, the grizzly bear population in Montana, the
ground-water supply at Leetown Science Center, fishery genetics
research in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions, manatees, the
Delaware River Basin, and a portion of a general program increase. We
encourage the committee to work to restore these cuts.
The administration has also requested potentially damaging general
funding cuts. Included in this category is a $420,000 cut from the USGS
vehicle fleet and reduced travel and transportation costs. USGS
biological research requires that scientists be able to travel to field
research sites and scientific meetings. Thus, we request that the
committee carefully review this proposed cut to ensure adequate funding
is available to support ongoing research activities. Additionally, the
proposed budget would eliminate the Nebraska Cooperative Research Unit.
At least $395,000 should be appropriated to maintain this research
unit. However, we encourage the committee to also work to provide
additional funding to support the overall Cooperative Research Units
program.
In the fiscal year 2005 appropriation, Congress funded
``uncontrollable costs,'' such as salary and office space rental cost
increases. The administration should be commended for accounting for
these costs in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. We encourage the
committee to once again work to fully fund these expenses. Without full
funding of these expenses, USGS science programs would likely be forced
to reprogram funds that would otherwise support science.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate
the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.21 million
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year
2006 to begin acquisition of a prime piece of property at Kennesaw
Mountain National Battlefield Park.
The Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association is a nonprofit
cooperating association working in partnership with the National Park
Service. Our organization is dedicated to enhancing the public's
understanding and appreciation of Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield Park. The association operates the visitor center bookstore
as well as provides staff at the visitor center front desk. All
proceeds from items sold in the store and from memberships directly
benefit the park. Our support helps provide lectures, seminars,
historical and environmental tours, educational materials, and
interpretive programs.
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park was established to
commemorate the 1864 Atlanta campaign. On June 19, 1864, the Union
troops of General William Sherman reached Kennesaw Mountain on their
march from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Atlanta, Georgia. A series of
attacks ensued as Confederate soldiers, led by General Joseph Johnston,
attempted to stave off the Union brigades. In the end, Sherman returned
to his flanking strategy and the Southerners abandoned their Kennesaw
lines. Nearly 4,000 soldiers lost their lives in the battle at
Kennesaw.
An opportunity exists over the next two years to conserve the
Hensley property, a 45-acre inholding of the park. This prized land
contains earthen fortifications used by Union Infantry during the siege
of Kennesaw Mountain and Marietta. The earthworks on the Hensley
property are an important continuation of those in the park. They are
part of the federal infantry line, which helped protect the 24-gun
battery assembled by General Sherman to drive the Confederates from
their mountain citadel. This tract is a combination of fields, forest,
and lake, and would significantly enhance the historic value of the
park. Over the next ten years, the park is expected to improve the tour
route, add more interpretive signs, and add the 24-gun battery as a
tour stop.
The preservation of the Hensley property would protect one of the
few remaining significant tracts of land in the area. Presently zoned
for residential and agricultural uses, this land faces the imminent
threat of development as growth in this area is occurring rapidly. The
Hensley property is located in west Cobb County, which for a long time
consisted solely of farmland, and where Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield Park served as a major buffer from burgeoning commercial
and residential development from the east. In past years, this buffer
has been overwhelmed by growth from the east and west as a result of
its close proximity to Atlanta.
In an area where large tracts of land are disappearing, acquisition
of this unique inholding is crucial to preserving the cultural history
of Kennesaw Mountain and its Civil War legacy.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
Environment
summary
The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges
Congress to appropriate $1.0 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 7.1 percent over the fiscal
year 2005 enacted level. For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), NCSE urges Congress to appropriate at least $790 million for the
Science and Technology account, including at least $100 million for the
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $10
million for the STAR graduate fellowship program, as well as $10
million for the Office ofEnvironmental Education.
As a result of the committee's recent reorganization, the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies now has
broader jurisdiction over environmental research and education. NCSE
commends the subcommittee for its past bipartisan leadership in support
of science to improve environmental decisionmaking. We ask for your
continued leadership in addressing pressing national challenges by
appropriating strong and growing funding for environmental research and
education at the USGS, EPA, and other agencies under the subcommittee's
expanded jurisdiction.
The National Council for Science and the Environment is dedicated
to improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking. We
are supported by over 500 organizations, including universities,
scientific societies, government associations, businesses and chambers
of commerce, and environmental and other civic organizations. NCSE
promotes science and its essential role in decisionmaking but does not
take positions on environmental issues themselves.
u.s. geological survey
The vital importance of the USGS in protecting public safety was
highlighted by the tragic loss of life caused by the tsunami that was
triggered by a great earthquake beneath the Indian Ocean on December
26, 2004. Investments in the USGS pay enormous dividends by reducing
risks from earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides, and
other natural hazards.
As a founding member and co-chair of the USGS Coalition, NCSE joins
with 68 other organizations in recommending an appropriation of $1.0
billion for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year 2006, an increase
of 7.1 percent above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This increase
would enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the
budget request, accelerate the deployment of critical projects (e.g.,
Advanced National Seismic System and the National Map), and launch new
science initiatives that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects
of the long-term funding shortfall that has left the USGS budget
stagnant for the past decade.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
by $1.9 million or 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The budget request
would offset $36.7 million of cuts in existing program activities with
$33.4 million in new and expanded program funding. Two large program
cuts are of special concern to NCSE. The budget request would cut $28.7
million from the Mineral Resources program, a devastating 53 percent
decrease in funding. The USGS budget request would also eliminate the
entire $6.4 million budget for the Water Resources Research Institutes,
which are located in all 50 states.
The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of
objective guidance and unbiased research on our mineral resources that
helps guide economic development of natural resources and protection of
the environment. This guidance and research is important to reduce the
environmental impacts of mining and to maintain the growing value of
processed materials from mineral resources that accounted for $418
billion in the U.S. economy in 2004, an increase of 13 percent over
2003. The proposed cuts in the Mineral Resources program would also
terminate multidisciplinary research that has important implications
for public health and environmental protection, such as studies on
mercury, arsenic and other inorganic toxins.
The Water Resources Research Institutes have been successful in
developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments with
funds from other sources. Last year, the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies said, ``The
Administration has placed a high priority on cooperative programs that
leverage funds from state and local governments as well as private
entities. The committee believes that bureaus that are successful in
implementing these policies should be rewarded and not penalized.''
The proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the
USGS to achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore these
cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high
priority programs elsewhere in the USGS budget.
The USGS budget request would add $33.4 million in new and expanded
program funding, including $5.4 million for facilities and operations
to provide more robust detection and notification of earthquakes that
could generate a dangerous tsunami. The USGS effort will complement
NOAA's effort to enhance and expand the tsunami warning system to
detect any tsunami that might strike anywhere along the U.S. coast. The
budget request would also provide an increase of $19.5 million for land
remote sensing activities that support a broad array of economic,
agricultural and environmental uses. This funding would allow the USGS
to continue operation of the damaged Landsat 7 satellite and work with
NASA and NOAA to begin building a ground-based system for a Landsat
follow-on mission. The USGS budget request would provide small
increases to improve volcanic monitoring, expand pilot studies to
assess ground-water depletion in the western United States, strengthen
ecosystem studies in the Puget Sound, and address other important
issues. These initiatives deserve the support of Congress.
The USGS budget request would provide $17.2 million to fully fund
increases in ``fixed costs,'' such as salaries and rent. In past years,
increases in fixed costs were partially ``absorbed'' by individual
programs. Cumulatively, this practice has had a disproportionate impact
on core USGS programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping,
which cannot absorb cuts without affecting scientific research and
monitoring activities. Without full funding of fixed cost increases,
the USGS may be forced to further curtail ongoing activities, hindering
or preventing the delivery of data needed by natural resource managers
and emergency planners. This would increase our vulnerability to
natural disasters and increase the costs of recovery.
In addition to restoring the proposed program cuts, we encourage
Congress to provide additional increases that would enable the USGS to
meet the tremendous need for science in support of decisionmaking. More
investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve
monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital geospatial data and
deliver the best possible science to address societally important
problems. The USGS has a national mission that encompasses the homes of
all citizens through natural hazards monitoring, drinking water
studies, biological and geological resource assessments, and other
activities.
During the past ten years, total federal spending for non-defense
R&D has risen by 64 percent in constant dollars. By contrast, R&D
funding for the USGS has remained nearly flat over the past decade
after adjusting for inflation. Even this flat funding for the USGS
reflects congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts.
We encourage Congress to provide the USGS with a budget that will
allow for the modest growth necessary to address emerging needs for
science. After years of stagnant funding and absorption of
uncontrollable cost increases, the USGS has a large and growing backlog
of monitoring and science needs. The National Council for Science and
the Environment urges Congress to appropriate $1.0 billion for the USGS
in fiscal year 2006. This investment will help the USGS improve
monitoring networks, strengthen partnerships, produce high-quality
data, and deliver impartial science that serves the needs of the
nation.
environmental protection agency
The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress
to appropriate a minimum of $790 million for EPA's Science and
Technology account, including at least $100 million for EPA's Science
to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $10 million for
EPA's STAR graduate fellowship program. NCSE also urges Congress to
restore full funding for the Office of Environmental Education at a
level of at least $10 million. In order to fulfill its mission, EPA
needs increased investments in both its intramural and extramural
research programs.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request for the STAR programs is $63.3
million, which is 39.5 percent below the fiscal year 2004 request of
$104.7 million. The budget for the research grants program has been on
a steady decline despite extremely positive reviews from the National
Academy of Sciences. The budget for the graduate fellowships has
oscillated between $5 million and $10 million in recent budget cycles.
These programs deserve strong and stable funding.
Last year, Rep. Vernon Ehlers, Chairman of the House Science
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards, convened a
hearing to examine the proposed cuts to EPA's STAR programs. He
concluded, ``I have not heard a convincing reason today for why the
STAR program was cut so dramatically. By all accounts, it is a well-
run, competitive, peer reviewed program that produces high quality
research. These proposed reductions should not be allowed to take
effect.'' We believe the same is true today. NCSE recommends a minimum
appropriation of $100 million for the EPA STAR research grants program
in fiscal year 2006, the same funding level proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget request.
Deep budget cuts to the EPA STAR program have been proposed less
than two years after the National Academies issued a laudatory report,
The Measure of STAR, which concludes that the program supports
excellent science that is directly relevant to the agency's mission.
According to the report, the STAR program has ``yielded significant new
findings and knowledge critical for regulatory decision making.'' The
report says, ``The program has established and maintains a high degree
of scientific excellence.'' It also concludes, ``The STAR program funds
important research that is not conducted or funded by other agencies.
The STAR program has also made commendable efforts to leverage funds
through establishment of research partnerships with other agencies and
organizations.''
The EPA STAR research program compares favorably with programs at
other science agencies. According to the National Academies report,
``The STAR program has developed a grant-award process that compares
favorably with and in some ways exceeds that in place at other agencies
that have extramural research programs, such as the National Science
Foundation and the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences.''
The STAR research grants program expands the scientific expertise
available to EPA by awarding competitive grants to universities and
independent institutions, to investigate scientific questions of
particular relevance to the agency's mission. The National Academies
report says, ``The STAR program should continue to be an important part
of EPA's research program.''
NCSE urges Congress to appropriate at least $10 million for the
STAR graduate fellowship program in fiscal year 2006. This is the only
federal program aimed specifically at students pursuing advanced
degrees in environmental sciences. According to the National Academies
report, ``The STAR fellowship program is a valuable mechanism for
enabling a continuing supply of graduate students in environmental
sciences and engineering to help build a stronger scientific foundation
for the nation's environmental research and management efforts.'' The
STAR fellowship program is highly competitive, with only 7 percent of
applicants being awarded fellowships. This level of funding is
insufficient to allow all students whose applications are rated as
excellent to receive fellowships.
The President's budget request has proposed deep cuts in the STAR
graduate fellowship program in recent years. The budget request would
have cut funding for the STAR graduate fellowship program by 50 percent
in fiscal year 2004 and by 100 percent in fiscal year 2003. Congress
restored full funding for the EPA STAR graduate fellowship program in
both years. NCSE encourages Congress to restore full funding for the
program again in fiscal year 2006.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request proposes no funding for the EPA
Office of Environmental Education. NCSE strongly encourages Congress to
restore full funding of at least $10 million to support the
congressionally mandated programs administered by this office. These
programs provide national leadership for environmental education at the
local, state, national and international levels, encourage careers
related to the environment, and leverage non-federal investment in
environmental education and training programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Federal Employees
(NFFE) Local 1957
I am writing on behalf of the National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, the bargaining unit for the Minerals
Information Team (MIT), Geologic Division, U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), Reston, VA. We are concerned that the Administration's proposed
budget for 2006, which includes a $2 million reduction that eliminates
MIT's core International Information function (collecting, reporting,
and analyzing data on the foreign supply of minerals needed by the U.S.
economy), will severely affect the ability of the members of our
bargaining unit to provide critical information on the nation's mineral
supply. MIT's mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate
information on the domestic and international supply and domestic
consumption of minerals and materials essential to the U.S. economy and
its national security. Nonfuel mineral materials processed in the
United States totaled more than $400 billion in 2004. MIT collects and
disseminates data on more than 100 mineral materials originating from
more than 180 countries. The U.S. import dependence for most strategic
and critical nonfuel minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than
the country's dependence on foreign oil.
In 2004, the House Appropriations Committee in its markup
recognized the contribution of the Minerals Resources Program when it
wrote that it ``strongly disagrees with the proposed reduction in the
(U.S. Geological) Survey's mineral resources program. Minerals and
mineral products are important to the U.S. economy . . .'' Our
bargaining unit could not agree more with that position and we urge
Congress to once again retain the international data collection
function of MIT to enable the NFFE bargaining unit members to maintain
their capabilities to serve the national interest by providing
Congressionally mandated information critical to the nation's mineral
supply.
MIT was transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1996
under a Joint House-Senate Conference Amendment that provided for the
minerals information activities, formerly conducted by the U.S. Bureau
of Mines, to continue within the USGS. The Defense Production Act of
1950, as amended (1980 & 1992), delegates significant authority to the
Secretary of the Interior relating to the assurance of an adequate
supply of mineral materials necessary for the national defense, with
the specific responsibility for analyses of domestic and foreign
supplies.
As the economies of China, India, and other developing countries
continue to grow, the increasing global demand for mineral resources
will affect the U.S. economy's ability to have ample affordable mineral
resources to meet its needs and will require international information
regarding the production and consumption of minerals. Without data on
international supply, there would be a critical information gap
regarding the U.S. mineral supply. Elimination of our international
function through a 13 percent ($2 million) budget reduction would
severely limit our ability to fulfill our obligations under the USGS's
Congressionally mandated mission to supply information on the nation's
supply of nonfuel minerals.
Information and analyses produced by the Minerals Information Team
are widely used and relied upon by our Government and private sector.
The Minerals Information Team produces more than 500 publications per
year covering most nonfuel minerals, including the Mineral Commodity
Summaries for the Congressional Offices. Our web site provides
approximately 1.4 million publication downloads per year and nearly the
same number of hits. The U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense,
Treasury, and State, as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Federal Reserve Board, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the
International Trade Commission, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative have increasingly relied on the USGS-MIT specialists for
global minerals-related policy analysis, as have domestic agencies,
including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management
Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. MIT
data are cited in Securities and Exchange Commission filings by mining
companies requiring an authoritative, impartial source for statements
of world resources, capacities, production and consumption.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this issue that
affects the interests of both the Nation and the members of NFFE local
1957.
summary points
--The proposed Administration budget for 2006 stipulates a $2 million
reduction in the MIT budget that eliminates the core
International Information function.
--The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 & 1992),
delegates significant authority to the Secretary of the
Interior relating to the assurance of an adequate supply of
mineral materials necessary for the national defense, with the
specific responsibility for analyses of domestic and foreign
supplies.
--The U.S. import dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel
minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the
country's dependence on foreign oil.
--Elimination of the International Information function would limit
the bargaining unit's ability to fulfill its mission and would
contradict the USGS's Congressionally mandated mission to
supply information on the nation's supply of nonfuel minerals.
--Without data on international supply, there would be a critical
information gap regarding the U.S. mineral supply.
--NFFE local 1957 urges Congress to retain the international data
collection function of MIT which would enable our bargaining
unit members to maintain their capabilities to serve the
national interest by providing Congressionally mandated
information on the nation's mineral supply.
NFFE Local 1957 Briefing on the USGS Minerals Information Team &
Mineral Resources Program
usgs minerals information team (mit)
The Administration's proposed $2 million cut to MIT's current
funding level would eliminate MIT's international data collection
function and severely compromise the USGS' ability to meet its mission
as mandated by Congress.
--MIT's international information function would be eliminated,
greatly limiting the MIT bargaining unit's ability to meet its
core mission--to collect, report, and analyze data on the
supply of minerals critical to the Nation's economic and
national defense needs.
--The USGS, therefore, could not fulfill its Congressional mandate to
assure there is an adequate and dependable supply of mineral
materials necessary for national defense, as established by The
Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 & 1992).
Because of the global nature of the minerals industry, mineral
commodity assessments require international information.
--The Administration's budget proposal comes at a time of increased
globalization and demand for minerals. The economies of China,
India, and other developing countries continue to grow, which
creates an ever increasing global demand for mineral resources.
This will affect the U.S. economy's ability to have ample
affordable mineral resources to meet its needs and will require
international information regarding the production and
consumption of minerals.
--The U.S. import dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel
minerals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the
country's dependence for oil. In 2004, MIT found that U.S.
companies relied more than 50 percent on imports to meet their
needs for 42 of 81 minerals (USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries
2005). Of those, the import reliance was 100 percent for 17
minerals and at least 80 percent for another 11.
--Helping assure the country has ample mineral resources to meet its
needs simply cannot be done with disregard to international
factors that affect the supply and demand of those resources.
MIT's budget should be permanently set as a separate line item, and
the budget increased to $20 million.
--Repeated attempts by the Administration to reduce MIT funding over
the last several years raise the question of the group's long-
term viability under the current budget structure.
--In 2002, Congress rejected a similar proposed $2 million
reduction in MIT's budget.
--Since then, Congress has continued to reject proposed cuts to
MIT funding.
--Since 1998, MIT's budget of about $16 million has fallen about 5
percent, which represents more than a 20 percent decrease when
accounting for salary cost of living adjustments and other
inflationary costs. Such a severely constrained budget
challenges the group's ability to retain its expertise, attract
new hires for succession planning, and perform at the highest
levels.
--NFFE urges Congress to increase MIT funding to $20 million, which
is equivalent in today's dollars to MIT's funding within USGS
in 1998. This represents only about 0.0045 percent of the non-
defense discretionary budget of $445 billion as estimated by
the Congressional Budget Office in January 2004, and would
afford MIT the means to better meet its mission. As the
nation's only source of comprehensive and unbiased mineral
commodity data, MIT should be retained and enhanced.
--At a minimum, MIT's international function should be retained and,
accordingly, MIT's budget should be restored by $2 million so
that the MIT bargaining unit can meet its core mission
functions.
mineral resources program (mrp)
The NFFE is concerned that the proposed budget reduction for the
MRP overall could adversely impact the MIT collective bargaining unit
through the Reduction in Force process and elimination of valuable
information MIT requires in the analyses of global mineral supply.
Accordingly, we have several points we would like to make regarding MRP
funding that affect the MIT bargaining unit's ability to carry out its
mission.
The proposed $28.7 million reduction in the MRP that assumes
nonfuel mineral resource assessments are somehow of lesser priority to
the Nation's economy and security than those of fuel minerals is
puzzling and diminishes the mission of the MIT bargaining unit.
--Nonfuel mineral mining and use significantly impacts the U.S.
economy. Of the total $21 trillion in sales by U.S. industries
in 2004, preliminary USGS estimates show processed mineral
materials contributed about $5.2 trillion. The value of U.S.
raw nonfuel mineral mine production alone is estimated at about
$47 billion.
--According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, major industries
consuming processed mineral materials added more than $1.7
trillion to the total U.S. GDP in 2003.
--Without nonfuel minerals, the Nation's infrastructure (including
that of the energy sector) could not be built or maintained,
nor its borders and quality of life for its peoples protected.
The assertion that expertise exists at various universities and
state geological surveys to continue minerals work that would be
brought to an end by the proposed budget reduction is optimistic, would
deprive the MIT bargaining unit of needed expertise, and would not
include work that is inherently a Federal government function.
--While it is true that universities and state geological surveys
have expertise in minerals deposits, without a firm Federal
commitment and participation, these groups and other
organizations would not be able to meet the many public and
private needs for minerals-related information and expertise.
--For example, 14 of 27 university mining engineering programs in
the United States have closed since 1985, including those
at New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, University
of California-Berkeley, and the University of Idaho. Of the
13 remaining, only 3 have more than 8 faculty members.
Economic geology programs have a similar pattern though
they typically consist of only one faculty member.
--Recognizing the need for Federal funding of mineral-resource and
related research, the National Research Council recommended
the USGS fund an external grants program for minerals-
related research at universities in 1996 and again in 2004.
In response to these reports and strong interest from the
minerals community, the USGS MRP created an external grants
program using internal funds in fiscal year 2004.
Ironically, this program would be eliminated by the
proposed fiscal year 2006 budget.
--Of great concern to us is the Country's trend towards losing more
of its ability to assess mineral resources and the factors that
affect them as evidenced by dwindling university programs,
student enrollment, and number of faculty, as well as
decreasing Federal funding through the closure of the U.S.
Bureau of Mines in 1996 and flat MRP funding levels since then.
This would be further compounded by the loss of 240 MRP
positions, including 20 in MIT, which would result from the
proposed fiscal year 2006 budget cut. Like most of the minerals
on which the country relies, the Nation is at risk of becoming
import reliant on people with mineral expertise!
The proposed $28 million reduction in the MRP calling for a focus
only ``on those needs that are inherently Federal'' would make it
unduly difficult for MIT to carry out its mission. The MIT and MRP
missions are ``inherently Federal'' as described on page I-8 of the
Department of Interior's justification document:
``The Federal role in conducting science to understand geologic
hazards, resources [emphasis added], and processes derives from the
U.S. Government's responsibilities to protect the lives and property of
its citizens, to support continued economic growth and competitiveness
. . .''
--MRP's core responsibility is to provide unbiased, scientifically
sound resource assessments about the availability and quantity
of the Nation's mineral resources, including the economic and
environmental effects of resource extraction and use. As with
energy mineral resources, the United States continues to rely
ever increasingly on foreign sources to meet its needs. In
trying to focus mineral resources assessments only on domestic
sources and then those only on Federal lands would surely
constitute an abrogation of Federal responsibility by putting
the Nation at great economic and security risk.
--Further, because the information used in the numerous MIT reports
is often proprietary, only the Federal government can fulfill
the role of a trusted third party. Companies and many foreign
governments would be greatly disinclined to provide proprietary
information to non-government entities.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources
Mr. Chairman, I am James Moncur, President of the National
Institutes for Water Resources and Director of the Hawaii Water
Resources Research Center at the University of Hawaii. My statement
requests the Subcommittee to provide $8.775 million to the U.S.
Geological Survey for the state Water Resources Research Institutes
program.
First, I want to thank you and this Subcommittee for the strong
support you have given to this program in past years. You have
recognized the great value in having federal, state, and local
government agencies cooperating with a network of universities to
produce new knowledge about water resources as well as train a new
generation of talented and educated water professionals.
I want to acknowledge the leading role you and your colleagues have
played to ensure that the U.S. Geological Survey continues to provide
the science needed to manage the nation's natural resources. The water
institute directors who are represented by NIWR recognize that the
Survey is the nation's preeminent natural resources science
organization and that it is faced with growing scientific demands to
support responsible stewardship of our natural resources.
The Water Resources Research Institutes program was first
authorized by the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. In establishing
and supporting this federal-state-academic partnership, Congress
recognized the great success of the state water resources research
institutes in providing sound science and well educated professionals
to the nation's water management programs, and doing so in a highly
efficient manner.
request
The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request
the addition of $8.775 million to the U.S. Geological Survey's fiscal
year 2006 budget for the state Water Resources Research Institutes
program. This recommendation is based on the following components:
--$7 million in grants for the 54 institutes as authorized by Section
104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act;
--$1.5 million to support the national competitive grants program
authorized by Section 104(g) of the Act; and
--$275,000 for program administration at USGS.
These amounts would provide each institute $125,000 under Section
104(b), to support state-based competitions for research and graduate
education at the institutes, located at land-grant universities in each
state, three territories and in Washington, D.C. For fiscal year 2005,
this grant was $92,412. It would also provide for an increase from
about $1 million to $1.5 million for the national competitive grants
program under Section 104(g). Competition for the 104(g) awards is
extremely vigorous: in 2004, for example, 45 proposals were submitted
to the 104(g) program, requesting a total of $6.8 million; only 8 were
funded.
justification
Since their creation by Congress in 1964, the state water resources
research institutes have established a remarkable infrastructure of
physical and human capital for studying water resource problems. The
institutes link scientists and scholars from a wide array of
disciplines, institutions and agencies to focus on the diverse
characteristics and effects of water and related resources. The network
composed of these institutes serves an invaluable function in sharing
knowledge across state lines and addressing problems created by the
insistence of rivers, aquifers, floods and droughts on ignoring the
boundaries of our states.
Unfortunately, few of these problems are anywhere near completely
and finally ``solved'' and new issues continue to arise. Several areas
are rapidly approaching or have passed the sustainable limits of
groundwater withdrawals. Control of non-point source pollutants is a
vast undertaking, far from complete despite several years of earnest
effort. Contention over river flows has spread from the dry West to
some of the relatively wet eastern states. Floods, forest fires,
homeland security and newly discovered chemical contaminants all remain
challenging issues. Water will be an increasingly scarce resource of
the 21st century and is thought by many to be a likely cause of
regional conflicts and war.
The importance of these problems varies from region to region. In
my own home state of Hawaii, for example, rapid population growth and a
fading sugar-plantation legacy have generated immense changes in water
use. These changes have forced a thorough re-examination of the
management of aquifers from which most of our water is drawn and have
sparked new interest in wastewater reuse, desalination and
conservation. In other areas of country, pressures on water supplies of
the Rio Grand Basin, acid rain in New England, water storage in
Nebraska sand dunes, flooding and drought in several states, and
regional water planning in the New York City watershed exemplify the
diversity of problems approached by the institutes. This list
illustrates the need for a network of research centers to look after
problems in their own backyards as well as to collaborate with one
another on problems of regional and national scope.
Here are some examples of the institutes' work in the past year:
--The California Institute developed methods of estimating historical
populations of salmon, and thus to judge the success of habitat
restoration efforts.
--The New Mexico Institute provided technical assistance to the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and Sandia National laboratories in a
large-scale desalination research facility.
--The Virginia Institute coordinates a multi-institute,
interdisciplinary academic advisory committee for the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality.
--The New York Institute developed the ``multiple barrier'' approach
to manage non-point source pollutants in the New York City
Watershed.
--The Montana Institute, working with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, has formulated strategies to control outbreaks of
bacterial coldwater disease in fish hatcheries.
--The Wisconsin Institute produced a computer program to design and
evaluate stormwater bioretention facilities intended to enhance
urban groundwater recharge.
--The Michigan Institute, with the National Park Service, has
developed a web site to make monitoring data and other
ecological information available to Park Service managers.
These examples attest to the practicality and applicability of
research performed by the institutes. To ensure the usefulness of
supported research, each institute has a technical advisory committee,
made up of representatives from university faculty, local, state and
federal agencies and the private sector. These panels identify the most
pressing water problems facing their states, establish priorities and
help with local reviews of proposals.
The National Institutes for Water Resources, in collaboration with
the USGS, has developed a highly effective and efficient online system
for collecting data, reporting results, and reviewing competitive
research proposals. The system accepts early drafts of proposals and
allows local administrators to choose which to support. It then
identifies experts from across the country to provide peer reviews,
which they report online. This system is now serving as a model for
management of other sponsored research by federal agencies. Planning is
under way to extend the system's scope in several dimensions.
Each year the Institute Program produces about 1,000 technical
publications dealing with water resources. Roughly one-fourth of these
are in refereed scientific journals. In fiscal year 2004, the
Institutes conducted more than 160 conferences, seminars and workshops
with more than 18,000 participants. Thirty-one institutes publish
newsletters detailing research projects and reporting on water events,
with total circulation of about 60,000. Nearly every institute
maintains a website to further enhance dissemination of research
results.
Beyond research and service, the Institutes also make an important
contribution to education and training. In fiscal year 2004, 1,449
students (511 undergraduates, 596 master's, 297 Ph.D.s and 45 post-
docs) were supported by Institute projects. These projects allowed
invaluable hands-on application of classroom instruction for students
from agriculture, engineering, economics, geology, geography and many
other areas. Often, students have developed theses or dissertations and
even found post-graduation employment as a direct result of their
Institute-supported work. Encouragement of education in water-related
areas is increasingly important as the baby-boom cohort--as important
to staffing in water resources areas as in other sectors of the
economy--ages and retires in the next decade.
As a whole, the federal appropriation has fostered a network of
truly national scope from a collection of individual researchers in
universities and water professionals in government and the private
sector. The Institutes provide the driving force for collaboration
between disciplines and between university faculty, government and
private sector personnel. Without federal support, these extensive
network benefits would wither away.
This Subcommittee had the foresight to initiate an examination of
water resources research funded in this country. In June 2004, the
National Research Council released a report surveying federal
government investment in water research (Confronting the Nation's Water
Problems: The Role of Research, National Research Council, 2004). This
report identified a number of problems, including a lack of research
coordination between federal agencies, leading to some duplication and
some gaps. The mission-driven federal agencies, for example, have
tended to overlook research in institutional, economic and legal areas,
as compared to the physical and engineering sciences. The report notes
that ``the Water Resources Research Institute system . . . provides an
existing, well-organized mechanism for articulating state-based
research needs and for bringing together water managers, stakeholders
across a wide cross section of the public, and researchers and academic
institutions throughout each state.'' The NRC suggests expanded roles
for the Institutes in collecting information on research priorities
from local and state agencies, for consideration by federal policy
makers, and in disseminating results of federal research. These
activities arise directly from existing functions of the Institutes. In
response, the Institutes are preparing a strategic plan expanding on
these suggestions, including a pilot study of research priorities.
Last year the USGS Director appointed a panel to undertake the
five-year evaluation of the Institutes Program in accordance with the
Section 104(e) of Water Resources Research Act, Among its conclusions,
the panel found that--
--the Institute Program, with its federal-state matching requirement,
is an important and significant part of the nation's water
resources research infrastructure.
--the program garners significant funding leverage for the modest
federal appropriation that supports it.
--the program also does well in attracting young scientists to the
water resources fields.
--the program also embodies an effective information clearing house
and fosters significant opportunities for multidisciplinary
research on all aspects pf water resources research and water
management.
Federal funds invested in the Institutes Program have a remarkably
high payoff. Each dollar of the 104(b) grant ($92,412 per institute in
fiscal year 2005) requires $2 matching funds from other sources. The
grants directly supported 227 projects nationwide, and led the way to
an additional 931 projects funded from other sources. Altogether, the
Institutes generated an additional $16.30 in other funding for each
dollar provided by the federal appropriation. Of this, $8.40 came from
other federal sources and $7.90 from local and state governments,
universities, private firms, foundations and other non-federal sources.
It is crucial to realize that much of this extra $16 could not have
been generated without the leverage provided by the Congressional
appropriation. In the process, the grants serve as a catalyst for
universities to invest in and maintain capacities to galvanize faculty,
laboratories and equipment and to stimulate student interest in water
resource issues.
The 1960s appropriations provided $100,000 per year to each
institute--about $600,000 in today's dollars. By fiscal year 2005, this
had declined to $92,412 per institute. Research needs for this money
have not, unfortunately, diminished apace.
The U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Research Institutes
program generates a high return to the people of the United States by
applying sound scientific methods in support of sound water policy and
management. The National Institutes for Water Resources urges this
Subcommittee to provide $8.775 million for fiscal year 2006.
Finally, the National Institutes for Water Resources is a member of
the USGS Coalition. NIWR strongly concurs in the Coalition's
recommendation that Congress increase the budget of the U.S. Geological
Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 7.1 percent
above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The increase, which is
necessary for the Survey to continue providing critical information to
decision makers at all levels of government, would enable the USGS to
restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request, provide full
funding for ``uncontrollable'' costs, and undertake a few exciting new
science initiatives that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects
of the long-term funding short fall.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present these views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Public Service Company of New Mexico
I am requesting your support and assistance in insuring continued
funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These
ongoing cooperative programs have the dual objectives of recovering
four species of endangered fish while water use continues and water
development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, state law, and interstate compacts. Partners in the two programs
are the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I respectfully request support and action by the Subcommittee that will
provide the following:
1. An increase of $691,000 in the fiscal year 2006 Recovery Element
budget (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services
Activity, Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element) allocated
to ``Colorado River fish recovery project'' to allow U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 6 to meet its funding commitment to the
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the
level of funding appropriated in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for
this program. These funds are needed for FWS direct participation in
managing and implementing the Upper Colorado Program's actions,
monitoring achievement of recovery goals, managing data associated with
fish population abundance and sampling, evaluating stocking, and
monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions.
2. The appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds
(Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery
Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to
support the ongoing operation of the FWS' Ouray National Fish Hatchery
in Utah during fiscal year 2006.
3. An increase of $211,000 in the ``Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery Element'' budget allocated to the ``San Juan
River Recovery Implementation Program''. These funds are needed to
support the FWS Recovery Program Coordinator and staff who are
responsible for program management and support of all Recovery Program
activities.
The enactment of Public Law 106-392, as amended by Public Law 107-
375, authorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 million of
cost sharing for these two ongoing recovery programs' remaining capital
construction projects. Raising and stocking of the endangered fish
produced at program hatchery facilities, restoring flood plain habitat
and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows,
installing diversion canal screens and controlling nonnative fish
populations are key components of the programs' ongoing capital
construction projects. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106-392 authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to accept up to $17 million of
contributed funds from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, and to
expend such contributed funds as if appropriated for these projects;
and provides for an additional $17 million to be contributed from
revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
hydroelectric power. This substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding
demonstrates the strong commitment and effective partnerships embodied
in both of these successful programs. The requested federal
appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving
forward.
The support of your Subcommittee in past years is greatly
appreciated--and has been a major factor in the success of these multi-
state, multi-agency programs as they have progressed forward towards
delisting the endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities
are occurring. I request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that
the FWS is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important
programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
the environmental protection agency
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) \1\ requests an
annual appropriation of $1.5 billion from the federal general fund for
the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program and $1 billion
for the Safe Drinking Water SRF. The nation's wastewater treatment
infrastructure and drinking water systems received a grade of D--from
ASCE on our 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure released on
March 9, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
civil engineering organization. It represents 137,000 civil engineers
in private practice, government, industry and academia who are
dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and professional society
organized under Part 1.501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Government has directly invested more than $72 billion
in the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs)
and their related facilities since passage of the Clean Water Act in
1972. Nevertheless, the physical condition of many of the nation's
16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor due to a lack of investment
in plant, equipment, and other capital improvements over the years.
Numerous wastewater systems have reached the end of their useful
design life. Older systems are plagued by chronic overflows during
major rain storms and heavy snowmelt and, intentionally or not, are
bringing about the discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in August 2004
that the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharged
nationwide is 850 billion gallons a year. Sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes, trigger the release of as
much as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage yearly, according to the EPA.
Federal funding under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund
(SRF) program has remained flat for the last decade. With one
exception, Congress appropriated between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion
from 1995 to 2004.\2\ But in fiscal year 2005 Congress cut wastewater
SRF funding for the first time in 8 years, reducing the total
investment to $1.1 billion. The Bush administration has proposed
further cuts for fiscal year 2006, with a budget submittal calling for
an appropriation of only $730 million, a reduction of 33 percent from
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The appropriation for state SRF programs was reduced to $625
million in fiscal year 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal assistance has not kept pace with the needs. Yet virtually
every authority agrees that funding needs remain very high: the United
States must invest an additional $181 billion for all types of sewage
treatment projects eligible for funding under the Act, according to the
most recent Needs Survey estimate by the EPA and the states, completed
in August 2003.
In September 2002, EPA released a detailed Gap Analysis, which
assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater
infrastructure and total funding needs. The EPA Gap Analysis estimated
that, over the next two decades, the United States needs to spend
nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure
systems and to build new ones. (The total includes money for some
projects not currently eligible for federal funds, such as system
replacement, which are not reflected in the EPA-state Needs Survey).
According to the Gap Analysis, if there is no increase in
investment, there will be about a $6 billion gap between current annual
capital expenditures for wastewater treatment ($13 billion annually)
and projected spending needs. The study also estimated that, if
wastewater spending increases by only 3 percent a year, the gap would
shrink by nearly 90 percent (to about $1 billion annually).
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own gap analysis
in 2002 in which it determined that the gap for wastewater ranges,
depending on various financial and accounting variables, from $23
billion to $37 billion annually.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ None of the estimates cited includes the costs of operation and
maintenance (O&M), costs that are borne entirely by the local utilities
and are not eligible for federal funding. The 2002 Gap Analysis, for
example, put the total O&M costs at $161 billion for the 20-year study
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--We support annual appropriations of $1.5 billion from the federal
general fund for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund
(SRF) program.
--In addition, we support the establishment of a federal capital
budget to create a mechanism to help reduce the constant
conflict between short-term and long-term needs. The current
federal budget process does not differentiate between
expenditures for current consumption and long-term investment.
This causes major inefficiencies in the planning, design and
construction process for long-term investments. A capital
budget system would help increase public awareness of the
problems and needs facing this country's physical
infrastructure and help Congress focus on programs devoted to
long-term growth and productivity.
In addition, the nation's 54,000 drinking water systems face
staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years. Although
America spends billions on infrastructure each year, drinking water
faces an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion to replace aging
facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply
with existing and future federal water regulations. The shortfall does
not account for any growth in the demand for drinking water over the
next 20 years.
In 2001, the EPA released a national survey of drinking water
infrastructure needs. The survey results concluded that approximately
$151 billion would be needed over 20 years to repair, replace, and
upgrade the nation's 55,000 community drinking water systems to protect
public health.
A year later, the agency published The Clean Water and Drinking
Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, which identified potential funding
gaps between projected needs and spending from 2000 through 2019. This
analysis estimated a potential 20-year funding gap for drinking water
capital, and operations and maintenance, ranging from $45 billion to
$263 billion, depending on spending levels. Capital needs alone were
pegged at $161 billion, a $10 billion increase from the 2001
estimate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are paid for by the local
water utilities, not the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CBO concluded in 2003 that ``current funding from all levels of
government and current revenues generated from ratepayers will not be
sufficient to meet the nation's future demand for water
infrastructure.'' The CBO estimated the nation's needs for drinking
water investments at between $10 billion and $20 billion over the next
20 years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The CBO approximation does not include the $178 billion to $331
billion in anticipated pipe replacement costs over the same 20-year
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal assistance has not kept pace with demand. Since fiscal year
1997, Congress has appropriated only between $700 million and $850
million annually for the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan
Fund (SRF) program, enacted in 1987. The enacted funding level for
fiscal year 2005 was $850 million, less than 10 percent of the total
national requirements. The Bush Administration has proposed an
appropriation of $850 million for fiscal year 2006.
--ASCE supports a minimum annual appropriation of $1 billion from the
federal general fund for the Safe Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program.
--ASCE supports the establishment of a federal capital budget to
create a mechanism to help reduce the constant conflict between
short-term and long-term needs. The current federal budget
process does not differentiate between expenditures for current
consumption and long-term investment. This causes major
inefficiencies in the planning, design and construction process
for long-term investments.
the united states geological survey
ASCE requests that Congress increase the fiscal year 2006 budget of
the U.S. Geological Survey to $1 billion, a slight increase from the
$933 million proposed by the president.
The USGS plays a critical role in protecting the public from
natural hazards such as floods and earthquakes, in assessing water
quality, in providing emergency responders with geospatial data to
improve homeland security, in analyzing the strategic and economic
implications of mineral supply and demand, and in providing the science
needed to manage our natural resources and combat invasive species that
can threaten agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in
every state and has nearly 400 offices across the country. To aid in
its interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS works with more than
2,000 federal, state, local, tribal and private organizations.
During the past 10 years, total federal spending for non-defense
research and development has risen by 64 percent from $45 billion to
$74 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, funding for the USGS has
been nearly flat. Even this flat funding for the USGS reflects
congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts.
The USGS plays a lead role in reducing the impacts of natural
hazards. It operates seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard
analyses that are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to
establish building codes across the nation. The USGS monitors volcanoes
and provides warnings about impending eruptions. It operates a stream
gage system that enables the National Weather Service to issue flood
warnings.
The USGS also plays a vital role in bioinformatics and managing
natural resources that are essential to our economy, security, and
environment. The USGS provides knowledge and data that support water,
energy and mineral resource management as well as wildlife and
ecosystem management. The USGS provides science needed to combat
invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of
dollars in agricultural losses and threaten public health.
ASCE recommends that Congress increase the budget of the U.S.
Geological Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, an increase of 7.1
percent above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The increase would
enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the budget
request, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects
(e.g., Advanced National Seismic System and the National Map), and
launch new science initiatives that would begin to reverse the
cumulative effects of the long-term funding shortfall.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
by $1.9 million or 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The budget request
would offset $36.7 million of cuts in existing program activities with
$33.4 million in new and expanded program funding.
In October 2004, the president signed Public Law 108-360, which
reauthorized the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
for 5 years. As the representatives of the profession most responsible
for mitigating the effects of earthquakes, ASCE knows the benefits this
program holds for the nation. For the past 25 years NEHRP has provided
the resources and leadership that have led to significant advances in
understanding the risk earthquakes pose and the best ways to counter
them. The reauthorization represents an opportunity to make greater
improvements in the nation's efforts to mitigate the effects of
earthquakes. ASCE acknowledges the President's request of $51.3 million
for NEHRP functions at USGS, an increase of $4.4 million. To realize
the potential, however, in lives saved and property damage minimized,
more in needed.
ASCE requests that funding at the authorized level of $84.4 million
be appropriated for the NEHRP functions at the USGS.
______
Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
summary
The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
U.S. Geological Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006.
The USGS plays a crucial role in protecting the public from natural
hazards such as floods and earthquakes, assessing water quality,
providing emergency responders with geospatial data to improve homeland
security, analyzing the strategic and economic implications of mineral
supply and demand, and providing the science needed to manage our
natural resources and combat invasive species that can threaten
agriculture and public health. The USGS is working in every state and
has nearly 400 offices across the country. To aid in its
interdisciplinary investigations, the USGS works with over 2,000
federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations.
The USGS Coalition is an alliance of nearly 70 organizations united
by a commitment to the continued vitality of the unique combination of
biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological programs of the
United States Geological Survey. The USGS 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.
funding shortfall
During the past 10 years, total federal spending for non-defense
research and development has risen by 64 percent from $45 billion to
$74 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, funding for the USGS has
been nearly flat, as shown in the accompanying chart (Figure 1). Even
this flat funding for the USGS reflects congressional restoration of
proposed budget cuts.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The need for USGS science in support of decisionmaking has never
been greater. During the past year, natural hazards have adversely
affected many communities across the country, including landslides in
California, hurricanes in Florida, as well as droughts, floods, and
forest fires in many parts of the country. In addition, the recent
activity at Mount St. Helens volcano deserves close monitoring for any
potential danger its continued eruption may pose to communities, air
quality and air traffic. After the devastating earthquake and tsunami
in the Indian Ocean, people around the globe have a greater
appreciation of the need to improve environmental monitoring,
forecasting, and warning systems that can prevent natural hazards from
becoming natural disasters.
The USGS plays a lead role in reducing the impacts of natural
hazards. It operates seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard
analyses that are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to
establish building codes across the nation. The USGS monitors volcanoes
and provides warnings about impending eruptions. It operates a stream
gage system that enables the National Weather Service to issue flood
warnings.
Equally as important as natural hazards, the USGS plays a vital
role in bioinformatics and managing natural resources that are
essential to our economy, security, and environment. The USGS provides
knowledge and data that support water, energy and mineral resource
management as well as wildlife and ecosystem management. The USGS
provides science needed to combat invasive species (e.g., snakehead
fish, zebra mussels and tamarisk) and wildlife diseases (e.g., Chronic
Wasting Disease) that can cause billions of dollars in agricultural
losses and threaten public health.
Greater investment in the USGS is required to meet the tremendous
needs of the future. That investment should be used to strengthen USGS
partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital
geospatial data and deliver the best possible science to address
societal problems and inform decisionmakers.
The USGS Coalition is grateful to Congress for its leadership in
restoring past budget cuts and strengthening the U.S. Geological
Survey. The House Appropriations Committee has expressed the importance
of funding USGS science programs in the base budget. Likewise, the
Senate Appropriations Committee report accompanying last year's
spending bill says, ``The strength of the Survey's existing efforts in
many program areas is deserving of additional support. The Committee
urges that future budget requests place a stronger emphasis on the
Survey's core programs, which have proven value and strong public
support.''
usgs budget request
The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
U.S. Geological Survey to $1 billion in fiscal year 2006, an increase
of 7.1 percent above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, which is
necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to
the public and to decisionmakers at all levels of government. The
increase recommended by the USGS Coalition would enable the USGS to
restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request, accelerate the
timetable for deployment of critical projects (e.g., Advanced National
Seismic System and the National Map), and launch new science
initiatives that would begin to reverse the cumulative effects of the
long-term funding short fall discussed above (Figure 1).
The fiscal year 2006 budget request would cut funding for the USGS
by $1.9 million or 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The budget request
would offset $36.7 million of cuts in existing program activities with
$33.4 million in new and expanded program funding. Two large program
cuts are of special concern to the USGS Coalition. The budget request
would cut $28.7 million from the Mineral Resources program, a 53
percent decrease in funding that would decimate the program. The USGS
budget request would also eliminate the entire $6.4 million budget for
the Water Resources Research Institutes, which are located in all 50
states.
The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of
objective guidance and unbiased research on our mineral resources. This
guidance and research is important to reduce the environmental impacts
of mining and to maintain the growing value of processed materials from
mineral resources that accounted for $418 billion in the U.S. economy
in 2004, an increase of 13 percent over 2003. The proposed cuts in the
Minerals program would also terminate multidisciplinary research that
has important implications for public health and environmental
protection, such as studies on mercury, arsenic and other inorganic
toxins.
The Water Resources Research Institutes have been successful in
developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments with
funds from other sources. Last year, the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies said, ``The
Administration has placed a high priority on cooperative programs that
leverage funds from State and local governments as well as private
entities. The Committee believes that Bureaus that are successful in
implementing these policies should be rewarded and not penalized.''
The proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the
USGS to achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore these
cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high
priority programs elsewhere in the USGS budget.
The USGS budget request would add $33.4 million in new and expanded
program funding, including $5.4 million for facilities and operations
to provide more robust detection and notification of earthquakes that
could generate a dangerous tsunami. The USGS effort will be conducted
in conjunction with NOAA's effort to enhance and expand the tsunami
warning system to detect any tsunami that might strike anywhere along
the U.S. coastal region. The budget request would also provide an
increase of $19.5 million for land remote sensing activities that
support a broad array of economic, agricultural and environmental
issues. This funding would allow the USGS to continue operation of the
damaged Landsat 7 satellite and work with NASA and NOAA to begin
building a ground-based system for a Landsat follow-on mission. The
USGS budget request would provide small increases to improve volcanic
monitoring, expand water availability pilot studies to assess ground-
water depletion in the western United States, strengthen ecosystem
studies in Puget Sound, and address a wide range of other issues. These
initiatives deserve the support of Congress.
The USGS budget request contains $17.2 million to provide full
funding for increases in ``fixed costs,'' such as salaries and rent. In
past years, increases in fixed costs were partially ``absorbed'' by
individual programs. Cumulatively, this practice has had a
disproportionate impact on core USGS programs in biology, geology,
hydrology, and mapping, which cannot absorb cuts without affecting
scientific research and monitoring activities. Without full funding of
fixed cost increases, the USGS may be forced to curtail ongoing
activities, hindering or preventing the delivery of data needed by
natural resource managers and emergency planners. This would increase
our vulnerability to natural disasters and increase the costs of
recovery.
In addition to restoring the proposed program cuts, we encourage
Congress to consider additional increases that would enable the USGS to
meet the tremendous need for science in support of public policy
decisionmaking. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS
partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce high-quality digital
geospatial data and deliver the best possible science to address
societally important problems. The USGS has a national mission that
encompasses the homes of all citizens through natural hazards
monitoring, drinking water studies, biological and geological resource
assessments, and other activities.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request.
______
CULTURAL AGENCIES
Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony
requesting that fiscal year 2006 funding for the National Endowment for
the Arts (NEA) be restored to $170 million, and that funds not be
diverted from its Challenge America program. The requested funding
would:
--restore the NEA's ability to perform its core mission of supporting
the creation, preservation and presentation of the arts in
America;
--strengthen the Challenge America program, which uses the arts to
enhance America's communities through improved access to the
arts for all Americans;
--expand special programs and initiatives; and
--cover increased administrative and grantmaking costs.
We would like to focus on four main areas: the role of local arts
agencies; government funding for the arts at the federal, state and
local levels; the Challenge America program; and a new updated report,
Creative Industries, which documents the reach of the arts industry
across the entire nation.
Local arts agencies are Americans for the Arts' key constituency,
and advancing full and affordable access to the arts remains at the
heart of our mission. Local arts agencies meet community needs by using
the arts to address social, educational, and economic development
issues as well as to promote individual creativity and appreciation.
They make grants, provide services to artists and arts organizations,
and present arts programming to the public. Typically, local arts
agencies lead community cultural planning--a community-inclusive
process of assessing local cultural needs and mapping a plan of
implementation. NEA leadership has played a pivotal role in creating
and sustaining local arts agencies, which have grown in number from 500
in 1965, when the NEA was established, to 4,000 today. Three-quarters
of all existing local arts agencies are private non-profit
organizations, while the remainder are public agencies.
As grantees of the NEA, local arts agencies are stewards of federal
funds, which are instrumental in leveraging local government funds and
private resources. They are vital to thousands of local arts projects
that nurture the artistic excellence of local artists while creating
jobs and fostering critical local, state and federal tax revenue.
Federal funds are more important than ever: although local arts agency
budgets saw steady growth for nearly a decade, changing economic
conditions recently sparked declines in funding for these agencies.
Unfortunately, however, the NEA has not recovered from the cuts of mid-
1990's, when it lost 40 percent of its budget. The full picture of
federal, state and local funding is illustrated in the following chart:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
local arts agencies and challenge america
NEA is making a determined effort to bring the arts to all
Americans through the Challenge America program. The program's broad-
based goals are to connect families and communities more closely to the
arts, to provide access to the arts in underserved areas, and to reach
communities not previously served by the NEA.
Since its initial funding, Challenge America has reached hundreds
of rural communities and inner-city neighborhoods with limited arts
resources. Using these grants, LAA's have partnered with other
organizations to tackle projects from developing economic cultural
tourism plans and restoring historic structures to addressing
educational needs. Thus, these grants help build local, sustainable
arts infrastructure. In large part through Challenge America, NEA
directly funded projects in 99 percent of all Congressional districts
in fiscal year 2004, up from 75 percent previously.
Examples of recent Challenge America grants include:
Arts and Culture Commission of Contra Costa County, Martinez, CA
To support developing and maintaining various communications tools
that promote the arts and to enhance outreach to underserved
communities in the county.
City of Delta, Delta, CO
To support the Council Tree Pow Wow & Cultural Festival, presenting
American Indian dancing, singing, drumming, and visual arts by local
artisans. This is a joint project of the three Ute tribes, who had not
worked together on any project since leaving their historic Delta
homeland over 100 years ago.
Billings Cultural Partners, Billings, MT
To support the creation and implementation of Westfest, positioning
Billings as a cultural destination that will couple cultural events and
attractions with services. Nineteen organizations are participating in
this collaborative effort, including Yellowstone County, the Downtown
Billings Association, and the city's arts and cultural institutions.
Salt Lake Arts Council Foundation, Salt Lake City, UT
To support Living Traditions: A Celebration of Salt Lake's Folk and
Ethnic Arts. The three-day festival is expected to have an audience of
up to 40,000.
Unfortunately, the President's budget request for NEA is for level
funding. Furthermore, it would cut Challenge America by about $6
million, while expanding the new American Masterpieces initiative. We
appeal to the Subcommittee to preserve existing programs of proven
effectiveness before expanding new initiatives.
creative industries and jobs are in every state and congressional
district
Finally, we wish to bring to the Subcommittee's attention a new
report conducted by Americans for the Arts, ``Creative Industries'',
which provides a new, research-based approach to understanding the
scope of the arts, and demonstrates the need to cultivate our nation's
innovative workforce.
The creative industries are composed of businesses that are
involved with the creation and distribution of the arts, ranging from
nonprofit museums, symphonies, and theaters to for-profit film,
architecture, and advertising companies. When the non-profit and for-
profit sectors are studied together, a clear picture emerges of the
contributions of the creative industries to local economies. Indeed,
they form a bridge to all corners of the new ``information economy'',
the fastest growing sector of the U.S. economy.
Based on data provided by Dun & Bradstreet, the report shows that
as of 2005, there are 578,487 arts businesses in the United States,
employing 2,965,893 people. These figures represent 4.4 percent of all
businesses and 2.2 percent of U.S. employment.
Using sophisticated mapping technology, the report reveals the
extraordinary presence of the creative industries, showing that they
are a significant portion of every congressional district's economic
output.
By way of illustration, in the states just of Members of this
Subcommittee alone, there are 155,778 businesses and 768,157 jobs in
the Creative Industries. Here are the details:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees Businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska........................................ 5,368 1,368
California.................................... 493,650 92,341
Colorado...................................... 55,077 13,051
Idaho......................................... 10,583 2,867
Maryland...................................... 46,536 10,742
Mississippi................................... 11,708 2,778
Montana....................................... 8,752 2,170
Nevada........................................ 20,594 4,609
New Hampshire................................. 10,599 3,166
New Mexico.................................... 15,175 4,129
North Dakota.................................. 5,430 1,085
Utah.......................................... 23,290 5,045
Vermont....................................... 8,679 1,849
West Virginia................................. 8,432 1,682
Wisconsin..................................... 44,284 8,896
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public funding for the arts and for arts education helps to create
and sustain an environment in which these businesses flourish.
conclusion
Local arts agencies are key players in improving community life,
from offering in-school and after-school educational programs for
children to working with local law enforcement to reduce crime.
Similarly, local arts agencies are strengthening our communities'
economies every day by increasing tourism, urban renewal, and
attracting new businesses, all while contributing vital dollars in
local, state and federal tax revenue. We urge this subcommittee to make
a commitment to supporting education and community building projects
through local arts agencies by restoring funding for the National
Endowment for the Arts to $170 million, and by ensuring that funding is
not diverted from Challenge America.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Symphony Orchestra League
On behalf of America's orchestras, the American Symphony Orchestra
League urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2006 funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $170 million.
The NEA is still recovering from deep cuts to its budget in the mid-
nineties. The current level of funding for the NEA, $121.3 million, is
well below its peak funding of $176 million in 1992. An increased
appropriation would expand the NEA's ability to serve the American
public through: grants supporting and promoting the creation,
preservation, and presentation of the arts in America; support for the
Challenge America initiative to improve access to the arts for all
Americans; and funding of the national initiative, American
Masterpieces: Three Centuries of Artistic Genius.
The American Symphony Orchestra League is the national service
organization for more than 900 symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate
orchestras, with budgets ranging from less than $25,000 to more than
$25 million. Together with the NEA, we share a common goal of
strengthening orchestras as organizations and promoting the value of
the music they perform.
The resolve of American orchestras to reach all segments of their
communities is strong. Composer residencies at orchestras are on the
rise. The number of education staffers at American orchestras has grown
at least tenfold in the last 25 years. Orchestras are working to
increase the representation of their diverse communities both on stage
and in the audience.
All of these efforts come at a cost that cannot be covered by
ticket sales alone. The grants awarded to orchestras by the NEA, and
support provided to orchestras through NEA funds administered by state
arts agencies, provide critical support for projects that increase
access to music in communities nationwide. NEA funding both directly
supports local projects and also spurs critical giving from other
sources like private foundations, corporations, and individual
contributors. Given the current economic strain on all funding sources,
the NEA's commitment is especially meaningful.
A few quick facts about the state of American orchestras:
--Supported by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators,
and community leaders, America's adult, youth, and college
orchestras total more than 1,800 and exist in every state and
territory, in cities and rural areas alike. They engage more
than 76,000 instrumentalists, employ (with and without pay)
more than 11,000 administrative staff, and attract more than
250,000 volunteers and trustees.
--American orchestras have never been in greater demand. In the
course of a season, orchestras perform nearly 30,000 concerts
to total audiences nearing 30 million. Current attendance at
concerts is higher than a decade ago.
--Orchestras are amazingly resilient, though their economic structure
is delicately balanced. They are strongly supported by their
communities and musicians. During the last recessionary period,
eight orchestras ceased operations. Today, in each of those
eight communities, a new or restructured orchestra of
comparable scale has emerged.
nea grants support the creation, presentation, and preservation of the
arts
The NEA is a critical component in the network of public, private,
corporate, and philanthropic support that makes the work of America's
orchestras possible. Orchestras and the communities they serve benefit
from NEA support through direct grants to organizations, support for
national initiatives, and distribution of NEA funds through state arts
agencies. In the most recently completed grant year, fiscal year 2004,
the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 97 grants to orchestras and
the communities they serve, supporting arts education for children and
adults, expanding public access to performances, preserving great
classical works, and fostering the creative endeavors of contemporary
classical musicians, composers, and conductors.
--An NEA Leadership Initiative award to Meet The Composer supports
the Music Alive residency program, which connects composers
with a wide range of orchestras and local communities, and
draws on the creative strengths of composers as artistic
collaborators, teachers, and new-music advocates. Composers
guide their host orchestras' presentation of new music and
assist in the performance of their own works, and the community
in education and outreach activities. NEA support provides
direct resources for the Music Alive program, serves as a
catalyst for further funding, and elevates the visibility of
the program as a potential national model.
--A grant to the Canton Symphony Orchestra supports their Community
Heritage Celebration, in honor of Canton's Bicentennial. A new
work by composer Eric Gould, based on the history and diversity
of the city's neighborhoods, will be created with the
involvement of school students and other community members and
presented to the public free of charge. The performance,
scheduled for April 30, features students from Canton City
Middle Schools.
--NEA funding for the Fairbanks Symphony supported a tour of 35-40
core members of the orchestra. The tour brought orchestral
music to underserved areas of Alaska, including Salcha,
Glennallen, Valdez, Ft. Greeley Army Base and Eielson Air Force
Base. The orchestra collaborated with local arts organizations,
military base command, and area schools to present workshops
and performances at elementary schools and in community
concerts.
For each project funded by the NEA, there are many other worthy
initiatives that go unrecognized by federal support due to lack of
adequate funding. We ask you to expand the NEA's ability to perform its
core mission through an increase to support and promote the creation,
preservation, and presentation of the arts in America.
challenge america: reaching every community
For any individual, participating in the arts can be a
transformative event--provoking powerful emotions, illuminating a new
perspective on the ordinary, and elevating the senses. Likewise, the
arts can transform communities--instilling civic pride, improving
education, and spurring economic growth. To be truly national in its
scope, the NEA recognizes that every American should have access to the
transformative power of an arts-rich community. In fiscal year 2004,
the NEA made 54 awards to orchestras in areas previously underserved by
the NEA, through the initiative Challenge America: Reaching Every
Community.
--The Wheeling Symphony Orchestra received an NEA grant to provide an
artist-in-residence program for at-risk youth called ``Voices
and Music.'' The program is led by artist Scott Reed, a
professional musician and educator, reaching children in grades
K-8 from Wheeling's economically-challenged urban core.
``Voices and Music'' aims to build self-confidence through
participation in the arts. A school administrator described the
impact of the program on an extremely introverted young
student, ``After a semester with his own recorder, he was
offering performances to anyone who would listen.'' The
orchestra is committed to providing the program year after
year, offering local children the opportunity to grow in their
skills and ensuring deep partnerships within the community.
--NEA funding for the Chattanooga Symphony and Opera supported a
project inviting high school students to create a musical and
visual response to Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. The
project met the goal of reaching new audiences by both
involving the student-artists and attracting an audience of
their curious peers, eager to see the resulting multi-media
performance.
--In fiscal year 2004, the Williamsport Symphony Orchestra received
its first NEA grant, funding a concert performance in a
neighboring community. In addition to the anticipated
engagement with new audiences, the grant has substantially
elevated public recognition of the orchestra. The NEA grant was
announced as the orchestra worked to complete its endowment
campaign. The orchestra credits its ultimate fundraising
success to the power of the NEA grant to leverage additional
financial contributions from private individuals who hold the
orchestra in new esteem.
All three of the grants to orchestras described above exhibit the
hallmarks of the Challenge America program: reaching new audiences,
attracting additional financial support, and creating meaningful
partnerships with local community organizations.
american masterpieces: three centuries of artistic genius
The NEA plans to further strengthen public access to excellence in
the arts through a program titled American Masterpieces: Three
Centuries of Artistic Genius. This multi-year program will direct new
resources in three areas:
--Touring programs by major and mid-sized arts organizations,
presenting acknowledged masterpieces to new audiences.
--Local presentations of American art forms, including works of
American music.
--Arts education efforts that will combine in-school programs with
the touring and local presentation of artistic masterpieces.
Currently in its first year, the American Masterpieces project
supports tours of visual arts exhibitions to underserved communities.
In fiscal year 2006, American Masterpieces plans to expand touring
programs to include dance, chorus, and musical theater, and will focus
on providing substantial educational opportunities for students and
teachers. Orchestras are poised to participate in the American
Masterpieces project, and look forward to this opportunity to increase
public access and appreciation for America's treasured composers and
newest artistic voices. While the NEA is committed to expanding public
access to the arts, it is steadfast in its support for a quality
artistic product. Just as standards of artistic excellence are the
primary criterion for NEA grant decisions, artistic excellence
continues to guide the day-to-day operations and missions of American
orchestras.
The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national forum to
promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic products
and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the
strongest arguments for a federal role in support of the arts. We ask
you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving an
increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for History
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
seventy-plus members of the National Coalition for History--a
confederation of history and archival organizations that care deeply
about the programs and activities of the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH)--we are pleased to submit the following brief
testimony for the record regarding the proposed fiscal year 2006 budget
for the NEH.
While we understand that these are fiscally challenging times, we
respectfully urge the committee to support a funding level of $153.1
million for the National Endowment for the Humanities in fiscal year
2006. This represents only a modest increase of $15 million above the
fiscal year 2005 level appropriated by Congress and the President's
fiscal year 2006 request. We believe that this funding at this level
will strengthen core programs that have experienced cuts in past years.
Such a funding level also will further the reach of the NEH's important
history-based initiative that is of particular importance to the
history and archive communities--``We the People.''
It is our belief that the flat-funding level recommendations of
$138.1 million for the NEH as proposed by the President will not allow
the agency to maintain the current reach of its programs. Because of
factors such as inflation and mandated administrative costs, ``level
funding,'' in reality, translates into a cut for the agency. Though we
recognize that Congress faces unusually difficult fiscal choices this
year, the programs and activities of the NEH are of such importance to
our nation--especially to our young people--that we urge you to support
a modest funding increase of $15 million.
History is at the core of many of the NEH's important programs.
Recently, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole emphasized this when he spoke of the
need for a national investment in teaching and learning in the
humanities. He stated, ``Knowledge of our history is not a luxury, it's
a necessity; Democracy is not self-sustaining; it needs to be learned
and passed down from generation to generation.'' This is the heart of
the mission of the NEH, and it is as important today as ever. As the
American nation struggles abroad in an effort to bring a greater
appreciation to the principles of democracy, programs like the ``We the
People'' initiative do much to education our nation's youth of the
importance of and understanding of American history, culture, and
civics. The program deserves to be supported and expanded.
While we remain strongly supportive of the ``We the People''
program that was launched by President Bush several years back in an
effort to counter the growing trend of ignorance of American history by
our populace, we note that the White House target of spending $100
million for this important program over a three year period has not
been realized. Nevertheless, some 300 projects have received funding
through the program, and largely, they have been effective.
But there are also other equally important history, research, and
archive-related programs that also deserve funding and support. This
year, since the Administration has recommended zero funding for the
National Historical Publications and Records Commission (the grant-
making arm of the National Archives and Records Administration that
supports the preservation and publication of our documentary heritage)
increasing NEH support for scholarly edition projects that are
currently being funded out of the Research division are all that more
important.
Mr. Chairman, there also is a critical need to restore and broaden
the reach of the NEH core programs so that not just American history
receives emphasis but world and comparative history as well. That goal
can partially be met by restoring funding to NEH core programs
including scholarly research, preservation access, education, challenge
grants, public programs and for the all important activities that
emerge out of the federal-state partnership where as our colleagues
affiliated with the 56 state humanities councils been doing such good
work with very limited funding from the NEH.
We appreciate the past support of this committee and its members
have provided on behalf of our nation's historical, cultural and
intellectual heritage that are realized through the programmatic
activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Thank You.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Humanities Alliance and its members, we are pleased to submit
written testimony for the record in support of the National Endowment
for the Humanities (NEH). The National Humanities Alliance respectfully
urges Congress to support funding of $153.1 million for fiscal year
2006 for the National Endowment for the Humanities, an increase of $15
million above the fiscal year 2005 level and the President's request.
This funding will strengthen the NEH core programs and further the
reach of the NEH's highly successful We the People initiative.
The National Humanities Alliance is a coalition of more than 80
national, state, and local nonprofit organizations, including scholarly
and professional associations; higher education associations;
organizations of museums, libraries, historical societies, and state
humanities councils; university-based and independent humanities
research centers. The Alliance was founded in 1981 to advance the cause
of the humanities by promoting the common interests of its members with
regard to national policy and legislation affecting scholarly research
and public understanding of the humanities.
funding background
While we are pleased that the President's budget request continues
funding for the NEH We the People program, we are disappointed that the
administration has recommended flat funding for this initiative and for
the NEH core programs at the fiscal year 2005 level of $138.1 million.
Level funding will not allow the agency to maintain the current reach
of its programs.
We recognize that Congress faces unusually difficult choices this
year, and are asking the committee to recommend a modest funding
increase for the agency of $15 million. While this sum does not nearly
meet the many needs for which the agency was created, it would make an
impact, and help ensure the long-term effectiveness of this agency that
is critical to the civic life of our democracy. We are especially
concerned about the long-term impact of inflation and other pressures
on the agency's ability to carry out the mandate for which it was
established. The funding table below illustrates the decline, both in
nominal and constant dollars, in the agency's spending levels.
NEH APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1970-2005
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Value........................... 8.9 79.1 150.1 139.5 156.9 172.0 115.3 135.3 138.1
Constant Value (2004)................... 43.1 277.9 344.1 244.9 226.8 213.2 126.4 135.3 134.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--``Nominal'' values are the amounts appropriated by Congress. ``Constant'' values (expressed in 2004
dollars) are adjusted for inflation according to the annual CPI-U data. The estimated inflation rate for 2005
is assumed to be the same as in 2004.
The National Endowment for the Humanities was established forty
years ago as an independent grant-making agency of the federal
government to support research, education, and public programs in the
humanities. As the founding legislation of the NEH says, ``Democracy
Demands Wisdom.'' In a recent public address, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole
echoed these statements when he spoke eloquently of the need for a
national investment in teaching and learning in the humanities.
``Knowledge of our history is not a luxury, it's a necessity . . .
Democracy is not self-sustaining; it needs to be learned and passed
down from generation to generation. We have to know our great founding
principals, how our institutions came into being, how they work, what
our rights and responsibilities are.'' \1\ An appreciation of the
relationship of the humanities to democracy was a key factor in the
establishment of the NEH forty years ago and remains so today. In 2005,
NEH is operating at less than half of its demonstrated capacity of even
30 years ago; yet at no time has the work of NEH been more critical to
the survival of our democracy, the global competitiveness of our
workforce, and our national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bruce Cole, National Press Club, November 16, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is great need and demand for the leadership and support
provided by the NEH. In fiscal year 2004, the NEH reviewed 4,921 grant
proposals (requesting a total of $363.0 million in federal funds). The
NEH Council recommended the approval of 1,090 applications. Due to
funding constraints, only 22 percent of the requests were funded in the
past fiscal year.
we the people
Increased funding for the NEH will go a long way to extend the
reach of the NEH We the People initiative to advance understanding of
American history, culture, and civics. The program was launched by
President Bush in response to numerous polls and surveys over the past
decade, which indicate that many Americans lack even a basic knowledge
about their nation's history. In a White House Rose Garden Ceremony in
September 2002, President Bush described the need for the expanded NEH
program: ``Our Founders believed that the study of history and
citizenship should be at the core of every American's education. Yet
today, our children have large and disturbing gaps in their knowledge
of history . . . Ignorance of American history and civics weakens our
sense of citizenship.''
The White House initially pledged $100 million for We the People
over three years, and we are pleased that it has now waived the three-
year limit to allow it to be continuing program. While only now
entering its third year of funding, the initiative has already been
highly successful. To date, more than 300 projects have received
funding through the program, working through each of the core program
divisions of the NEH. The initiative consists of projects sponsored
directly by NEH, and grants made through the agency's other program
divisions. A critical aspect of the We the People initiative is that
because it works through the NEH core programs, it can broaden the
reach of these divisions by freeing funds for other highly-rated
projects. More detail on the NEH core programs, and examples of We the
People projects supported through them, is provided below.
We the People has drawn scholars, teachers, filmmakers, museum
professionals, librarians, and others engaged in humanities work to
develop projects on the most significant events and themes in American
history and culture. It has provided significant new resources to each
of the state humanities councils, and is truly reaching communities
nationwide.
neh core programs
While the We the People special initiative is presently the most
visible NEH initiative, the core programs of the Endowment, which have
developed over the last four decades, are the backbone of federal
involvement in the humanities. Unfortunately, in recent years, funding
for the NEH core programs has declined in moderate but real terms.
Additional funds are needed to sustain the long-term grant-making
ability of the agency in the following areas:
Research.--Scholarly research is the engine that provides content
and structure for all other humanities activities. Research grants
facilitate basic research and original scholarship in all fields of the
humanities, including languages, linguistics, literature, history, law,
philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion, ethics, and art history.
Fellowships and grants awarded by the research division are among the
most coveted by American scholars. Projects supported by NEH
fellowships and summer stipends for college and university teachers,
and independent scholars have, over the years, produced more than 6,000
books including eleven Pulitzer Prize winners. Collaborative Research
grants support original scholarship conducted by teams of researchers.
Scholarly Editions grants support the preparation of texts and
documents that are currently inaccessible or available in inadequate
editions. Projects involve significant literary, philosophical, and
historical materials and translations.
Education.--Education is, of course, at the center of the NEH
mission. Education grants strengthen teaching and learning in schools,
colleges, and universities through teacher training institutes and
seminars, through curriculum development, and through online tools for
teachers, parents, and students. A We the People initiative managed
through this division is the new NEH teacher training/professional
development program called ``Landmarks of American History,'' which
offers a series of workshops for K-12 and community college teachers at
important historical sites across the United States. Upcoming workshop
sites for 2005 include the Kituah Cherokee Landmark near Cherokee,
North Carolina; Mount Vernon in Arlington, Virginia; the Alamo, in San
Antonio, TX; and Civil Rights Landmarks in Birmingham, Montgomery,
Selma, and Tuskegee, AL.
Preservation.--Through the Preservation and Access Division NEH
makes grants to preserve unique historical, cultural and intellectual
materials; for collection development and catalogs; and for
encyclopedias and other projects. An exciting new project made possible
through We the People is the National Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP),
a multi-year partnership between the NEH and the Library of Congress to
convert microfilm of historically significant U.S. newspapers published
between 1836 and 1922 into fully searchable digital files. More than 30
million pages of newspapers will be made accessible online to students,
teachers, parents, scholars, historians. The Preservation division is
also making significant contributions to understanding and preservation
of world cultures. In 2003, the NEH announced a special initiative,
``Recovering Iraq's Past,'' to support projects that preserve and
document cultural resources in Iraq's archives, libraries and museums.
Awards in 2004 included a digital library of cuneiform tables
documenting Mesopotamian civilization from 3300 B.C. to 100 A.D.
Public Programs.--It is through NEH-funded public humanities
programming that the endowment works most directly with the American
public. From traveling exhibits in local museums and libraries to film,
television and radio productions, NEH public programs reach literally
millions of citizens in communities throughout the U.S. Recent projects
include the Emmy-award winning documentary Benjamin Franklin; The
Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, a
traveling museum exhibit which recently won the Alfred Barr Award for
Museum Scholarship from the College Art Association; and a series of
bilingual reading and discussion programs called Family Portraits,
which drew readers to over 150 libraries in eight western states, as
well as New York and Florida. ``America's Historic Places'' is a We the
People initiative that encourages the use of historic sites to address
themes and issues central to our nation's history.
Federal State Partnership.--The network of 56 state humanities
councils has proven to be very effective in delivering humanities
programming to small towns and rural areas that might not otherwise
have access to such programs. Funding for We the People will continue
to provide significant new resources to state humanities councils, in
recognition of the unique role councils play in carrying out these
programs at the local level. Through this initiative, councils have
developed unique teacher workshops, lectures, reading and discussion
programs, exhibitions and public meetings that help local citizens
appreciate the events, people and institutions that define the history
of their communities and nation. For example, in anticipation of the
400th anniversary of Virginia in 2007, the Virginia Foundation for the
Humanities has just awarded a consultation and planning grant to the
Virginia Council on Indians to help establish a Virginia Indian
Heritage Trail and to create a database on publicly-accessible
collections and sites where Virginia Indian history and culture are
interpreted.
Challenge Grants.--Challenge Grants strengthen the institutional
base of the humanities by stimulating and matching nonfederal
contributions to humanities projects, including such hard-to-fund areas
as endowment, renovations, and collections development. First-time
recipients of a challenge grant must match every federal dollar with
three nonfederal dollars, and recipients of subsequent awards must
raise four nonfederal dollars for every dollar.
Most programs of the humanities endowment award matching grants,
which entail on offer of NEH funding that is conditioned on an
equivalent amount of fund-raising by the recipient. Since the
establishment of NEH in 1965 through fiscal year 2004, Endowment
matching funds have stimulated $384 million in third-party donations,
and NEH Challenge Grants have leveraged another $1.46 billion in
institutional support. A small investment in the American people
through NEH goes a long way.
Thank you for your consideration of our request. We appreciate the
support of this committee for our nation's cultural and intellectual
resources through the National Endowment for the Humanities.
______
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Prepared Statement of the American Forest and Paper Association
The American Forest and Paper Association \1\ (AF&PA) supports
sustainable forest management on all forest lands. Policies governing
our federal forestlands must consist of active management, progress on
long-term forest health, and local level decision-making. The following
recommendations concern fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the U.S.
Forest Service. Restoring the health of our national forests through
active management is AF&PA's number one priority for the Forest Service
fiscal year 2006 budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, paper
and wood products industry. AF&PA represents more than 200 companies
and related associations that engage in or represent the manufacture of
pulp, paper, paperboard and wood products. The forest products industry
accounts for approximately 7 percent of total U.S. manufacturing
output, employs 1.3 million people, and ranks among the top ten
manufacturing employers in 42 states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
active management of national forests
Millions of acres of federal forests across the country are
threatened with catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease
infestation, posing serious risks to adjacent private forestlands,
communities, and wildlife habitat. The President's Healthy Forests
Initiative (HFI) and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003
were tremendous steps forward in addressing this crisis, providing
tools to our federal land management agencies to get more accomplished
on the ground.
The fiscal year 2006 budget needs to provide resources to our
national forests to restore forest health through active management.
Forest Service data indicate that annual growth of trees on the
national forests currently exceeds annual harvest by five-fold, meaning
that overstocked forests are becoming even more overstocked and even
more at risk from fires and insect epidemics. The National Forest
System budget as a proportion of the total Forest Service budget has
shrunk significantly over the last 15 years, limiting the resources
that can be devoted to addressing this crisis.
AF&PA supports an increase of $30 million above the President's
request for the National Forest System program, targeted to the Forest
Products line item and other budget line items that support forest
health and produce fiber.
Forest Products.--AF&PA recommends increasing the total volume sold
to 3.0 billion board feet, which can be achieved through additional
funding and a reduction in unit costs. Timber sales and stewardship
projects are important tools to achieve forest health and hazardous
fuels reduction objectives, and to retain forest industry
infrastructure. AF&PA believes that a reduction in unit costs through
the greater use of Healthy Forests Initiative efficiencies is not only
possible, but a critical step in actively managing more acres and
providing additional timber sale volume.
The need to maintain industry infrastructure (e.g., mills) is a
critical component to achieving national forest objectives, with the
loss of infrastructure already resulting in direct impact on forest
health in many areas. A reliable and consistent supply of national
forest timber is critical to the stability of this infrastructure.
AF&PA supports the Forest Service's plan to change the
accomplishment metric for the timber sale program from volume offered
to volume sold. The Forest Service has indicated that regions will be
operating under that metric in fiscal year 2006. This change will help
to ensure a useful measure of outputs under the timber sale program and
to emphasize accountability within the program.
Hazardous Fuels Reduction.--Treating hazardous fuels within the
wildland-urban interface and across the landscape is essential to
preventing catastrophic wildfires and insect and disease outbreaks and
protecting resource values and species habitat. There are significant
treatment needs in all areas of the country and in all three condition
classes. We urge emphasis of these activities in areas with existing
forest industry infrastructure in order to reduce costs. In addition,
we encourage greater emphasis on mechanical thinning to reduce
hazardous fuels, which provides ecological benefits and the opportunity
to capture the economic value of fiber removed.
AF&PA supports the President's proposal to move the funding for the
Hazardous Fuels program to the National Forest System. The movement of
this budget to NFS would allow better integration of these activities
with other vegetation management activities happening on the ground. We
encourage continued collaboration between the Forest Service and the
State Foresters in accomplishing this work.
Vegetation and Watershed Management.--This program directly
improves forest health by restoring watersheds, reducing soil erosion,
and producing clean air and water through such activities as
reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments. There is a
critical need to address the significant reforestation backlog, which
has increased sharply as a result of wildfires.
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.--Managing species'
habitat contributes to healthy and diverse populations and ecosystems.
The drawdown in the Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund to pay for wildfire
suppression costs has a major impact on this program. Failure to
completely repay the KV Fund diminishes implementation of much-needed
wildlife habitat, reforestation, timber stand improvement, and other
conservation projects. In some regions, this adversely impacts non-
essential KV projects, such as fish and wildlife programs that are
already underfunded.
research to support forest health
Targeted research is needed to support forest health, both through
a greater understanding of the status of our nation's forests and
through the development of processes that enable economic utilization
of fiber removed. Research helps find innovative ways to promote and
enhance forest sustainability and provides scientifically sound data
that benefits both public and private forests. Forest Service research
investments in enhancing forest productivity, addressing the threats of
insect and disease, quantifying carbon sequestration, and understanding
forest management decisions on wildlife, water quality, biodiversity,
landscapes and habitats, all contribute to efforts to achieve and
maintain healthy forests.
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).--AF&PA supports the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget request of $73.4 million, which
represents full funding for the program. The FIA program is the most
comprehensive data collection and analysis program to assess the
sustainability and health of the nation's forest resources. We believe
that, with full funding, the Forest Service has an obligation to
achieve its stated goals to cover 100 percent of U.S. forest lands,
fully implement the annual inventory, expedite data availability and
analysis, improve working relationships with the states, and modernize
FIA management systems.
Forest Products Utilization and Process.--AF&PA recommends a
funding level of $19.6 million for this program. The Forest Products
Lab and experiment stations conduct important research on the efficient
and effective use of wood fiber, directly addressing the forest health
problem through exploration of small diameter wood use and bioenergy
production. Unfortunately, funding for this research has not kept pace
with research needs. Support is needed for the core functions of the
research stations and for the construction and operation of a Building
Durability Test Facility at the Forest Products Lab to address mold and
moisture issues. Funding is also needed for the Coalition for Advanced
Housing Research for research on damage mitigation from natural
disasters like floods, earthquakes and hurricanes.
conclusion
AF&PA appreciates the chance to provide the Subcommittee with
testimony regarding fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the Forest
Service. If implemented, the funding levels proposed for the programs
listed above will help promote sustainable management and forest health
on our nation's public and private lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Mountain Club
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of
our 90,000 members throughout the northeastern United States, the
Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) appreciates the opportunity to present
this testimony in strong support of the highest possible funding levels
for conservation programs in the fiscal year 2006 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, and specifically
support ten Forest Legacy Program projects at $29.9 million, and three
Land & Water Conservation Fund projects at $7.55 million, and four
Highlands Conservation Act projects totaling $9.75 million. Within the
Forest Legacy Program request, the AMC especially appreciates the
opportunity to testify in support of a $5 million appropriation to the
State of Maine from the Forest Legacy Program for the Katahdin Iron
Works (KIW) project. As you know, this funding has been proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2006 budget, and the KIW project is ranked 4th
on the President's Forest Legacy project list.
The AMC is the nation's oldest recreation and conservation
organization. Founded in 1876, our mission is to promote the
protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers and trails
of the Appalachian region. With 12 chapters and 90,000 members from
Maine to Washington, DC, AMC is proud of our long tradition of
stewardship and engagement in the outdoors.
The funding proposed for the KIW project will allow the state of
Maine to purchase a conservation easement over 37,000 acres of
critically located land about nine miles east of Greenville. The
property is bisected by the Appalachian Trail and includes land around
Gulf Hagas, the Barren/Chairback Mountain Range, a significant stretch
of the Class A West Branch of the Pleasant River, and many other
important ecological and recreational features. AMC, with assistance
from the Trust for Public Land, purchased this property in December
2003 from International Paper. If sold on the open market, the KIW
property would have been a prime target for recreational home
development, or private ``kingdom lots'', that would permanently alter
a critical landscape in Maine.
The AMC is extremely pleased to have the opportunity to work
closely with local communities in the region, such as Greenville and
Brownville, as they plan for continued community vitality and economic
diversity. This project has garnered significant local support because
it not only protects the spectacular landscape that makes the area so
special, but it also creates new recreational opportunities for the
public and secures the future of this property as a working forest.
In particular, we are excited that this project will:
--Create a model certified working forest;
--Protect key landscape features such as ridgelines, great ponds, and
the headwaters of the Class A West Branch of the Pleasant
River;
--Significantly enhance and manage recreational opportunities on land
and water;
--Further develop the economic foundations of the neighboring
communities;
--Assure public access;
--Create meaningful environmental education opportunities; and
--Help to stabilize the land base in a region experiencing a volatile
real estate market.
These goals--providing for conservation, sustainable forestry, and
recreation in our North Woods that engages both residents and visitors
alike--strike a balance between ecological protection and contribution
to the local and regional economy from the land.
The Land for Maine's Future Board has already approved a grant of
$1 million to go towards this project and expects to allocate
additional funds when a new statewide bond is approved. In addition,
AMC is undertaking substantial fundraising efforts--with a goal of $25
million--to support both the easement acquisition as well as ensure
long-term stewardship and recreational development on the property.
We appreciate your continued support for common sense, community-
based Forest Legacy Program projects, and believe the KIW project is a
model for programmatic success. We hope that you will provide $5
million to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2006
Interior appropriations bill.
On funding for other projects across the region, and on overall
funding levels for critical land protection programs such as Forest
Legacy and the Land & Water Conservation Fund, the AMC echoes the
testimony of Mr. Jad Daley of the Eastern Forest Partnership which
underscores the importance of the Forest Legacy Program and the Land &
Water Conservation Fund to the eastern region as a whole.
In fiscal year 2006, the AMC supports funding requests for the
following Forest Legacy projects in our region:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME Katahdin Ironworks $5,000,000
ME Machias River Project--Phase II 3,000,000
NH Rossview Farm 2,000,000
NH Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir 2,500,000
VT Orange County Headwaters 1,500,000
VT Green Mountain Wildlife Corridor 1,000,000
NY IP Lands (Adirondack Working Forest Easement) 5,000,000
MA Quabbin Corridor Connection 3,700,000
CT Skiff Mountain 2,300,000
NJ Sparta Mountain South 3,900,000
-----------------
Total fiscal year 2006 AMC Forest Legacy 29,900,000
Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Land & Water Conservation Fund will provide critical protection
to the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire, the
Green Mountain National Forest in Vermont, and to the Silvio O. Conte
National Wildlife Refuge for projects throughout the Conte's four-state
region of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The
Silvio O. Conte Refuge ranks fourth in the Land Acquisition Priority
System (LAPS) in part because the USFS projects the Connecticut River
watershed to be among the top 20 growth areas in the nation in coming
decades. A multi-state approach to conserving the most critical parts
of the watershed, with local support, is vital to ensuring the many
values that the Connecticut River and its watershed support in the New
England states.
In fiscal year 2006, the AMC supports the following LWCF projects
in our region:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge $750,000
VT Green Mountain National Forest 3,500,000
NH, Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge 3,300,000
VT,
MA,
CT
-----------------
Total LWCF Projects Supported by AMC 7,550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the Forest Legacy Program and the Land & Water Conservation
Fund have well established track records, the AMC hopes that the
Subcommittee will begin to fund the Highlands Conservation Act in order
to realize the intent of Congress to support critical land protection
efforts in the Highlands Region of the mid-Atlantic. Current projects
in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York share strong local support,
commitments for matching funding from State and private sources, and
will protect important water supplies for public water sources in the
three states. The Arrow Park project in New York will protect the last
significant property buffering Sterling Forest State Park from
residential and commercial development in the Town of Monroe.
In fiscal year 2006, the Appalachian Mountain Club supports funding
requests for the following Highlands Conservation Act projects:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Arrow Park $3,070,000
NJ Wyanokie Highlands 3,850,000
PA Birdsboro Waters 1,250,000
PA Oley Hills$1,400,000
-----------------
Total AMC Highlands Conservation Act 9,570,000
Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the critical land conservation projects from the KIW
project in Maine to the Sparta Mountain South project in New Jersey,
the AMC respectfully urges the Subcommittee to ensure the viability of
programs that support outdoor recreation in the America.
One of the most important programs supporting human-powered
recreation is the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance program. This program provides vital support to
the nation's recreational trails and waterways and planning assistance
for communities. The AMC echoes the testimony of the Rivers and Trails
Coalition, of which we are a member, supporting funding at the level of
$9.7 million for the NPS' RTCA program.
Another critical program that provides beneficial services to
millions of hikers and outdoor recreators across the nation is the
Capital Improvement and Maintenance for Trails line in the U.S. Forest
Service's budget. $80 million is needed to ensure that the USFS has the
ability to perform needed maintenance on trails throughout our National
Forest System in places like the White Mountain National Forest, the
Monongahela National Forest, and the many other places our members
enjoy quiet recreation.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conference Land Trust
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The
Appalachian Trail Conference Land Trust (``ATC'') is thankful for the
opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.3 million
appropriation to the State of Connecticut from the Forest Legacy
Program for the Skiff Mountain project.
The mission of the ATCLT is to seek and protect the Trail
Experience by preserving features in the surrounding environment that
are important to the Trail and the Trail Experience. The Trail
Experience is defined by the sum of opportunities that are available
for hikers on the Appalachian Trail, unfettered and unimpeded by
competing sights or sounds, and in as direct and intimate a manner as
possible. Integral to this experience are the opportunities for
observation, contemplation, enjoyment and exploration of the natural
world; a sense of remoteness and detachment from civilization;
opportunity to experience solitude, freedom, personal accomplishment,
self-reliance and self-discovery; a sense of being on a height of land;
a feeling of being part of and subordinate to the natural environment;
and opportunity for travel on foot, including opportunities for long
distance hiking. The strategy for accomplishing the mission is as
follows:
Conservation of land.--Identify and map the area of interest
encompassing the features important to the Trail Experience; identify
logical areas and rank them in order of priority; identify property
ownership within high priority areas and rank them in order of priority
within the area; initiate landowner contact starting with the highest
priority areas and tracts; and plan and execute conservation deals
where owners are willing to work with us.
Building the support network.--Identify and get to know the
conservation partners in the region; identify the potential funding
sources in the region; identify and communicate with community leaders
and land-use planners; participate in coalitions advancing our goals;
and identify and work with conservation buyers.
The Housatonic River watershed and Connecticut Highlands have been
identified as two of the high priority areas for the Connecticut
Section of the Appalachian Trail Conference Land Trust.
ATCLT serves the towns of Sherman, Kent, Sharon, Cornwall, Falls
Village and Salisbury. Lands owned by ATCLT are open to the public for
passive recreation. Skiff Mountain is adjacent to the Appalachian Trail
and forms the scenic backdrop for the most picturesque and accessible
part of the trail in Connecticut as it skirts along the Housatonic
River for almost seven miles.
The Land Trust is a program of the non-profit Appalachian Trail
Conference (ATC). ATC hosts this land trust which is stepping up to
protect additional land from willing sellers to augment the existing
Trail corridor now that the National Park Service is winding down its
acquisition program. The Land Trust holds approximately 304 acres which
are passively managed for open space protection purposes.
By way of background, the Park Service works cooperatively with the
ATC on most day to day management activities through a ``delegation
agreement'' that officially transfers management responsibility to the
ATC. ATC, in turn, has delegated these responsibilities to 30 Trail-
maintaining clubs, with each one maintaining a designated section of
Trail. The maintenance and management of the 55 miles of Trail and
corridor lands in Connecticut are the responsibility of the Appalachian
Mountain Club's (AMC) Connecticut Chapter, as implemented by its
Volunteer Trails Committee. The ATC Land Trust's activities in
Connecticut are carried out by the undersigned as the volunteer
Connecticut Coordinator and member of the Connecticut AMC's Trails
Committee.
The Appalachian Trail was designated a national millennium trail in
2000 and honored by the American Institute of Certified Planners and
others as a ``national planning landmark.''
Both the Federal Government and the State of Connecticut have
clearly delineated policies supporting the protection of the
Appalachian National Scenic Trail Corridor. These policies would be
furthered by this conveyance. Congress pass the National Trails System
Act in 1968, Public Law 9-543 (82 Stat. 919), as amended by Public Law
95-248 (92 Stat. 159), designating the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail as part of a national system of trails in order to provide for
the ever-increasing outdoor recreational needs of an expanding
population and in order to promote public access to, and appreciation
for the outdoor areas of the nation, and to provide for the
conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic,
historical, natural and cultural qualities of the Trails in the System,
including the Appalachian Trail.
In 1971, by Public Act 638 (C.G.S. Section 23-66), the Connecticut
General Assembly declared it to be ``the policy of the State of
Connecticut that the Connecticut portion of the Appalachian National
Scenic Trail be preserved in its natural character as proposed by
Public Law 90-543, October 2, 1968.''
Tens of thousands of hikers use the Appalachian Trail in
Connecticut each year. The state has identified the Connecticut portion
of the Highlands as a critical focus area under its Forest Legacy
Program. Right now there are eight separate parcels of land in this
focus area that are available for protection in fiscal year 2006. These
parcels total approximately 937 acres of Skiff Mountain Forest in
northwestern Connecticut. They form a network of forested properties in
Litchfield County straddling the Kent-Sharon town line, an area under
tremendous large-lot development pressures. Located among 6,000 acres
of existing conservation lands, and immediately adjacent to the
federally protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic
Trail, the Skiff Mountain property has been identified by the state as
its top priority for Forest Legacy funding this year.
In fiscal year 2006, $2.3 million is needed from the Forest Legacy
program to help preserve nearly 937 acres of Skiff Mountain, and keep
intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and
four-state Highlands region. These funds will be matched by local
funding and land value donation. We hope that you will provide $2.3
million to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2006
Interior appropriations bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (Friends) in support of a $2
million allocation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for
the acquisition of Long Island on Burntside Lake in Superior National
Forest. It is my understanding that this is a priority acquisition for
the Forest Service locally and regionally.
The Friends' mission is to ``protect, preserve and restore the
wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness
(BWCAW) and the Quetico-Superior Ecosystem.''
To this end, I am writing to urge you to help protect Long Island,
the largest undeveloped island on Burntside Lake, which has two key
entry points into the BWCAW, five campsites, and six public canoe
launching points.
Burntside Lake supports lake trout and is one of the few lakes in
Minnesota that supports a natural cold water fishery. The lake is
renowned for its big lake trout and walleye and also supports one of
the largest populations of loons in the state. Burntside is also the
start of an 11-mile canoe route called Burntside-Dead River-Twin Lakes-
Everett, which is outside the BWCAW yet within the National Forest
boundaries.
Long Island boasts one mile of undeveloped lakeshore, including a
beautiful sand beach. Because there are a limited number of public
beaches within the forest boundaries, Long Island's beach provides a
unique recreational opportunity. The island is home to nesting osprey,
blue heron and nesting loons, and is potential habitat for rare and
sensitive species. The 64-acre Burntside Islands Scientific and Natural
Area (SNA), which features two virtually undisturbed islands, is
located immediately southwest of Long Island. These two forested
bedrock islands are home to Great Lakes old-growth pine forests that
are extremely rare outside of the BWCAW.
Public acquisition of the Long Island property will ensure that our
beloved north wood's sounds and images, such as ``the mournful cry of
the common loon, the mysterious drumming of a male ruffed grouse, the
soft carpet of feathermosses beneath a jack pine, and the ancient red
and white pines that keep their lonely vigil over the very waterways
that were home to countless generations of Native Americans, . . .''
will be protected in perpetuity.
An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund in fiscal year 2006 will secure the acquisition of Long Island by
the Superior National Forest, protect its critical natural resources
for the public, and maintain the integrity of the great north woods. I
thank you for your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Eastern Forest Partnership
On behalf of the Eastern Forest Partnership and our member groups
representing in total more than 170 citizens' groups from Mississippi
to Maine, I would like to offer testimony on behalf of the strongest
possible mark for conservation funding programs in the fiscal year 2006
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,
including $80 million for the U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy
program with $50.155 million allocated for eastern projects (see list
below), and $64.586 million for eastern projects funded through the
Department of Interior's Federal Land & Water Conservation Fund (see
list below). Despite current fiscal challenges, eastern forest
conservation is a vital investment to ensure clean air and water, a
sustainable supply of timber products, and opportunities to enjoy
wildlife and outdoor recreation for the sixty percent of the U.S.
population that lives within a day's drive of the eastern forests.
Conservation funding shortfalls in recent years have deprived some
Forest Legacy projects like the Walls of Jericho the full amount of
needed funding, and kept these under-funded projects in the already
full pipeline for another year. In other instances, important Forest
Legacy projects like Pennsylvania's Birdsboro Waters have been
eliminated in conference despite being included in the House, Senate,
and administration lists. Last year's appropriated amount covered just
over 20 percent of national Legacy requests.
For the Federal Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the
reduction to just over 33 percent of its authorized level continues to
hamper Federal agency land acquisition in the East, most notably for
national forest and national wildlife refuge enhancement. The Region 8
list of national forest acquisitions, in particular, is annually full
of time-sensitive opportunities that are being lost as funding does not
come through. Eastern refuges are also in dire need of acquisition
dollars: the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge ranks fourth in the
Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), in part because the
Connecticut River watershed is projected by the U.S. Forest Service as
one of the top twenty in the nation for future development.
fiscal year 2006 forest legacy program needs in the eastern forests
For the upcoming fiscal year, there is a compelling list of Forest
Legacy projects that would greatly advance eastern forest conservation.
Some of these projects, like Walls of Jericho and Machias River, Phase
II, would complete projects were either partially funded last year or
broken into multiple phases. Others, like the Katahdin Ironworks
project in the Northern Forest, the History of Forestry project in
Pennsylvania, and the Campbell Creek Watershed in North Carolina, are
new priorities that would protect national treasures.
We believe that, at a minimum, Congress should fund the Forest
Legacy program at the $80 million level advocated in the President's
budget. However, even this level of funding could result in lost
opportunities to conserve critical eastern forests, such as the North
Fork Corridor Forest Legacy project in Virginia. Prior to fiscal year
2005, Forest Legacy had enjoyed slow but steady growth in funding
thanks to bipartisan support for the program. Funding Forest Legacy at
$80 million in fiscal year 2006 would continue the growth of this
popular program to better meet the needs in the East and throughout the
nation to prevent the conversion of forestlands and the resulting loss
of traditional forest values.
In fiscal year 2006, the Eastern Forest Partnership supports
funding requests for the following Forest Legacy projects in the
eastern forests. (All projects and amounts below, listed alphabetically
and not in order of priority, are included in and consistent with the
President's budget except for those in italics, which recommend a
suggested project addition or increase in funding.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTSkiff Mountain $2,300,000
DEGreen Horizons 3,000,000
GAAltamaha River Corridor 3,000,000
KYKnobs State Forest and Wildlife Management Area 1,750,000
MAQuabbin Corridor Connection 3,700,000
MDBroad Creek 1,500,000
MEKatahdin Ironworks 5,000,000
MEMachias River Project--Phase II 2,500,000
NCCampbell Creek Watershed 1,800,000
NHRossview 2,600,000
NHWillard Pond 550,000
NJSparta Mountain South 3,900,000
NYAdirondack Working Forest Easement 5,000,000
NYSurprise Lake 1,000,000
PAHistory of Forestry 2,800,000
RIBugnet Tract 600,000
TNWalls of Jericho 2,600,000
VANew River Corridor 230,000
VANorth Fork Corridor 1,500,000
VTGreen Mountain Wildlife Corridor 1,052,000
VTOrange County Headwaters 1,098,000
VTEnosburg-Adams Pond 875,000
WVPotomac River Hills 1,800,000
-----------------
Total fiscal year 2006 Eastern Forest 50,155,000
Legacy Requests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2006 lwcf program needs in the eastern forests
There are also many Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
projects of critical need. A number of these projects, including
funding for the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge and the Jefferson
National Forest, represent significant omissions from the President's
budget. Eastern Federal land units are too often compromised by in-
holdings that undermine the conservation values of these Federal lands.
With the rapid rate of rural land conversion to development across the
East--an area larger than New Hampshire is now lost every five years
according to the U.S. Geological Survey's Natural Resources Inventory--
opportunities to consolidate these Federal holdings are dwindling.
Increased LWCF allocations beyond the President's would be invaluable
to fill out existing Federal land units in the eastern forests. The
steep decline in Federal LWCF dollars in recent years has hampered the
efforts of eastern land managers to buffer key resource areas from
sprawling development pressures.
The following quote from recent U.S. Forest Service testimony
regarding acquisition needs in Alabama captures the challenges faced by
Federal land managers from encroaching development and their need for
increased acquisition dollars:
``National Forest lands comprise the largest blocks of land in the
State for management of endangered species, endangered species habitat,
protection of water quality and opportunities for the public for
recreation and hunting. If the United States does not acquire private
properties within the Forest boundaries as they become available, many
will be developed for residential or commercial purposes to the
detriment of watersheds, protected species habitat and public
recreational needs.''
It is also worth noting that the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C.A. Sections 460l-4--460l-11) recognized special
needs for U.S. Forest Service acquisition dollars in the eastern
states:
``Provided further, That except for areas specifically authorized by
Act of Congress, not more than 15 per centum of the acreage added to
the National Forest System pursuant to this section shall be west of
the 100th meridian.'' (16 U.S.C.A. 460l-9(a)(1))
In fiscal year 2006, the Eastern Forest Partnership supports
funding requests for the following LWCF projects in the eastern
forests. (Projects are listed alphabetically and not in order of
priority.)
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects included in the President's budget (italics indicate
increase above President's request):
Cache River NWR [AR]..................................... .809
Arkansas Forests [AR].................................... 1.539
Carter G. Woodson Home NHS [DC].......................... 1.600
Georgia Mountains [GA]................................... 4.500
Illinois Disappearing Habitat [IL]....................... 1.000
Hoosier Unique Areas [IN]................................ 1.500
Daniel Boone NF [KY]..................................... 5.463
Lake Umbagog NWR [NH].................................... .750
Wayne Selected Lands [OH]................................ 1.000
Flight 93 Memorial [PA].................................. 4.200
Francis Marion/Sumter NF's [SC].......................... 7.500
Eastern Shore NWR [VA]................................... 1.750
Prince William Forest Park [VA].......................... 1.175
Projects not included in the President's budget:
Silvio Conte NWR (multi-state)........................... 3.300
Alabama National Forests [AL]............................ 2.300
Cahaba River NWR [AL].................................... 1.000
Florida National Scenic Trail [FL]....................... 3.000
Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp [FL]............ 3.000
Chattooga Wild & Scenic River [GA, NC, SC]............... 2.500
Cumberland Gap NHP-Fern Lake Watershed [KY/TN]........... 3.000
Delta NF [MS]............................................ 2.300
Uwharrie NF [NC]......................................... .500
Great Swamp NWR [NJ]..................................... 1.000
Tennessee Mountains [TN]................................. 3.000
Obed Wild and Scenic River [TN].......................... 1.500
Jefferson NF-Black Lick, Rumley Branch [VA].............. 1.900
Green Mountain NF-Broad Brook and others [VT]............ 3.500
----------
Total fiscal year 2006 LWCF Request for Eastern Forests 64.586
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that the state LWCF program, for which funding
was entirely eliminated in the President's budget, is also an important
source of funding for eastern forest conservation, and is often used to
fund complementary state park and recreation projects that leverage the
conservation value of Federal lands and areas conserved using Forest
Legacy funding. Continued allocations for the state LWCF program would
be very positive for eastern forests and synergistic with the other
funding that we have requested.
The Forest Legacy and Federal LWCF projects listed in this
testimony represent the best that the eastern forests have to offer,
but are just a sliver of the total range of important and ready
projects across the region that would conserve important public
resources. We would be grateful for your consideration of this
testimony as you go through the appropriations process.
______
Letter From the Grand County, Utah Council Members
Grand County Council Members,
Grand County, Utah, April 25, 2005.
Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman,
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, Ranking,
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Sirs: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Grand County
Council expressing our support of our local Bureau of Land Management
Moab Field Office's application for 2006 Land Water Conservation Funds
in the amount of $1.2 million.
The money would allow the BLM to purchase 14 acres of private lands
in the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) for
expansion of BLM's Westwater Ranger Station. This expansion would allow
the BLM to add additional parking, campsites and a leach field for
wastewater.
The money would also be used to purchase a conversation easement of
530 acres of riverfront property located downstream of the Westwater
Ranger Station. This easement would prevent development in a habitat
for nesting bald eagles, four endangered fish species and for
enhancement of wetland properties.
We strongly support this application and ask that you do all that
you can to lobby for the Colorado River SRMA project on behalf of the
BLM office in Grand County.
Thank you for consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Jerry McNeely, Chairman,
Grand County Council.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Thank you for
the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million
appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical
land protection in the Minnesota National Forests. The top priority for
the Minnesota Forests is the acquisition of undeveloped Long Island on
Burntside Lake in the Superior National Forest. The Izaak Walton League
of America supports this request.
I have visited and canoed on Burntside Lake many times, and can
speak from personal experience of Burntside's value, and the
increasingly difficult opportunity of preserving publicly-owned,
undeveloped islands on this popular lake. Though I have not visited
Long Island itself, since it has been in private ownership, I have seen
it many times and know of its value if it were to become a publicly-
owned, undeveloped island.
Burntside Lake is located about three miles northwest of the city
of Ely in northeastern Minnesota. The entire 7,100-acre lake is located
within the boundaries of Superior National Forest. The lake is an
important recreational area, with two entry points into the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), the nation's most heavily visited
unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Burntside also has
five public, primitive campsites and six public boat and canoe
launching points. The lake is also the start of an 11-mile canoe route
called Burntside-Dead River-Twin Lakes-Everett, which is outside the
BWCAW yet within the National Forest boundaries. The deep lake (126
feet deep) supports lake trout and is one of the few lakes in Minnesota
outside of the BWCAW that supports a natural cold-water fishery. The
lake is renowned for its big lake trout and walleye and also supports
one of the largest populations of loons (Gavia immer) in the state.
Burntside Lake also holds significant historic and cultural value.
The historic Burntside Lodge, for example, built in 1913, is located on
the lake and is on the National Historic Registry. Even more
importantly, however, Burntside Lake is also the location of writer and
conservationist Sigurd Olson's famous Listening Point, a forested
shoreline point and a rustic cabin. Listening Point was a place of
inspiration for Sig, his wilderness advocacy, and his many books
(including one entitled Listening Point). Long Island is situated
directly across from Sig's Listening Point, a place I have visited many
times. The view from Listening Point includes Long Island, a view that
inspired Sig during his lifetime and the many visitors who still come
to visit the point.
The Izaak Walton League believes that Long Island would be an
outstanding addition to the Superior National Forest, bringing one mile
of undeveloped lakeshore into public ownership. The island has a
beautiful sand beach along that lakeshore, which would be utilized by
the public for recreation. The island is home to nesting osprey, great
blue herons, and common loons. The 64-acre Burntside Islands Scientific
and Natural Area (SNA), owned by the State of Minnesota, features two
virtually undisturbed islands and is located immediately southwest of
Long Island. These two forested bedrock islands are home to old-growth
Great Lakes pine forests that are extremely rare outside of the BWCAW.
Public acquisition of the Long Island property will bring to public
ownership an outstanding treasure that will be protected in perpetuity.
The League supports an appropriation of $2 million from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2006 to secure the
acquisition of Long Island, protect its critical natural resources for
the public, and maintain the integrity of the great northwoods
experience provided for by the Superior National Forest.
Thank you for the chance to submit this request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
introduction
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
provide testimony on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) $4.88 billion
budget request for fiscal year 2006. Representing the directors of
state forestry agencies from the states, eight U.S. territories, and
the District of Columbia, our testimony centers around those program
areas most relevant to the long term forestry operations of our
constituents. State and Private Forestry programs multiply the public
benefits of federal funding by leveraging in-kind contributions through
cost-share programs and matching funds from states. Wildland Fire
Management supports essential State and Private Forestry and federal
programs that address wildland fire.
We commend the President's commitment to the Forest Stewardship
Program and the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program in the USFS
budget for fiscal year 2006. Our recommendations include restoring
funding to our top three priorities (State Fire Assistance, Cooperative
Forest Health Management, and Urban and Community Forestry) and
discussing other opportunities for Congress to further the advancement
of sustainable management on both public and private forestland
nationwide.
state and private forestry programs
State Fire Assistance (SFA)
State Fire Assistance (SFA) provides much-needed financial and
technical assistance to states for wildland fire management. It helps
to ensure preparedness of state and local resources who serve as the
first line of defense for their forests and communities. These fire
fighting resources function as both ``first responders'' for local
situations and as ``ready reserves'' for large federally managed
catastrophic fires. Further, SFA is the only program that currently
provides funding for fuel reduction work on non-federal lands. It is
also one of the few programs that helps communities develop Community
Wildfire Protection Plans, which are an important component of the
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.
SFA provides the flexibility to meet different state needs, which
may include firefighting preparedness, firefighter training, fire
suppression, and hazardous fuel reduction, Community Wildfire
Protection Plans, as well as prevention activities. SFA is funded under
both Cooperative Fire Protection (State and Private Forestry) and
Wildland Fire Management in the Forest Service budget. All SFA funds
under Cooperative Fire Protection are used to help states increase
preparedness at the local level through training, coordination, and
providing communications equipment to local firefighters. Funding under
Wildland Fire Management is used for both preparedness and hazard
mitigation. Reducing these funds would seriously hamper the states'
ability to treat hazardous fuels on private lands and to work with
communities to complete Community Wildfire Protection Plans.
NASF recommends continued level funding for State Fire Assistance
at $33 million under Cooperative Fire Protection and $40 million under
Wildland Fire Management. Funding these line items at last year's level
provides continued protection for local communities from catastrophic
wildland fire, many of which originate on federal lands.
Cooperative Forest Health Management
The Cooperative Forest Health Management program provides funding
assistance to address Forest Health issues on non-federal forestland.
Cooperative Forest Health Management concerns include prevention,
detection, and suppression of damaging insects, diseases, and plants.
Every year, the American public loses billions of dollars to invasive
species, insects, and disease detection and control. The Cooperative
Forest Health Management program assists in the development and
application of new technologies that mitigate these forest health
concerns and reduce public expenses. These funds, from both State and
Private Forestry (S&PF) and Wildland Fire Management, are critical to
the maintenance of healthy sustainable forests. Forest pests know no
land ownership boundaries and often move to and from federal lands.
NASF recommends funding S&PF Cooperative Forest Health Management
at the fiscal year 2005 level of $48 million to provide the tools
needed to address forest health issues across the many non-federal
forest types and ownerships in the United States.
NASF also recommends $10 million to continue level support for
Cooperative Forest Health Management under Wildland Fire Management to
address forest health problems that increase the risk of catastrophic
wildland fire. Cooperative Forest Health Management funds help states
achieve the goals of the Healthy Forests Initiative by restoring
healthy forests across ownership types.
Urban and Community Forestry
The Urban and Community Forestry program provides technical and
financial assistance to promote the stewardship of urban and community
trees and forest resources. The program leverages existing local
efforts that help urban areas and rural communities manage, maintain,
and improve their tree cover and green spaces. Such efforts emphasize
the vital connection between human and natural environments, and create
social and aesthetic benefits.
NASF is working with the Forest Service to develop a new allocation
formula to distribute funding among the states and territories. This
new formula will more closely align state funding allocation with
program goals and objectives.
NASF recommends funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at
the fiscal year 2005 level of $32 million to enhance the quality of
life for communities in urban and rural areas.
Forest Stewardship Program
The Forest Stewardship Program continues to serve as the primary
program for promoting sustainable forest management on family forest
lands. From 1991 to 2002, the Forest Stewardship program turned out
more than 217,000 Stewardship Plans covering more than 25 million
acres. These management plans help landowners to sustainably manage
their forestland for the benefit of all. NASF encourages efforts to
better target the delivery of the Forest Stewardship Program in order
to focus on priority resources concerns. NASF supports the President's
proposed funding of $37.1 million in fiscal year 2006 for the Forest
Stewardship Program.
Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
The Forest Inventory and Analysis program provides crucial forest
information to policy makers and land managers, enabling them to make
informed forestry-related decisions. FIA data provides users with
relevant information on the condition, extent, use, and health of
forests across ownership. Increasing funding for this program will
enable this important work to continue, while improving the quality of
information being provided. NASF supports the President's
recommendation of providing $73.3 million for full funding of the FIA
program. We recommend the funding increase be used to establish a full
inventory cycle in each state, and to ensure timely annual reporting.
Together with a well-funded research program, FIA will continue to
provide essential inventory data for addressing long-term forest
management needs.
Economic Action Program (EAP)
The Economic Action Program is the only federal assistance program
that targets forest-based economic development. With our current forest
health threats across the country, EAP helps find local solutions to
forest health problems while fostering economic sustainability in
communities. State Foresters will continue to work with the Forest
Service and rural communities to help them deliver a focused and
results oriented forest-based economic development program.
other federal programs
Federal Wildland Fire Management
NASF recommends continued funding of federal wildland fire
management at the 10-year average. Funding is integral to rapid
suppression of small fires before they grow into large and costly
fires. The increasing costs of wildfires--due mainly to drought, fuel
accumulation, and the rapid expansion of the wildland-urban interface--
makes adequate suppression funding critical. We support continued
funding for preparedness, fire operations, and hazardous fuels
treatment on federal land, including the $15 million provided under
State and Private Forestry Appropriations that may be used on non-
Federal land to protect communities at risk from adjacent USFS lands
where hazard reduction activities are planned.
DOI conservation grant programs
NASF supports the Department of the Interior conservation grant
programs for private landowners to manage their land for a variety of
public benefits. Continued funding will ensure these programs remain
viable.
conclusion
NASF seeks the Subcommittee's support for a Forest Service fiscal
year 2006 budget that will ensure the continued delivery of a broad
range of public benefits from privately owned forest lands.
Collaboration among stakeholders across the landscape--federal, state,
and local government agencies, private landowners, industry, and non-
profit organizations--is necessary to manage for the wide range of
forest resources found on all ownerships and the values derived from
those lands. Cooperative Forestry, State and Private Forestry (S&PF),
and Wildland Fire Management provide these links. The federal share
leverages private dollars and provides an important catalyst for
collaboration in order to take the work far beyond the usual boundaries
of federal land management.
We realize that the Subcommittee will be faced with some difficult
funding decisions this year and will have to make sacrifices and
tradeoffs to some programs. NASF encourages you to keep our priorities
in mind when making these decisions.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the more than four million members and
supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, thank you for the
opportunity to express to your Subcommittee our funding recommendations
for Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service programs in fiscal year
2006. The purpose of our testimony is to recommend levels of funding
for a few specific programs that are vital to our mission to educate,
inspire and assist individuals and organizations of diverse cultures to
conserve wildlife and other natural resources in order to achieve a
peaceful, equitable and sustainable future. NWF requests a total of
$1,296,387,000 in funding for our priority programs, or $260,547,000 in
increases above the President's budget request.
u.s. fws
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program provides states and
their partners a broad suite of conservation tools early enough to
allow for meaningful and effective species conservation. The program
strategically focuses resources on those species most in need of
conservation, leverages state and private funding, and promotes
scientific understanding of these species and their habitats. The
Administration's request for $74 million is an increase in funding for
this program from the 2005 enacted level, but is still $6 million less
than the $80 million the President requested last year. This program's
needs are much larger and growing, so we ask the Subcommittee to
increase its support to $85 million, an increase of $11 million over
the President's request. This is the nation's only program to keep
species of every state common.
Endangered Species Program
We are disappointed that the Endangered Species Program has not
been funded at the level needed to carry out its purpose of preventing
extinction and recovering our irreplaceable wildlife. While we note
with appreciation the increases in funding for the Listing and
Consultation programs, we are concerned that the President's budget
proposal would cut total funding by over $3.1 million. The Species
Recovery program would suffer the deepest cuts of more than $5.6
million, while funding for Candidate Conservation faces the largest
percentage reductions of over 10 percent. Overall, the President's
budget allots only $140 million to ESA protections, and although this
is an improvement over the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the needs
of the FWS are much greater. We urge the Subcommittee to appropriate at
least $212 million toward the Endangered Species Program (an increase
of $72 million) for the following critical activities:
--Listing Program.--The proposed $2 million increase in the Listing
and Critical Habitat account will not begin to cover the
backlog of species awaiting action on listings and critical
habitat designations. More than 250 candidate species have been
denied the ESA's safety net due to lack of resources, including
the Washington ground squirrel, sheath-tailed bat, gunnison
sage grouse, and the elfin woods warbler. Some of these have
been candidates for years and could become extinct while
waiting for ESA protection. To address this backlog, FWS needs
$30 million, or an $11.87 million increase in the Listing
account (FWS has estimated that it would take $30.6 million a
year for 5 years to clean up this backlog).
--Recovery Program.--Under the President's budget this program would
be reduced by $5.63 million to 8 percent below the 2005 enacted
level, even though FWS has said that more than 200 currently
listed species are on the verge of extinction because not
enough funds are available for recovery activities. The cut
includes a $1.18 million decrease for wolf recovery in Montana,
Idaho, and Wyoming, undermining a great wildlife recovery
success stories. The President's budget also cuts almost $4
million in grants for Pacific and Atlantic salmon, as well as
$986,000 from the Platte and Upper Colorado River Recovery
Programs. Loss of this funding would erase benefits from past
investments, since these recovery programs are just now being
implemented. In order to develop and implement recovery plans
for all species needing them, FWS needs $110 million--or $46
million over the President's request.
--Consultation Program.--Consultation received an increase of $1.35
million, which is not sufficient to meet the FWS's future needs
in this area. In order to ensure consultations are successfully
completed in a timely manner, we urge the Committee to increase
funding for consultation to $57.146 million, which is $7.66
million over the President's request.
--Candidate Conservation.--Candidate species are plants and animals
for which listing is precluded due to lack of resources and
other higher priority listing activities. The President has
also proposed reducing the Candidate Conservation program by
approximately $1 million, despite the fact that efforts to
protect candidate species early are extremely cost-effective
and reduce the difficulty and expense of species recovery. We
request an increase to $14.808 million, which is $6.56 million
over the President's request.
Habitat Conservation
While we appreciate the $7.5 million increase in funding for
Habitat Conservation included in the Administration's request, NWF is
extremely disappointed that the Administration's budget eliminates
funding for the High Plains Partnership. This public-private
partnership proactively conserves declining grassland habitats and
species like the sage grouse, lesser prairie chickens, and black tailed
prairie dogs while making private lands more economically viable, using
land owner incentives and technical assistance. We ask the Subcommittee
to reinstate full funding of $986,000 for the important and highly
cost-effective High Plains Partnership Program.
National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
The President's budget calls for a $12.87 million increase for the
National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance budget.
While we appreciate the President's commitment to increasing funding
for the Refuge System, we note with concern that when cost-of-living,
energy, and increasing levels of visitor services and wildlife
management requirements are taken into account, this increase would
ultimately be an effective cut in refuge funding (and thus a decrease
in refuge services). NWF supports the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement (CARE) recommendation of a $16 million increase over the
fiscal year 2005 level to a total of $397 million to approach a ``no-
net-loss'' position for the Refuge System, and avoid layoffs and
reductions in services, maintain protections for wildlife and habitat,
prevent backsliding on gains already made, and help reduce the $931
million maintenance backlog and address critical operations needs in
the National Wildlife Refuge System in coming years.
Multinational Species Conservation Funds and Wildlife Without Borders
NWF is concerned to see that the President's budget reduces total
funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund by $1.36
million. For fiscal year 2006, we ask the Subcommittee to again support
these successful programs by appropriating $2 million each for the
African Elephant, Asian Elephant, Great Apes and Marine Turtle
Conservation Funds, $2.5 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger
Conservation Funds, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund for a total of $15.5 million for these 6 funds, $7.2
million above the President's request. We also suggest an increase of
$1.5 million over the President's request for Wildlife Without Borders,
for a total of $2.5 million. All of these highly successful programs
enables the Department of Interior to promote conservation of
threatened species in their natural habitats. Each of these programs is
highly leveraged, bringing in several times as much funding from
private and other public sources as the amounts appropriated. These
funds will enable the Department of Interior to expand critical support
for these threatened populations in their natural habitats. All of
these proposed increases amount to a total of $8.7 million above the
President's request.
Service Landowner Incentive Program
NWF supports the President's increases in funding for the Landowner
Incentive Program. We request that $6 million of the total $40 million
budgeted for this program be allocated to strengthen the technical
capacity of the State Natural Heritage Programs and NatureServe to
provide the reliable scientific information required for effective
conservation efforts.
blm national landscape conservation system (nlcs)
The NLCS is an American treasure that consists of 26 million acres
of BLM's most spectacular lands. Since its creation in June 2000,
however, the System has been chronically under-funded, and is in
critical need of adequate resources just to meet the planning
requirements and to manage the growing number of visitors for these new
units. A shoestring budget means critical needs go unmet; illegal and
irresponsible off-road vehicle traffic increases, invasive species
spread, land acquisition opportunities slip away, and ancient artifacts
are vandalized. We request an increase of $3.2 million in Operations,
Maintenance, and Planning funding for the NLCS, for a total of $46.6
million for resource protection, archeological inventories, and law
enforcement capability. Additionally, we request an additional $2
million in critical land acquisitions needs above the President's
request.
NLCS Operations request of $3.2 million above the President's
request for the following projects:
--Agua Fria National Monument, AZ: $300,000 for cultural resource
protection, visitor education and infrastructure needs.
--Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, CO: $100,000 to prevent
looting and vandalism of cultural treasures.
--Craters of the Moon National Monument, ID: $100,000 for invasive
species control.
--Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, AZ: $350,000 for habitat
restoration, resource monitoring, cultural and historic site
research and protection.
--Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, UT: $400,000 for
cultural and paleontological research and biological
monitoring.
--Headwaters Forest Reserve, CA: $25,000 for wildlife survey analysis
and education.
--Ironwood Forest National Monument, Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area and San Pedro Riparian Area, AZ: $150,000 for
increased law enforcement, field presence and visitor
education.
--Pacific Crest Trail, CA: $150,000 for improved trail maintenance
and management.
--Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, CA:
$500,000 for tamarisk removal, watershed assessment, and
visitor education.
--Sonoran Desert National Monument, AZ: $385,000 for visitor
management, law enforcement and education.
--Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, OR:
$60,000 for creation of a new Wilderness volunteer coordinator.
--Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, MT: $300,000 for
ilaw enforcement.
--Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, AZ: $400,000 for cultural
resource protection, invasive species control, visitor
education and environmental monitoring.
NLCS Land Acquisition request of an additional $2 million above the
President's request:
We support the President's fiscal year 2006 request for Land and
Water Conservation Fund projects for Canyons of the Ancients, Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains, and Agua Fria National Monuments; El
Malpais, and Colorado Canyons National Conservation Areas; and other
NLCS units. In addition to those projects, we urge the Subcommittee to
fund $600,000 for land acquisition along Ankle Creek in Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Area, Oregon; $700,000 to acquire
Soda Mountain inholdings in Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon;
and $770,000 to acquire the Calf Creek parcel in Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument, Utah.
u.s. forest service forest legacy program
NWF commends the Administration for requesting a $22 million
increase for the Forest Legacy Program, but we note that this is
actually $20 million less than the President requested in fiscal year
2005. The needs of this program are much larger and growing, so we ask
the Subcommittee to appropriate $100 million for the program, or an
increase of $20 million. Forest Legacy protects environmentally
important forests that are threatened with conversion to non-forest
uses, while protecting local communities and their way of life. The
program has been especially important in states where there are few
federal land holdings and timber companies are in the process of
consolidating and selling their lands.
We also request that you to include $5 million for the U.S. Forest
Service's North Florida Wildlife Corridor-Pinhook Land and Water
Conservation Fund project. Located between the Osceola National Forest
in Florida and the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia this
important corridor includes the headwaters of the Suwannee and St.
Mary's rivers and provides habitat for a number of threatened and
endangered species, as well an array of diverse birds and other
wildlife. The North Florida Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp provides a
critical biological and hydrological link between these two areas. It
represents the final piece of a conservation strategy to create one of
the largest contiguous protected natural areas in the United States. In
fiscal year 2006, $5 million is needed to purchase 5,000 acres of lands
that are critical to the project. Each year the pressures of
encroaching development and increased human populations threaten the
ultimate goal to create the largest wildlife corridor in the United
States. We urge you to help protect this vital area while there is
still time.
and and water conservation fund (lwcf)
The federal LWCF provides funding for the acquisition of valuable
wildlife habitat by the federal land management agencies. The LWCF is
an invaluable tool to help enhance wildlife habitat, preserve natural,
cultural, and historic sites, restore declining native species, and
halt the destruction and fragmentation of millions of acres of habitat
occurring annually across the United States. NWF is concerned to see
that the President's budget includes significant cuts to the LWCF.
Massive cuts to the LWCF would be devastating to this highly effective
program, responsible for preserving nationally beloved areas such as
Redwoods National Park, Gettysburg Military Park, and the Appalachian
Trail. In fiscal year 2001, Congress and the President agreed to fund
the federal LWCF at $450 million, as part of the CCPII ($300 million
above the President's request). We urge the Subcommittee to provide at
least $200 million for federal LWCF.
In addition, Stateside LWCF provides matching funds for state and
local recreation and conservation programs. We are extremely
disappointed to see that the Administration's budget cuts all funding
for stateside LWCF. Eliminating this Fund would seriously impact
locally sponsored recreation projects that provide opportunities for
youth, seniors and the physically challenged. We ask the Subcommittee
to restore $90 million for Stateside LWCF in keeping with the
previously agreed-upon levels of funding for LCPII.
Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on the
budget requests for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership
comprised of current and former refuge professionals and members of the
more than 240 refuge ``Friends'' group organizations throughout the
United States, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations bill.
Specifically, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee support
a $16 million increase in the operations and maintenance budget of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), in the fiscal year 2006 budget. This request represents
a ``no-net-loss'' approach to the Refuge System budget. We also ask the
Subcommittee to: restore funding for the refuge Wildlife and Habitat
and Visitor Services accounts; continue to support volunteer projects
on and in connection with refuges, like the Cooperative Volunteer
Invasives Monitoring Program, that utilizes Friends and volunteers to
identify and eradicate invasive species; allocate $150,000 in the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) budget to integrate Refuge System invasive
species data with the USGS National Institute of Invasive Species
Science (NIISS) database; protect refuges from threats under the
auspices of right-of-way privileges; provide $85 million for the State
and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; and provide funding for land
acquisition in the Refuge System through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
As you know, the National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be
crippled by a $2 billion funding backlog that harms every refuge in the
System. Specifically, funding shortfalls limit the ability of refuges
to successfully conduct important biological programs and hire critical
staff, while also hindering opportunities for the public to engage in
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
While significant strides were made to reduce the shortfall in
connection with the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge
System--and we are grateful to the Subcommittee for its work in this
regard--efforts must be made to prevent any backsliding on these past
gains. The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), 21
diverse conservation and sporting organizations, of which the NWRA is a
member, has determined that it will be necessary to increase the annual
Refuge System budget to $700 million simply to meet the System's top
tier needs. Our groups, representing a national constituency numbering
more than 5 million Americans, recognize the value of a healthy Refuge
System to both the wildlife and habitats refuges were established to
protect and the 40 million visitors that frequent these special places
each year.
The National Wildlife Refuge System budget must increase by
approximately $16 million in fiscal year 2006 to achieve a ``no-net-
loss'' funding level. The $16 million increase accounts for cost-of-
living increases for FWS personnel, rising energy costs and other cost
increases, while sustaining current levels of visitor services and
wildlife management. This funding level will allow the Refuge System to
avoid employee layoffs and reductions in services, maintain protections
for wildlife and habitat, prevent backsliding on gains already made,
and help to contain growth in the Refuge System backlog.
The NWRA is concerned about cuts in the Administration's fiscal
year 2006 budget proposal for the Wildlife and Habitat account. The
cuts affect funding for essential staffing needs and represent
approximately 10 FWS jobs.
We are also concerned about cuts in the Administration's fiscal
year 2006 budget proposal for the Refuge System's Visitor Services and
Visitor Facility Enhancements programs. Visitor Services funding pays
for many Friends group and volunteer programs that support refuges and
provide the public with wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. We
urge the Subcommittee to restore this vital funding to prevent refuges
from losing the ability to provide to the public the simplest and most
cost-effective methods of outreach, education and orientation, made
possible, in part, by the vibrant Refuge System volunteers.
For fiscal year 2006, we also encourage the Subcommittee to
continue its support for volunteer-based invasives detection and
eradication activities by again appropriating $1 million for volunteer-
oriented invasives programs.
The NWRA thanks the Subcommittee for its work in the fiscal year
2003 and fiscal year 2005 budgets to promote the use of volunteers to
address the growing threat of invasive species on and adjacent to our
national wildlife refuges. More than 300 separate refuges have taken
actions to control invasives, and the Refuge System has identified $150
million of invasive species projected needs. By utilizing the strong
volunteer support available to the Refuge System, we can significantly
expand our ability to identify and record data on invasives in refuges,
and implement control measures.
The Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program (VIMP),
currently underway at six pilot refuges (Hobe Sound (FL); National
Bison Range (MT); Ottawa (OH); San Bernard (TX); San Pablo Bay (CA);
and the Pondicherry unit of Silvio O. Conte (NH)), is showing
tremendous results. The Program is a partnership among the NWRA, FWS,
USGS and The Nature Conservancy that seeks to train refuge volunteers
to identify invasives and collect extensive data using inexpensive but
sophisticated global positioning system (GPS)/geographic information
system (GIS) data-collection equipment. The data is entered into a
centralized database and will augment incomplete information previously
compiled by refuge staff.
As a result of funding provided by this Subcommittee in fiscal year
2005, the six original pilot refuges in the VIMP will begin invasive
species control efforts, while at least six new sites will be added to
the program. The balance of the fiscal year 2005 allocation will
provide funding for a competitive grants program for cooperative
invasives projects with refuge Friends and volunteers.
Collection of this data aids the FWS in detecting early
infestations of invasives on refuges, and helps to prioritize rapid
response eradication activities. This technology is already proving
successful and should continue to be expanded to a larger percentage of
refuges in the coming years. The program provides a more complete
picture of the scope and impact of invasives on fragile refuge habitats
and helps the FWS develop stronger invasives management protocols. In
addition, broader community awareness and involvement generated through
this program serves to strengthen federal, state and private lands
initiatives aimed at addressing this rapidly growing threat.
The USGS National Institute of Invasive Species Science assists the
FWS and other Department of the Interior agencies in invasive species
monitoring and management efforts. In 2002, NIISS conducted a refuge-
wide survey of invasive species and created a web-based database to
report this information. Expanding this database into one capable of
combining existing disparate data on invasive species in the Refuge
System would greatly advance efficiency and cost-effectiveness of early
detection and control as well as help track the success of control
efforts.
We recommend that the Subcommittee allocate $150,000 in the USGS
budget to integrate National Wildlife Refuge System invasive species
data (such as the data created through the Cooperative Volunteer
Invasives Monitoring Program, Invasive Plant Strike Teams and Refuge
Lands GIS) with the NIISS database.
The NWRA supports the Administration's request for funding to
increase the number of rapid response strike teams to quickly respond
to invasive species infestations. We ask the Subcommittee to include
funding for the creation of two more strike teams for fiscal year 2006
to effectively combat the spread of invasive species in wildlife
refuges, while preserving funding for base programs.
We would also like to express our appreciation to the Subcommittee
for extending the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for 10 years
in fiscal year 2005. Our organization, members and affiliated Friends
groups see first-hand the benefits this valuable program provides the
Refuge System. We hope the 109th Congress will act to make this
important program permanent.
The NWRA also encourages the Subcommittee to include language
prohibiting the use of funds by the Bureau of Land Management to use
the recordable disclaimer regulations with regard to any lands within a
designated National Wildlife Refuge System unit, national monument,
wilderness study area, National Park Service unit, or lands within the
National Wilderness Preservation System. As the Subcommittee is aware,
issues such as rights-of-way claims in national wildlife refuges
through the use of Revised Statute 2477 threaten wildlife habitat and
visitor experiences at many refuges.
We encourage the Subcommittee to fund the State and Tribal Wildlife
Grants Program at $85 million. This important program gives states the
needed funding to develop and implement comprehensive conservation
plans to protect declining species and their habitats.
The NWRA also encourages the Subcommittee to provide funding for
land acquisition in the Refuge System through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. Specifically, we request the following:
--$1.9 million for Balcones Canyonlands NWR (TX);
--$2 million for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT);
--$2.3 million for Big Muddy NWR (MO);
--$500,000 for Chickasaw NWR (TN);
--$300,000 for E.B. Forsythe NWR (NJ);
--$510,000 for Great Swamp NWR (NJ);
--$2.5 million for Laguna Atascosa NWR (TX);
--$2.5 million for Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (TX);
--$1.6 million for Rachel Carson NWR (ME);
--$2.5 million for Tensas NWR (LA); and
--$2.15 million for Trustom Pond NWR (RI).
In conclusion, the NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge
System can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong
and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its
ongoing commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System.
______
Prepared Statement of the Native Plant Conservation Campaign
regarding
Botany Programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.
Forest Service, the Recovery Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Prevention and the Department of the Interior Programs for
Control of Invasive Non-Native Species Infestations and the Native
Plant Materials Development.
The Native Plant Conservation Campaign (NPCC) is a nationwide
network of native plant science and conservation organizations. The
NPCC is a project of the Center for Biological Diversity and the
California Native Plant Society. Our mission is to promote appreciation
and conservation of native plant species and communities through
collaboration, education, law, policy, land use and management.
Currently the NPCC network includes 33 affiliate native plant
societies, botanic gardens, museums, and arboreta, representing more
than 60,000 scientists and laypersons nationwide. NPCC members rely on
public lands and botanical resources for enjoyment, education,
research, and recreation. The NPCC requests that the Senate augment the
budget of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by $21,126,613 and that
of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) by $15,516,977 to adequately staff
botany programs within these agencies. We further request a minimum of
$100 million for the FWS Recovery Program budget to begin to address
the backlog in recovery plan implementation, and $14.4 million for
invasive non-native plant inventory and control. Finally we request $10
million for the BLM and USFS Native Plant Materials Development
Program.
background
Land Management Agency Staffing
America's native plants and public lands are central to the
nation's quality of life and economic well being. Botanists are among
the most important resource managers on public lands, but land
management agencies are severely understaffed in botany. Nationwide,
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employs approximately 61 botanists
to manage vegetation on its 264 million acres (1 botanist/4.3 million
ac.). The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) employs approximately 200
botanists across 191 million acres of National Forests (1 botanist/1.1
million ac.). This is a serious problem for a number of reasons.
First, plants are the foundations of ecosystems. Health of native
vegetation controls the quality and quantity of goods, services and
enjoyment that Americans derive from our public lands. Second,
butterflies, bears, and all native wildlife that the public enjoys
require healthy native plant communities for survival. Third, species
conservation, recreation, commodity production and all other programs
require input and review from qualified botanists to avoid resource
damage, controversy and litigation. National Forests, for example,
provide habitat for nearly 2,000 ``sensitive'' plants, any of which
could become eligible for federal listing if mismanaged. Finally, the
President's priorities for public lands include increased emphasis on
fire and invasive species management to prevent further ecological
degradation. These priorities require high quality vegetation
management, so botanists are integral to their successful
implementation. Staffing levels are inadequate to meet agencies' duties
to taxpayers or the needs of our resources.
Recovery
Recovery of imperiled species and their removal from the federal
endangered species list is the primary goal of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). Unfortunately, the President's 2006 budget request reduces
recovery funding by 10 percent. Further, plant recovery programs are
severely underfunded and understaffed. Sixty percent of federal
endangered species are plants. However, according to the FWS in fiscal
year 2000, only 4.5 percent of federal recovery funding went to listed
plants. Thus, most plant recovery plans are not adequately implemented;
many are not implemented at all. The FWS has a recovery ranking system
based on likelihood of recovery and degree of threat to each listed
species and a priority system for recovery tasks. We suggest that this
system be used as the basis for more equitable recovery budgeting.
Invasive Non-Native Species
Invasive non-native species cause up to $123 billion in economic
losses in the United States each year. Scientists implicate non-native
species in the decline of 49 percent of federally listed species (57
percent of plants). According to the BLM, invasive non-native plants
(weeds) already dominate at least 17 million acres of federal lands.
These infestations reduce the value of our public lands for recreation,
wildlife, and livestock. They also often cause other problems such as
reduced water supply and increased fire danger. Agencies must be
adequately funded to prevent and control invasive non-native species
infestations. The President's budget calls for a reduction of funding
for the Forest Service invasive species program. This is unacceptable
as weeds are devastating ecosystems and economies throughout the United
States.
Native Plant Materials Development Program--BLM Wildland Fire
Management Budget
The purpose of this program is to develop seed of local native
plants to be used for restoration and revegetation projects on federal
lands. The use of native plant materials ensures sustainable,
successful revegetation and restoration of public lands, helps maintain
local biological diversity, and maintains a sustainable flow of goods
and services from public lands. Funding for this program has been
dropping. It should be fully funded. This program is funded through the
BLM wildland fire management budget.
request
Land Management Agency Staffing
The following augmentations are the minimum necessary to begin to
move the agencies towards adequate botany staffing:
--Each USFS Ranger District should be staffed with at least one full
time series 430 botanist.
--There are 156 BLM field offices. Their areas of responsibility vary
from several thousand to several million acres. We propose that
BLM nationwide employ one series 430 botanist for each 500,000
acres under management. Botanists should be distributed based
on local workloads. At minimum each BLM field office should be
staffed with one full time botanist.
Based on a GS-11 Step 1 base salary with no locality adjustment
($45,239/yr), these staff levels would require the following budget
augmentations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Current cost (vs.
Agency FTEs FTE goal Needed current
budget)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USFS....................................................... 200 \1\ 543 343 $15,516,977
BLM........................................................ 61 \2\ 528 467 21,126,613
---------------
Total................................................ ........... ........... ......... 36,643,590
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 1 FTE per Ranger District.
\2\ 1 FTE per 0.5 million acres.
Recovery
We request full funding for FWS recovery plans for fiscal year 2006
for plants and animals with High Recovery Potential and a High or
Moderate degree of Threat, according to the FWS priority ranking
system. For lower ranked species, we request that Priority 1 recovery
actions identified in recovery plans be funded for fiscal year 2006.
Priority 1 actions are defined by FWS as actions needed to prevent
extinction.
We do not have the FWS recovery budget requests for the species
that fall into these categories. However, recent scientific studies
based on the FWS priority system and species status recommended an
augmentation of $300 million above current annual recovery spending.
This augmentation would certainly improve recovery success under the
ESA. Given current budget constraints, we request a recovery budget of
at least $100 million for the fiscal year 2006 FWS recovery program.
Invasive non-native species
The BLM received $7.7 million in fiscal year 2004 for control and
inventory of invasive non-native plants nationwide. The agency
estimated it required approximately $16 million to adequately meet
needs for fiscal year 2005. That was a budget augmentation of $8.3
million. We do not have fiscal year 2006 figures.
Region 5 of the USFS has estimated that an additional $700,000/yr
is needed to meet regional weed control needs for fiscal year 2006.
Based on the assumption that all 10 USFS regions need at least that
amount, we request a budget augmentation of $7 million for USFS non-
native plant inventory and control programs service-wide. Total fiscal
year 2006 request for BLM + Forest Service = $15.4 million over fiscal
year 2005 budget
Native Plant Materials Development
This crucial program should be funded at a minimum of $10 million.
We hope that you will take these proposals and issues into account
as you formulate budgets for fiscal year 2006 and beyond. Thank you for
the opportunity to present this request.
npcc affiliates
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum; Arizona Native Plant Society; Botanic
Gardens Conservation International (BGCI); California Native Plant
Society; California Oak Foundation; Center for Biological Diversity;
Colorado Native Plant Society; Florida Native Plant Society; Grand
Prairie Friends of Illinois; Herb Society of America; Idaho Native
Plant Society; Iowa Native Plant Society; Kauai Native Plant Society;
Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center; Maryland Native Plant Society;
Minnesota Native Plant Society; Missouri Native Plant Society; Montana
Native Plant Society; Native Plant Society of New Mexico; Native Plant
Society of Northeastern Ohio; Native Plant Society of Oregon; New
England Wild Flower Society (NH, CT, RI, MA, ME, VT); New Mexico Rare
Plant Technical Council; North Carolina Botanical Garden; North
Carolina Wild Flower Preservation Society; Oklahoma Native Plant
Society; South Carolina Native Plant Society; Ticonderoga Arboretum and
Botanical Gardens, VA; Utah Native Plant Society; Virginia Native Plant
Society; Washington Native Plant Society; West Virginia Native Plant
Society; and Wyoming Native Plant Society.
npcc cooperators
Botresearch USA; CalFlora Database; California Trout; Center for
Native Ecosystems; Defenders of Wildlife; Endangered Species Coalition;
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics; Pacific Rivers
Council; PlantaEuropa; PlantLife, UK; Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility T&E Inc.; and Xerces Society.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance
On behalf of the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of fifty
non-profit organizations, I would like to offer testimony in support of
fiscal year 2006 Forest Legacy Program and Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) projects in the Northern Forest totaling $21.667 million
and $7.55 million, respectively. We hope to see these projects included
in the fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill, and have listed them in two tables at the end of this testimony.
Even in the face of challenging fiscal times, we feel that the
federal government would greatly advance the public good by continuing
to invest in Northern Forest conservation. The Northern Forest is a
rural region of 26 million acres stretching from the Tug Hill Plateau
in New York through the Adirondacks, northern Green Mountains and
northern White Mountains, and into northern Maine. The Northern Forest
is truly a place out of time that has retained its rural character and
resource-based economy in the face of overwhelming changes in the
broader eastern landscape.
For example, forest products remain the largest industrial sector
in the Northern Forest. The forest products industry in Maine alone
contributes $6.5 billion annually to the Northern Forest economy with
wages and salaries of more than $1 billion. To maintain this important
economic activity, many of the Forest Legacy projects in our region
have been designed to maintain working forests that might otherwise be
converted for private development. The Katahdin Ironworks project in
Maine, for example, has already put $200,000 into local payrolls from
timber harvest on the project site. Timber harvest from the Adirondack
Working Forest Easement (IP Lands) project in New York will feed a mill
in Ticonderoga that employs 500 people--the only remaining large mill
in Adirondack Park.
Like other rural regions across the country, the Northern Forest is
also seeking to diversify its economy through tourism and other
measures. Tourism has already grown to include 10 percent of all
Northern Forest jobs, with a payroll of $455 million. All of the fiscal
year 2006 Forest Legacy and LWCF projects in the Northern Forest would
have a significant impact on tourism. The Machias River, Phase II
project in Maine's Downeast Lakes exemplifies this significance. The
project will help conserve 20 percent of the remaining Atlantic salmon
habitat in the country, maintain access to the famed Machias River
canoe trip, and create permanent public access to backcountry campsites
and river access points across more than 7,000 acres. While more than
329,000 acres surrounding the Machias River project area are being
conserved specifically to maintain the Downeast Lakes' forest products
industry, the Machias River project will help bring anglers, paddlers,
and other tourists to this beautiful region.
The LWCF projects for the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge,
Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and Green Mountain National
Forest would have similar positive impacts on tourism. The Conte and
Umbagog National Wildlife Refuges have brought previously unimagined
levels of tourism and related economic benefits to rural towns like
Island Pond, Vermont and Errol, New Hampshire. Through our Businesses
for the Northern Forest, we have worked with these towns and others to
help them remain important hubs for the forest products industry while
also developing other tools such as gateway tourism amenities that will
support diversified economic growth. In a sign of how much towns across
the Northern Forest are embracing land conservation as part of their
economic future, the town of Pownal voted to approve the Green Mountain
National Forest project included in our list by a two to one margin
last year. The fiscal year 2006 funding would complete the USFS
acquisition of the Broad Brook property, an area of over 3,900 acres
that serves as a critical water supply area for local communities and
is valued by locals and visitors alike for its extended section of the
Long Trail.
The Northern Forest is also a vital investment area for America to
conserve important wildlife habitat and public water supplies. The
Northern Forest is critical habitat for many forest-dependent species,
most notably birds. The Northern Forest is part of ``BCR 14'', an
internationally significant bird breeding habitat that produces more
than a third of global populations of some familiar species like the
black-throated blue warbler. The region is also the headwaters of
virtually every major river in the Northeast, including the Hudson,
Connecticut, and Androscoggin. These rivers meet the needs of major
population centers along the coast as well as local communities, and
investing in land conservation around the headwaters of these rivers
conserves public dollars that would otherwise be needed for water
treatment costs.
The Forest Legacy and LWCF project funding that we are requesting
is made necessary by a relentless string of large land sales in the
Northern Forest that are destabilizing the land base while upsetting
local economies and community traditions alike. As recently as 1990, 51
percent of the Northern Forest land base was in the hands of large
private landowners, primarily timber companies with long ties to the
region and long-term management goals. In just the last 6 years a full
25 percent of the region--7 million acres--has changed hands. According
to the North East State Foresters Association, more than 3 million
acres of that land have passed from traditional industrial timber
owners to new classes of owners, such as Real Estate Investment Trusts,
that have short-term investment horizons, increased willingness to use
development and other different methods of producing revenue, and less
affiliation with local communities.
These changes have led to widespread mill closings, liquidation
harvesting, and new development in formerly consolidated timberlands.
These changing ownerships have also led to new restrictions on public
access to private forestland that greatly impact hunters, snowmobilers,
hikers, skiers, and others. For example, the Vermont Department of Fish
and Wildlife reports a remarkable 1,287 percent increase in posted land
just since 1991.
It is imperative that the states and federal government continue to
partner to accomplish conservation projects through Forest Legacy and
LWCF that can help maintain the Northern Forest's economy, communities,
and natural resources. Funding the projects listed below would help
assure that as inevitable changes hit the Northern Forest, we are able
to utilize this time of transition to conserve and maximize the
region's natural assets as the basis for a bright future.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006 Forest Legacy Projects Supported by the
Northern Forest Alliance (Order reflects rank in President's
Budget):
Katahdin Ironworks (ME).................................. 5.000
Machias River, Phase II (ME)............................. 3.000
IP Lands/NY Working Forest Easement (NY)................. 5.000
Green Mountain Wildlife Corridor (VT).................... 1.050
Rossview (NH)............................................ 2.000
Willard Pond (NH)........................................ 2.500
Orange County Headwaters (VT)............................ 1.542
Adams Pond (VT).......................................... .875
Tumbledown Mountain (ME)................................. .700
----------
Total.................................................. 21.667
==========
Fiscal year 2005 LWCF Projects Supported by the Northern
Forest Alliance (Order reflects rank in President's Budget):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Lake Umbagog NWR (NH)................................ .750
Silvio Conte NWR (VT/NH/MA/CT)....................... 3.300
U.S. Forest Service:
Green Mountain National Forest (VT).................. 3.500
----------
Total LWCF......................................... 7.550
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Italicized projects not included in President's Budget.
These projects represent the best that our region has to offer,
only a piece of the total range of ripe projects across the region. In
appreciation of the severe constraints on federal resources for the
upcoming fiscal year, we have gone through careful evaluation to
develop this prioritized set of time-sensitive strategic investments
that will leverage other funding sources and deliver critically
important public benefits. We would be grateful for your consideration
of this testimony as you go through the appropriations process.
______
Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association
Outdoor Industry Association urges the subcommittee to fund the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Assistance Program at
$100 million for fiscal year 2006 and the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Program (UPARR) at $60 million for fiscal year 2006. We also
urge adequate funding for the federal LWCF program.
Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is a national trade association
whose mission is to ensure the growth and success of the outdoor
industry. A wide spectrum of leading manufacturers, distributors,
suppliers, and retailers of outdoor recreation equipment and services,
as well as other related business entities make up OIA's membership.
OIA programs include representation in government/legislative affairs,
cutting edge market research, member cost-saving benefits and consumer
outreach initiatives to grow participation in outdoor activities and
promote healthier lifestyles. Conferences including the annual Outdoor
Industry Rendezvous and the Capitol Summit in Washington, D.C. are
hosted by OIA. Outdoor Industry Association is the exclusive endorser
of the Outdoor Retailer tradeshow.
The outdoor industry is made up of over 4,000 businesses with
500,000 employees in all 50 states, generating $20.1 billion in sales
every year. Last year 159 million Americans participated in outdoor
recreation, with the greatest numbers in the gateway activities of
hiking, biking, camping and paddling.
The LWCF stateside assistance and the Urban Parks and Recreation
Recovery programs are vital for providing recreation experiences and
healthy lifestyle options to all Americans. Stateside LWCF and UPARR
are the government's primary investment tools for ensuring that kids
and families have access to outdoor recreation activities. The
stateside program has 40 years of strong success as one of America's
most effective federal/state recreation and conservation partnership
programs. Since its inception, LWCF has underwritten the development of
more than 40,000 state and local park and recreation projects, touching
98 percent of the counties in the United States.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund was established by Congress in
1964 to meet America's needs for outdoor recreation opportunities,
wildlife habitat conservation and open space. According to the
Congressional Research Service, through fiscal year 2004, $27.2 billion
has been credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but only
$13.8 billion has been appropriated.
We encourage the subcommittee to consider the following as it works
on funding levels for programs under its jurisdiction for fiscal year
2006:
--69 percent of the American population, or 159 million people,
participate in outdoor recreation each year.
--Parks and recreation facilities drive a $20.1 billion industry.
--In fiscal year 2004, Stateside LWCF funded nearly 600 state and
local park projects across the nation, improving quality of
life for millions of Americans.
--The documented unmet need for state and local park facilities is
$836 million.
--``Exploring the Active Lifestyle'', research conducted by Harris
Interactive for Outdoor Industry Foundation, found that hiking,
biking and camping are gateway activities to an active
lifestyle.
--The same research showed that if children start early, these
behaviors will be engrained, leading to healthier, active
lives.
--The stateside LWCF program increases the opportunities and
availability of trails, parks, and other outdoor recreation in
local communities.
--61 percent of U.S. adults are overweight.
--According to a Task Force on Community Preventive Services,
increased accessibility of open space can boost physical
activity by 25 percent.
--The LWCF program helps ensure that this and future generations of
Americans can have quality outdoor experiences in America's
Great Outdoors.
In the fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005 Interior Appropriations
bills, Congress stepped back from a deal struck in 2001 to increase
dollars for these programs through the Conservation Spending Category.
Instead of steadily increasing programs as outlined in 2001, many
programs have seen significant decreases. Both federal and stateside
LWCF have lost ground, and UPARR has been zeroed out. The President's
proposed budget eliminates funding for both stateside LWCF and UPARR in
fiscal year 2006. The elimination of the LWCF State Assistance Program
is of significant concern to the outdoor business community; we urge
the Subcommittee to reject the President's recommendation to zero-out
stateside LWCF.
LWCF AND UPARR FUNDING HISTORY
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Our
------------------------------------------------------- request
fiscal
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 year 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land and Water Conservation Fund:
Federal LWCF.............................. $450.0 $429.0 $313.0 $176.0 $167.0 $450.0
Stateside LWCF Grants..................... 90.0 144.0 97.0 94.0 92.5 100.0
Urban Park Recreation and Recovery (UPARR).... 30.0 30.0 ......... ......... ......... 60.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIA strongly encourages the Senate Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee to invest in healthier communities through
the LWCF State Assistance Program and the Urban Park and Recreation
Recovery Program, and in backcountry recreation opportunities through
the federal LWCF. We look forward to working with you to provide
adequate funding for these important programs in fiscal year 2006.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters
The Society of American Foresters (SAF), representing over 15,000
professional foresters, supports sound management and stewardship of
our nation's forest resources. SAF urges Congress to provide
consistent, long-term funding to better enable long-term management of
the nation's forest lands, both public and private, so our forests
continue to provide desired values and benefits over the long-term. We
offer the following suggestions to facilitate improved stewardship and
management of federal forest lands and provide family forest owners
with the tools to better manage their lands. Given the understandable
restrictions on the length of our testimony, we do not offer the in-
depth analysis we normally provide but would be pleased to offer
further detail upon request.
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Discretionary appropriations -------------------------------- 2006 SAF
2005 enacted 2006 proposed recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest and Rangeland Research \1\............................... 220.4 216.7 220.4
Forest Inventory and Analysis \2\............................... 60.9 73.4 73.4
State and Private Forestry Total \1\............................ \3\ 287.6 248.7 305.9
Forest Health Management--Federal............................... 54.2 50.0 54.2
Forest Health Management--Cooperative........................... 47.6 22.3 47.6
State Fire Assistance........................................... \3\ 32.9 20.9 32.9
Volunteer Fire Assistance....................................... 5.9 5.9 5.9
Forest Stewardship Program...................................... 32.3 37.0 37.0
Forest Legacy Program........................................... 57.1 80.0 70.0
Urban and Community Forestry.................................... 31.9 27.5 31.9
Economic Action Programs........................................ 19.0 .............. 20.0
International Forestry.......................................... 6.4 5.0 6.4
-----------------------------------------------
National Forest System Total.............................. \4\ 1,380.8 1,651.4 1,651.4
Land Management Planning........................................ 63.2 59.1 59.1
Inventory and Monitoring........................................ 167.3 167.0 167.0
Forest Products................................................. 273.2 278.3 278.3
-----------------------------------------------
Wildland Fire Management Total............................ \5\ 1,703.0 \6\ 1,725.3 1,775.3
Preparedness.................................................... \7\ 668.6 676.5 676.5
Fire Operations................................................. 648.8 700.5 700.5
Hazardous Fuels................................................. 262.5 281.0 281.0
Rehabilitation and Restoration.................................. 12.8 2.0 12.8
Fire Research and Development \8\............................... 21.7 16.9 21.7
Joint Fire Sciences Program..................................... 7.9 NS 10.0
Forest Health Management--Federal............................... 14.8 7.0 14.8
Forest Health Management--Cooperative........................... 9.9 4.6 9.9
State Fire Assistance........................................... 40.2 29.4 40.2
Volunteer Fire Assistance....................................... 7.9 7.9 7.9
-----------------------------------------------
Capital Improvement and Maintenance Total................. \9\ 514.7 380.8 391.2
Facilities...................................................... \10\ 198.8 117.8 117.8
Roads........................................................... 226.4 189.6 200.0
Deferred Maintenance............................................ 13.8 9.8 9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This line does not include funding for FIA, as it is broken out in a separate line.
\2\ This includes funding allocated under S&PF and Research in the proposed budget.
\3\ This figure does not include $49 million in emergency & supplemental appropriations.
\4\ This figure does not include $16 million in emergency funding.
\5\ This figure does not include $12.1 million in emergency and supplemental funding.
\6\ This figure does not include $426 million in emergency and supplemental funding.
\7\ The figure includes hazardous fuels funding, which the budget proposes to move to National Forest system.
\8\ This figure does not include $8 million for Joint Fire Sciences, as we chose to separate JFS as another line
item.
\9\ Includes regular appropriations and supplemental appropriations.
\10\ This figure does not include $60.8 million provided in emergency and supplemental funding.
State and Private Forestry.--SAF believes that the proposed
budget's lack of support for family forests is not in the nation's
interest and urges Congress to recognize its negative implications.
While managing federal lands is extremely important, especially given
the record levels of fuel buildup and insect and disease problems,
management needs on over 393 million acres of private forest lands
cannot be ignored if we expect to sustainably manage forests at
landscape and watershed levels. Through federal appropriations, state
agencies, non profit organizations, and individual landowners leverage
millions of dollars to achieve management goals on family-owned forest
lands, and at the same time, provide essential public benefits,
particularly watershed protection and wildlife habitat.
Forest Health Management.--SAF believes that the 53 percent
decrease in funding proposed for forest health management on state and
private lands under the State and Private Forestry and the Wildland
Fire Management Accounts will inhibit responsible land stewardship.
Again, the proposed budget appears to ignore the role of state and
private forest lands in reducing the threat of invasive species,
insects, and diseases in our forests. Without treatment, these threats
can easily spread to other lands and can also result in increase fire
risk, threatening homes, lives, and other values. These funds allow the
states and private landowners to survey for these threats and treat
them in a timely manner to prevent further damage to our public and
private forests.
State Fire Assistance.--The over 30 percent decrease proposed in
the fiscal year 2006 budget for State Fire Assistance will severely
limit protection of the nation's forests. Decreased funding of this
magnitude will threaten the nation's capacity to ensure those who are
often the first to respond to wildfires on both federal and non federal
lands have the resources and training to do so. Lives, communities,
property, and our forest resources rely on the protection and
preventative treatments accomplished with State Fire Assistance
funding. SAF recommends continued funding for this program through
Wildland Fire Management and State and Private Forestry at fiscal year
2005 enacted levels.
Forest Stewardship Program.--SAF strongly supports the increase in
the proposed budget for the Forest Stewardship Program. Developing a
stewardship plan is a critical first step in enabling family forest
owners to sustainably manage their forests and meet their own
objectives while at the same time providing numerous public benefits.
SAF encourages a more strategic approach to this program at both the
federal and state level, where program funds are targeted at those
forest lands faced with priority issues such as wildfire risk, invasive
species, insect, or disease threats, endangered species habitats, and
development pressure. With this targeted approach, Stewardship plans
can be developed to address priority issues and subsequent educational,
technical, and cost-share assistance can be targeted to address these
priorities. This will make better use of federal dollars and leverage
funding from other landowner assistance programs such as the Forest
Land Enhancement Program and the Forest Legacy Program as well as non-
federal resources.
Forest Legacy Program and Land Acquisition.--SAF continues to be
extremely concerned with the growing threat of loss of our nation's
forest lands through conversion to non-forest uses, fragmentation, and
parcelization into tracts that are too small to manage. The Forest
Legacy Program helps landowners keep their land as a working forest
which provide public benefits through retention of forests for
watershed protection, wildlife habitat and other diverse values. We
recommend $70 million for this program, which is less than the proposed
budget request, in consideration of the overall current budget deficit.
The budget should achieve balance between programs that help avoid
conversion of forests to non forest uses and programs that help family
forest owners sustainably manage their lands, and implement practices
that address imminent threats. We also recommend shifting some funds
from the Land Acquisition account to programs that encourage private
forest stewardship. While there is certainly a need for the federal
government to acquire strategically important forest lands,
particularly key inholdings, we believe that, given the current fiscal
constraints, federal land acquisition funds will be better spent by
encouraging family forest owners to retain ownership and improve the
long-term management of their lands.
International Forestry.--Through this program, the Forest Service
provides assistance to other countries striving towards sustainable
forest management. Additionally, the program fosters partnerships
across borders to help achieve common resource objectives. SAF supports
funding this program at fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.
National Forest System.--The National Forest System lands,
comprising over one-quarter of the nation's forested lands, are
increasingly important to the nation's economic and social well-being.
It is critical that these lands be managed in a way that provides for
their long-term health and productivity. SAF supports the funding
levels proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget for land management
planning, inventory and monitoring, and forest products. These funding
levels, along with anticipated improvements in the land management
planning process and other new authorities, will improve the ability of
forest managers to use proven silvicultural practices to address forest
health and other issues on federal lands.
Woody Biomass Utilization.--The utilization of woody biomass can
offer a long-term solution to reducing fuel loads and addressing other
forest management needs on public and private forests. Utilization of
biomass can reduce costs of projects designed to improve our forests,
particularly in wildfire-prone areas and can also foster economic
growth in areas where there are limited markets for this type of
material. Often, the high costs and limited infrastructure associated
with biomass removal prevents the efficient use of these materials. SAF
recommends providing $10 million of Forest Service hazardous fuels
funding for grants to create incentives for biomass utilization from
national forest lands, and recommends non-federal lands be explicitly
included in this grant program. While biomass utilization should
certainly be encouraged on federal lands, the surrounding non-federal
lands can offer a consistent and adequate supply of biomass materials
to stimulate investments in infrastructure for utilizing biomass from
federal lands. In addition, SAF urges creation of opportunities for
woody biomass utilization on other federal lands and tribal lands.
Wildland Fire Management.--While federal land management agencies
and their non-federal partners continue to make progress in reducing
the threat of catastrophic wildfire, we remain concerned regarding the
adequacy of wildfire suppression funding. It is difficult to predict
wildfire suppression expenditures and when expenditures are
underestimated, the agencies are forced to borrow from other accounts
disrupting federal and non federal land management and, in fact, often
taking from the very accounts that help prevent catastrophic wildfire
through fuels treatment. SAF strongly urges a long-term solution to
this problem with mechanisms for cost containment and accountability.
SAF also recommends funding rehabilitation and restoration at the
fiscal year 2005 enacted level of $12.8 million. SAF supports
appropriate and timely efforts to rehabilitate and restore forests
after wildfires and other catastrophic events. Timely rehabilitation
can restore damaged watersheds and reduce the risk of long-term soil
loss from surface erosion and landslides. The removal of dead and dying
trees in certain areas can reduce potential for subsequent fires and
recover some of the economic value of the forest.
Forest and Rangeland Research.--The Forest Service's long-term and
short-term research is a critical component of forestry research in the
United States. The program helps maintain forest science capacity
within the Forest Service and its partners and helps identify solutions
to many of the forestry problems we face as a nation. Equally important
is the transfer of research information to forest managers and land
owners to implement new findings and solutions on the ground. We
recommend funding this program at fiscal year 2005 levels and support
the proposed focus on technology transfer. We encourage the Agency to
utilize existing mechanisms such as State and Private Forestry Programs
and Extension Agents at universities across the country to achieve this
goal.
Forest Inventory and Analysis Program.--The Forest Inventory and
Analysis program is the only nationwide effort that monitors the
extent, condition, uses, impacts of management, and health of forest
ecosystems across all ownerships in the United States. This
comprehensive analysis provides the basis for improved forest policy
and forest management decisions and can provide warning of imminent
problems such as loss of forest land to non forest uses, the long-term
consequences of invasive species and insect and disease outbreaks, and
losses due to catastrophic wildfire. SAF strongly supports the increase
proposed in the fiscal year 2006 budget, and urges full implementation
of the program with coverage of each state and annual reporting in a
timely manner.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM).--The
BLM manages 55 million acres of forest lands, approximately 5 percent
of all forestlands in the United States, of which 16 million acres are
in need of restoration treatments including mechanical thinning,
hazardous fuels reduction and tree species reintroduction to halt the
spread of invasive species. SAF supports the BLM in its efforts to
improve conditions on these forestlands through the BLM's Public Domain
Forest Management Program funds. In addition to providing funding for
treatments on BLM land, this Program also helps to ensure BLM has
professional forestry expertise on its staff to make sound forest
management decisions. SAF supports funding this program at the fiscal
year 2006 proposed level, $10.6 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Town of Greenville, Maine
I am Town Manager for the Town of Greenville, Maine, and am pleased
to submit this testimony in support of the State of Maine's Katahdin
Iron Works (KIW) Forest Legacy Project, and to specifically request a
$5 million appropriation from the Forest Legacy Program for the KIW
project. As you know, this funding has been proposed in the President's
budget for fiscal year 2006 for the Forest Legacy Program, and the KIW
project is ranked 4 in the nation.
The funding proposed for this project will allow the state of Maine
to purchase a conservation easement over 37,000 acres of critically
located land about nine miles east of Greenville. The property is
bisected by the Appalachian Trail and includes land around Gulf Hagas,
the Barren/Chairback Mountain Range, a significant stretch of the Class
A West Branch of the Pleasant River, and many other important natural
and recreational features.
When the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) purchased this property in
2003, residents of Greenville were extremely pleased because that
organization had already been working with us to fashion a sustainable
future through enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities. The Forest
Legacy project proposed at KIW will ensure that Greenville and other
towns in the region can maintain continued economic vitality in the
face of changing markets. This project has garnered significant local
support because it protects the spectacular landscape that makes our
region so special, creates new recreational opportunities for the
public, and secures the future of this property as a working forest. In
our view, these goals strike the right balance between conservation of
important natural resource lands and economic development that comes
from those lands.
Just last month, the benefits of AMC's ownership of the KIW
property has proven beneficial to the future economic growth of
Greenville as it relates to outdoor recreation. We hosted the 1st
Annual 100-Mile Wilderness Dog Sled Race, which ran from Greenville to
Brownville and back directly across AMC's land and along trails they
helped construct. The race was a huge success, drawing 11 mushers with
teams of up to a dozen dogs from several states and territories. We
expect growth in this event next year and are extremely excited about
its impact on our economic growth. Had the KIW property been sold on
the open market and subdivided or closed to public use, our future
would look much less favorable.
With a Forest Legacy Program conservation easement that ensures
permanent public access, sustainable forestry and recreational
opportunities, the KIW project fits in well to our community's future
and we urge your support.
We hope that you will provide $5 million to ensure the success of
this effort in the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
introduction
The Wilderness Society appreciates this opportunity to submit
testimony on the President's fiscal year 2006 budget appropriations for
wildfire management. As this committee is certainly aware,
appropriations to the agencies responsible for managing public lands
are divided into discrete categories, each representing a specific set
of activities to be accomplished. We have three broad concerns about
fiscal year 2006 proposed appropriations: ongoing suppression funding
problems, implementation concerns related hazardous fuels treatments,
and insufficient funding for State & Local Assistance programs. Much of
the background data presented in this testimony comes from a
forthcoming report by The Wilderness Society entitled Following the
Money: Implementation of the National Fire Plan. In this report,
empirical data on funding and reported accomplishments was gathered
from the USDA Forest Service's Washington Office, Region 2, and two
National Forests in Colorado: The Arapaho/Roosevelt and the Pike/San
Isabel. Additionally, funds and accomplishments were tracked through
the Colorado State Forest Service.
suppression
The biggest problem plaguing effective funding of long-term
wildland fire management goals is the cycle of suppression
appropriations, over-spending, borrowing, and partial repayment. With
suppression funding accounting for approximately 70 percent of all
Wildland Fire Program (Title IV of the Forest Service's budget) dollars
spent, many have identified it as a primary source of concern. Current
incentives do not encourage cost savings, and fire managers on the
ground have something of a ``blank check mentality''. For example, in
fiscal year 2003, which was a relatively mild fire year, the FS was
appropriated a total of $351.9 million for suppression, including
Congressionally authorized emergency appropriation funds. Still,
suppression expenditures for that year were $1,023 million, leaving a
$671.1 million shortfall which was covered only by transferring money
out of other National Forest accounts. As the GAO noted in a recent
report, when money is transferred out of other fire accounts, projects
are frequently delayed or cancelled.
We are aware that this committee is considering a proposal to
authorize the creation of emergency accounts for suppression should
expenditures again exceed appropriations. While this will likely reduce
the negative impacts associated with suppression transfers, the
solution is both short-term and inadequate. We urge the committee to
consider more systemic and lasting changes to the current process of
funding fire suppression. Only when suppression spending is contained
will more proactive fire management activities be adequately funded.
hazardous fuels
Funding for hazardous fuels reduction has again seen an increase in
the fiscal year 2006 proposed budget. Increases are apparent both for
the Forest Service and for the Department of Interior, suggesting an
ongoing commitment to treating fuels and an effort to implement the
ideals embodied in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003). The
Wilderness Society supports the treating of fuels in the places where
it will effectively protect communities. However, current methods for
funding this program and tracking accomplishments hamper efforts to
achieve the desired outcomes.
First, effective planning requires realistic cost estimates for the
work, but the current method for estimating costs is deeply flawed.
Most cost estimates are given in a cost per acre format, even though
costs in the southeast are vastly different from those in the west.
Estimates in the literature range from $31-$2,500, making any average
essentially meaningless. Even two forests located along Colorado's
Front Range, the Arapaho-Roosevelt (ARNF) and the Pike/San Isabel
(PSI), show highly variable costs. In fiscal year 2003, the ARNF was
allocated approximately $3.6 million for hazardous fuels reduction
treatments; they treated nearly 5,000 acres, 87 percent of them in the
Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and were able to use prescribed burning
for 63 percent of the work. By contrast, the PSI got $5.8 million (60
percent more than the ARNF), treated 18,869 acres (280 percent more
than the ARNF) with similar WUI and prescribed burning percentages as
the ARNF. The bottom line of these wildly different outputs is that it
cost the ARNF $736.74 per acre, more than double the $311.14 it cost
the PSI. As a result, the two neighboring forests are able to
accomplish a vastly different amount of work with only slightly
different pots of money.
Explanations for this disparity have been many and varied. Whatever
the reason, these two forests are located in very similar forest types,
have extensive Wildland-Urban Interface areas, and are able to burn as
opposed to mechanically treat approximately the same proportion of
acres; the difference in cost/acre highlights the tremendous
variability in costs and accomplishments even within a limited
geographic area. More research must be devoted to understanding the
factors that influence costs, and thereby increase the agency's ability
to accomplish more work with limited funds.
Second, the agencies report the number of acres they treat, and
track these acres both by method of treatment (prescribed fire or
mechanical means) and location (priority Wildland-Urban Interface, or
``other''). More recently, they have also begun to record fire regime
and condition class changes. In many cases, acres get counted twice or
even three times. A single WUI acre might be thinned one year, burned
the next, and contribute to a landscape-scale condition class change.
Most readers of the data would easily conclude that three times as much
terrain had actually been treated, since the treatment of that single
acre would appear in several columns over two different years.
Current incentive structures thus strongly favor the treatment of a
high number of acres, without requiring consistent priority-setting
across National Forests. Treating acres that may not represent the
highest hazard but help elevate accomplishment data is clearly
inadequate. In the absence of more rigorous efforts to prioritize
hazardous fuels reduction treatments, projects are often selected for
reasons such as safety of treatment and lack of local objection.
Funding for hazardous fuels reduction must be matched with careful
priority-setting, reliable record-keeping, and transparent reporting of
accomplishments.
state & local assistance
In 2001, federal planners identified 11,376 ``communities at risk''
(66 FR 751-777) as an indication of the extent of the land ownership
problem facing fire managers. Since fire doesn't recognize ownership
boundaries, private land must be integrated into landscape-scale
problem definition and fire management planning. State forest officials
therefore have a fundamental role to play in ensuring that public fire
managers work across ownership lines.
Funding hazardous fuels reduction exclusively on federal lands is
incomplete and will ultimately undermine program success. The
President's fiscal year 2006 budget actually decreases funding
allocated to State & Local Assistance, reducing it to a mere 3 percent
of total money in the National Fire Plan. The Forest Service estimates
that 59 million private acres in the ``community protection zone'' are
at high risk, but the agency is powerless to address fuel treatment
needs there with such limited funds. Increasing funding to state and
private entities will go a long way toward communicating commitment,
reducing fire risk and building capacity to bridge the public-private
divide.
conclusion
The current Administration has focused much of its rhetoric around
the wildfire issue on protecting communities and yet, they continue to
make dramatic cuts to State and Local Assistance programs. Even though
up to 85 percent of the land around communities at the highest risk is
state or private, resources going to non-federal lands continue to
decrease.
The Wilderness Society recommends the following fiscal year 2006
funding levels for National Fire Plan State and Local Assistance
programs:
--State Fire Assistance.--Provides technical and financial assistance
to states for grants and agreements with communities to
implement fire protection activities, including the removal of
hazardous fuels, fire prevention campaigns, personnel training,
equipment availability and FIREWISE--a public education program
developed by the National Wildland Fire Coordinating Group to
assist communities located near fire-prone lands. Funding for
this program has ranged from $72 million to $84 million since
2001. The Wilderness Society recommends $84 million for fiscal
year 2006.
--Community and Private Land Fire Assistance.--Established to help
western communities recover from the 2000 fire season and for
assistance to areas threatened by wildfire. This program has
not been funded since fiscal year 2001 and The Wilderness
Society recommends $35 million for fiscal year 2006.
--Rural Fire Assistance.--Targeted to communities of less than 10,000
people, this DOI program provides technical expertise,
training, supplies, and materials, equipment and educational
activities to fire departments. The Wilderness Society
recommends $10 million for fiscal year 2006.
--Volunteer Fire Assistance.--Provides technical and financial
assistance for grants with rural communities for the protection
of more than one billion acres of state and private lands,
targeted to volunteer fire department in communities of less
than 10,000 people. The Wilderness Society recommends $14
million for fiscal year 2006.
--Economic Action Program.--Facilitates and fosters sustainable
community development opportunities utilizing the wood removed
through hazardous fuels reduction treatments. The Wilderness
Society recommends $40 million for fiscal year 2006.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman, The Wilderness Society (TWS) would like to thank you
for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
fiscal year 2006 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 250,000 members and
supporters of TWS, a 70-year-old organization dedicated to preserving
America's last remaining wild places, I provide below our fiscal year
2006 funding recommendations for a number of important conservation
programs. Our top priorities include:
--Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the
Conservation Trust Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and
Infrastructure Improvement Fund) at $1.8 billion;
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water
Conservation Fund federal land acquisition;
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, reinstate the Land and Water
Conservation Fund state-side to a minimum of last year's level:
$92.5 million; and
--Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $80 million for the Forest
Legacy program.
We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation
Trust Fund, and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund contained
within it.
Adequate funding for the programs discussed below is vital to
protect America's wild areas and environmental values, essential
components of our American identity and our heritage. The land and our
relationship with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We
hope to work with you to find the resolve and funding to protect those
values that are a national birthright.
conservation trust fund
In 2000, a bipartisan Congress enacted a roughly $2 billion-per-
year dedicated conservation funding mechanism called the Conservation
Trust Fund. This fund was designed to ensure that, in good times and in
bad, the country always had adequate federal resources to meet our most
important conservation, recreation, wildlife and preservation needs.
Unfortunately, the administration's new budget has abandoned the
Conservation Trust Fund mechanism, underfunding the lands and wildlife
portion of its programs by nearly $1 billion, with the result that,
across the nation, our parks, forests, wild lands and wildlife will
suffer. We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding
for its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.8 billion
for fiscal year 2006.
land and water conservation fund
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is our nation's
premiere tool to create and preserve parks, forests, wildlife refuges
and open space. For the first time, the administration does not even
try to claim that it is fulfilling the president's campaign promise to
fully fund LWCF at $900 million. And while the administration says its
budget funds the program at $680 million, in reality the fiscal year
2006 budget provides only $132 million for LWCF's core programs--
funding federal land acquisition at $130 million and eliminating
stateside assistance. As it did last year, the budget then attempts to
cloak this glaring shortfall by declaring more than a dozen other
ongoing programs to be part of the LWCF. National treasures from the
Everglades to our neighborhood parks will suffer from the resulting net
loss in funds for expanding and consolidating parks, refuges and
forests.
Within the CTF, we urge the Subcommittee to provide $450 million
for Federal Land Acquisition and reinstate state-side LWCF to last
year's level: $92.5 million. For decades, LWCF has been a premier tool
to fund two things: federal land acquisition and the state assistance
program. Again this year, in an attempt to make LWCF look ``full'', the
Administration shoehorns in numerous additional unrelated programs.
This was done to mask real cuts in funding for land acquisition.
Funding in the President's Budget for National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
land acquisition is cut from a proposed $220 million in fiscal year
2005 to $130 million proposed for fiscal year 2006. Americans have long
relied on federal land acquisition to protect and complete its parks,
forests and refuges, and the Administration's cuts would result in
smaller, more degraded lands and fewer recreation experiences--and the
words ``Land and Water Conservation Fund'' would lose the meaning they
have had since 1965.
We support the administration's requested project list for LWCF and
Forest Legacy. In addition to the administration's projects, we
recommend LWCF federal land acquisition funding for 42 priority
projects for fiscal year 2006, listed in Table A. Federal acquisition
of these lands is necessary to address immediate environmental threats
with the potential for permanent damage, and to help protect and
restore wildlands of significance (e.g. those with rare ecosystems,
endangered species, and/or other special qualities).
Forest Legacy.--We support the President's fiscal year 2006 request
of $80 million for the Forest Legacy program and the administration's
list of requested Forest Legacy projects. Authorized by Congress in
1990, the Forest Legacy program offers the opportunity for the federal
government to work in partnership with states, local communities and
private landowners to ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest
lands--economic sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and
recreational opportunities--are secured for future generations. Since
its inception, Forest Legacy has proven an extremely popular means to
combat the loss of privately-owned timberlands to development. In
fiscal year 2005, the approved funding level met just over 20 percent
of national requests, resulting in lost opportunities to conserve
critical private forestlands. For fiscal year 2006, project requests
from states enrolled in the program totaled over $200 million. This
program is especially important in our eastern forests, where over 80
percent of forestlands are in private ownership and are increasingly
threatened by sprawling development patterns.
additional agency appropriations recommendations
Fish and Wildlife Service.--The National Wildlife Refuge System is
suffering under a $1.408 billion backlog in operations and $1.3 billion
backlog in maintenance. Consequently, we strongly recommend that
funding to the Refuge System be increased over the fiscal year 2005
levels, in an effort to begin to counteract the massive backlogs. We
urge the subcommittee to appropriate $800 million for the Operations
and Maintenance Program to carry out necessary repairs, fund staff
positions, and support development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans.
Bureau of Land Management.--We support the Administration's
proposal to raise approximately $9 million from new user fees imposed
on oil and gas operators on public lands to help defray the growing
administrative costs of the oil and gas program. No BLM constituency
group profits more handsomely from extracting resources from the public
lands, nor demands more in terms of performance from the BLM, than does
the oil and gas industry. We note that since 2000, funding for the
BLM's oil and gas program has increased from $55.3 million to $87.3
million, all from appropriated funds. We also note that funding for
other critical programs--such as wilderness management and fisheries
and wildlife--have remained essentially flat during the same time
period.
We urge the committee to increase the Administration's fiscal year
2006 budget for the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) by
$3.1 million, for operations and maintenance, to provide a total of
$46.6 million to conserve the unique National Monuments, Conservation
Areas, Trails, Rivers, and Wilderness areas which the System
encompasses. Since the System's inception five years ago, funding has
ranged from $38-$42 million a year--never enough to meet the System's
unmet needs. Priority needs include law enforcement and vandalism
prevention, resource monitoring, cultural resource protection, and
invasive species control. Even with the proposed increase in 2006
funding, the 26 million acre System will still receive less than $1.80
an acre. We also urge the committee to add $2.1 million to purchase
inholdings in BLM National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) areas
which are threatened by development, including Oregon's Steens Mountain
wilderness and Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, and in Utah's Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The fiscal year 2006 budget is
particularly critical for the NLCS, as the BLM will need to implement
at least 15 forthcoming Resource Management Plans for areas in the
System in 2005 and 2006.
As stated, we support the President's priority projects for BLM
land acquisition through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We note
that the President's request includes important projects that will
improve ecosystem and wildlife health and recreational opportunities in
the National Landscape Conservation System.
TABLE A.--RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
State Unit project
need
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL................................. Cahaba River NWR (AL). $1,000,000
AL................................. Alabama NFs (AL)...... 2,300,000
AR................................. Ouachita NF........... 1,300,000
AZ................................. Coconino NF........... 4,000,000
CA................................. Tahoe NF.............. 2,500,000
CO................................. White River NF........ 500,000
CO................................. Uncompahgre NF........ 2,500,000
FL................................. Florida National 3,000,000
Scenic Trail (FL).
FL................................. Suwannee Wildlife 3,000,000
Corridor/Pinhook
Swamp (FL).
GA................................. Kennesaw Mountain NBP. 2,200,000
GA................................. Chattahoochee NF...... 3,000,000
GA, NC, SC......................... Chattooga Wild & 2,500,000
Scenic River (GA, NC,
SC).
ID................................. Idaho WSR (phase I)... 500,000
ID................................. Payette NF (phase II). 2,000,000
KY................................. Cumberland Gap........ 3,000,000
MA................................. Cape Cod NS........... 3,000,000
ME................................. Rachel Carson NWR..... 2,300,000
MN................................. Superior NF........... \1\ 2,000,0
00
MS................................. Gulf Islands NS....... 2,000,000
MS................................. Delta NF (MS)......... 2,300,000
MT................................. GYE................... 2,250,000
MT................................. Beaverhead-Deerlodge 3,000,000
NF.
MT................................. Flathead NF........... 10,600,000
Multi-state (NH/VT)................ Silvio Conte NWR 3,300,000
(multi-state).
NC................................. Uwharrie NF (NC)...... 500,000
NJ................................. E.B. Forsythe NWR..... 1,300,000
NJ................................. Great Swamp NWR (NJ).. 1,000,000
OR................................. Pac NW Streams........ \1\ 550,000
PA................................. Flight 93 Memorial 4,200,000
(PA).
RI................................. Trustom Pond NWR...... 2,150,000
TN................................. Chickasaw NWR......... 1,500,000
TN................................. Chickamauga- 2,000,000
Chattanooga.
TN................................. Tennessee Mountains 3,000,000
(TN).
TN................................. Obed Wild and Scenic 1,500,000
River (TN).
TX................................. Balcones NWR.......... 1,900,000
USVI............................... Virgin Islands NP..... 850,000
UT................................. BST................... 3,000,000
VA................................. Jefferson NF-Black 2,000,000
Lick, Rumley Branch
(VA).
VT................................. Green Mtn NF-Broad 3,500,000
Brook and others (VT).
WA................................. Mt. Rainier NP........ \1\ 1,500,0
00
WA................................. Mount Baker-Snoqualmie 1,300,000
NF.
WI................................. Chequamegon NF........ \1\ 2,700,0
00
------------
Total........................ ...................... 81,550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Part of a larger program.
______
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
introduction
The Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of
more than 90 business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders,
appreciates this opportunity to submit written testimony in support of
a $10 million increase for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2006. The Alliance's mission is to
promote energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier economy, a
cleaner environment, and greater energy security. The Alliance, founded
in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy and Hubert Humphrey, currently enjoys
the leadership of Senator Byron Dorgan as Chairman; Washington Gas
Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt, Jr. as Co-Chairman; and
Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp and Ed Markey and Senators Jeff
Bingaman, Susan Collins and Jim Jeffords as its Vice-Chairs. The
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) also supports
the recommendations in this testimony.
The Energy Star program is one of the government's most successful
efforts to promote marketplace solutions to greater energy efficiency.
The Energy Star program is an entirely voluntary program that reduces
energy demand, lowers energy bills, and helps avoid greenhouse gas
emissions. Increased investment by the federal government in the Energy
Star program will translate to increased energy savings by taxpayers
across the country. The EPA estimates that every federal dollar spent
on the Energy Star program results in an average savings of $75 or more
in consumer energy bills; the reduction of about 3.7 tons of carbon
dioxide emissions; an investment of $15 in private sector capital; and
the contribution of over $60 to the economy.
The Energy Star program testifies to the important achievements
that can be made through cooperative partnerships between government
and businesses. The Climate Protection Partnerships Division at EPA,
which operates the Energy Star program, works closely with
manufacturers, retailers, building owners, and energy service
providers, as well as state and local governments, nonprofits, and
other organizations to promote energy-efficient products and buildings.
Energy efficiency is an investment. There is often a modest
additional cost for purchasing more efficient, smarter technologies,
but that additional cost is paid back many times to the consumer
through lower energy bills. Energy Star helps consumers understand and
realize these benefits. The label represents the ``good housekeeping
seal of approval.'' In order to qualify for the Energy Star label, a
set of rigorous guidelines that represent high energy efficiency goals
are established through the Energy Star program for the products or
services of the participants. Last year alone, Americans, with the help
of Energy Star, saved $10 billion on their energy bills. Consumers can
use these savings to invest in the economy, their families, and their
future.
energy efficiency is america's greatest energy resource
Energy efficiency is America's greatest energy resource. It makes a
larger contribution to meeting our energy needs than petroleum, natural
gas, or coal. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that energy
efficiency gains since 1973 are now saving at least 40 quadrillion Btus
of energy each year, or about 40 percent of our actual energy use.
What's more, increasing America's energy efficiency is the quickest,
cleanest, and cheapest way of meeting our energy needs. Without these
enormous savings, our difficulties in meeting energy demand would be
far, far worse than they are today.
For example, in 2004 alone, Energy Star helped Americans save
24,000 Megawatts of peak power, enough to avoid the need for 72 300-
Megawatt power plants, and thus avoiding the use of electricity from
some of the dirtiest, oldest power plants that come online during peak
hours. Working together with Energy Star, Americans prevented the
release of 30 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which is
equivalent to removing 20 million cars from the road. As these
statistics exemplify, the Energy Star program is helping millions of
Americans get the energy they need, while saving money and avoiding
pollution.
how energy star capitalizes on this resource
EPA's Energy Star program has proven to be an extremely effective
way for this nation to capitalize on the potential of energy efficiency
as a resource. Energy Star's voluntary partnership program--which
includes Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small
Businesses, and Energy Star Labeled Products--works by removing
marketplace barriers to existing and emerging technologies, providing
information on technology opportunities, generating awareness of
energy-efficient products and services, and educating consumers about
life-cycle energy savings.
Two years ago, the Alliance to Save Energy undertook an extensive
public opinion survey and found that the name recognition of the Energy
Star program is very high--86 percent among U.S. homeowners.
Approximately one-third of U.S. consumers report using the Energy Star
label as an information tool for making purchase decisions; and an even
higher number report using Energy Star as an information tool to help
them save energy. Most consumers who are aware of the Energy Star label
correctly understand that products bearing the Energy Star label use
less energy and can save them money on energy bills.
about the energy star partnerships
Energy Star is composed entirely of voluntary partnerships, and
these have grown since the early 1990s to include thousands of product
manufacturers, private and public building owners and operators,
homebuilders, small businesses, utilities, and retailers. These
partnerships demonstrate that energy efficiency delivers ``pollution
prevention at a profit.''
Energy Star serves broad constituencies in every state in the
country. Energy Star currently has more than 7,000 company partners who
are committed to improving the energy efficiency of our homes,
businesses and products. Among those partners are over 1,400
manufacturing partners who make and market over 32,000 different models
of Energy Star qualifying products, and 550 retail partners
representing 21,000 storefronts. Energy Star counts more than 2,000
builder partners and partners who supply products and services for
energy-efficient home construction. More than 360,000 families now live
in Energy Star Homes--locking in financial savings for homeowners of
more than $200 million annually. In fact, nearly 10 percent of all
homes built in 2004 earned the Energy Star label.
As you may know, 2005 marks the fifth year that the Alliance has
asked Energy Star company partners to join us in our request for a
significant increase in funding for the program. The response has been
remarkable. Joining us in our request this year are 620 companies and
partners and another 25 individuals.
much has been accomplished, but huge potential remains untapped
Although the Energy Star program has made a significant
contribution to reducing consumer energy use, a wide array of
important, additional opportunities to use the program to promote
energy remain untapped. Energy Star is a success, poised to provide
more savings and enhanced environmental protection as soon as the
government is ready and able to invest more.
In 2001, the President's National Energy Plan recommended that the
Energy Star program be expanded and that the Energy Star labeling
program be extended to cover more products. Time and again, the
President and the Administrator of the EPA have noted that voluntary
measures are vital to addressing climate change and have held up Energy
Star as an exemplary program. Yet funding for the program has remained
flat. The fiscal year 2006 proposed budget for Energy Star, $50.5
million, is up less than 1 percent from last year, and is the same as
the fiscal year 2002 appropriation. Worse, funding rescissions and
internal cuts have plagued the program over the past several years.
Even with tight federal budgets, the number of products and
manufacturers in the labeling program has greatly expanded, and the
number of partners in the Buildings, Homes, and Small Business programs
has soared.
But more funds are needed. Considering the soaring energy prices
around the country and the concerns about electricity reliability and
pollution abatement, the Alliance believes that funding for the Energy
Star program should be significantly increased for fiscal year 2006 and
should be doubled over the next five years. This would enable the
Energy Star program not only to add additional products and increase
consumer education campaigns but also to address energy-efficient home
improvements nationwide.
By building on the Energy Star name, we can save much more energy
and break through additional market barriers, building homeowner trust
in energy audit programs and whole-home retrofits, including
insulation, duct sealing, and home envelope sealing. In addition to
labeling products and buildings, Energy Star has begun a successful
effort working with state and local organizations to help homeowners
audit and upgrade the efficiency of their homes. Home Performance with
Energy Star is growing as state and utilities look for opportunities to
save energy and reduce peak load. More than 11,000 homes in California,
Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
Texas, and Wisconsin have been improved through this program. But much
more needs to be done to implement similar programs across the country.
With additional funding, the Energy Star program could develop a
supportive infrastructure for contractors around the country, share
information with interested state organizations, and develop marketing
efforts in up to 10 metropolitan areas per year.
recommendations
EPA's Energy Star program has clearly demonstrated its importance
in helping the United States to capitalize on its greatest energy
``resource''--energy efficiency. The program is delivering real
progress toward meeting our country's environmental and energy security
goals, while at the same time putting more money in consumers' pockets
through reduced energy bills. More investment by the federal government
is needed to expand the impact of this voluntary partnership between
the government and industry.
The Alliance to Save Energy recommends the subcommittee take the
following actions to best leverage the proven results that stem from
EPA's Energy Star program:
--First, we ask that the House, Senate, and conference specify the
exact level of federal funding that is appropriated for the
Energy Star program. Both the House and the Senate included
such report language for fiscal year 2004; the Senate did again
in fiscal year 2005. Such direction to EPA is needed to assure
that funding intended by Congress for the program is used by
the agency for that purpose.
--Second, we recommend that the Congress increase funding of the
Energy Star program by $10 million over the Administration's
request, in order to expand the number of products, programs,
and partners involved in the current program. This should be a
first step to doubling the $50 million budget for the Energy
Star program within five years. In particular, the added funds
will allow expansion of the new Energy Star ``Home
Performance'' component nationwide.
conclusion
The Energy Star program proves that we can protect the environment
while simultaneously saving consumers money on their energy bills and
enhancing the economy. Energy Star provides the catalyst for many
businesses, state and local governments, and consumers to invest in
energy efficiency, which in turn yields multiple private and public
benefits. It does this by providing access to information, improving
brand recognition, and providing positive publicity.
While there are many demands on the country's financial resources,
Energy Star has proven tremendously cost-effective, and it returns
important benefits to the nation. Every added federal dollar invested
in Energy Star in fiscal year 2006 will return a significant and cost-
effective yield in pollution reduction; economic stimulation; energy
security; and consumer savings.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ecological Society of America
As President of the Ecological Society of America, I am pleased to
provide written testimony for the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Forest Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The
Ecological Society of America has been the nation's premier
professional society of ecological scientists for 90 years, with a
current membership of 9,000 researchers, educators, and managers. We
appreciate the opportunity to offer written testimony on behalf of
these three agencies.
environmental protection agency (epa)
The Ecological Society of America is disappointed that the proposed
budget for the EPA would reduce the agency's Human Health and
Ecosystems Program, which includes much valuable biological and
ecological research. The agency is requesting $169.6 million for the
program in fiscal year 2006, a 4 percent drop from last year's request.
In addition, the agency's valuable fellowship programs would stay at
flat funding levels.
The Ecological Society of America is concerned about several
science programs slated to be cut in the budget proposal: the ecosystem
protection research program would be reduced by $5.8 million to $88
million, negatively affecting the Western Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP), the National Coastal Assessment, the
Regional Vulnerability Assessment tools and watershed modeling
research. In addition, the proposed EPA budget also includes a $5.0
million (50 percent) cut to its exploratory grants program, which
supports investigator-initiated research projects that address future
or emerging environmental issues.
It is regrettable that the agency is slated to see no expansion of
its valuable fellowship programs, which, when taken together, would be
funded at the current level of $8.3 million. These include the Science
to Achieve Results (STAR), Greater Research Opportunities (GRO),
Environmental Science and Technology (EST) and Environmental Public
Health (EPH) fellowship programs. EPA's STAR Fellowship Program is of
particular interest to our community. The program is the only one of
its kind--funding graduate students conducting applied environmental
research--and has had an excellent track record since its inception in
1995. An extremely competitive program--only 7 percent of applicants
are awarded fellowships--the program has produced high quality research
and is helping to train the next generation of environmental
scientists.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on the
Environmental Protection Agency and its proposed budget. Thank you for
your consideration of our testimony.
u.s. forest service (fs)
The Ecological Society of America supports the President's budget
request for an increase in the Forest Service (FS) Research and
Development (R&D) budget to $285 million. The FS is responsible for
managing 191 million acres across the United States. This is no simple
task considering that those acres are home to 360 endangered species
and 2,500 sensitive species. Along with maintaining ecosystem
sustainability, the FS is also charged with providing forest products
from its lands for the economic well being of the surrounding
communities. In order to complete these sometimes competing mandates,
it is essential that the Forest Service have the ability to perform
high level ecological analysis and research to ascertain the needs of
the ecosystems that it manages.
The R&D division of the Forest Service provides this research, as
well as critical support to land management activities on Forest
Service land. It contributes to overall ecological knowledge and
expertise, and is of great importance to the Society's membership. The
Forest Service R&D budget is an essential element in the overall
success of the Forest Service's mission, as it provides basic and
applied research in the biological and physical sciences on national
forests and grasslands. These lands are extremely diverse and
biologically rich, providing a great store of information on ecology.
The Forest Service's R&D has particular strengths in researching the
habitat needs of wildlife species, watershed function, invasive
species, aquatic habitats, and the role of the atmosphere and climate
in forest health.
The Forest Service R&D, in cooperation with State and Private
Forestry and the National Forest System, administers the Forest
Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. FIA is the only program to
comprehensively assess all of the nation's forests in a nationally
consistent manner across all land ownerships. Data collected through
this program has been invaluable in helping government and non-
government scientists document the role of U.S. forests in sequestering
carbon from the atmosphere, a process that slows climate change. In
fiscal year 2004, the Forest Service R&D expanded its inventory of
America's forests to two more states, bringing the total coverage to 83
percent of America's forests. ESA supports the President's request for
full implementation of the FIA in all 50 states.
The Ecological Society is disappointed that the President's budget
request reduces funding for the National Fire Plan by $4.8 million.
While funding for research on fuels will increase by $711,000 under the
budget request, this will not offset the cuts to National Fire Plan
research. The budget shortfall for fire research will ultimately hinder
effective management of our nation's forests. This is of particular
concern given that the Healthy Forests Initiative is a far-reaching
proposal that will require an increased and sustained level of
scientific research in order to be successful. If fire research funds
are reduced, the overall ecological integrity of our national forests
may be sacrificed.
The Society remains concerned that the proposed Forest Service
budget for fire fighting is inadequate. For several years, the FS and
the Department of the Interior's wildfire suppression costs have
exceeded appropriated levels. To make up the difference, the agencies
have transferred funds from other accounts to cover the costs,
decreasing the ability to conduct research as well as necessary on-the-
ground work such as rehabilitation and restoration, wildlife habitat
improvements, and hazardous fuels reduction. A long-term solution to
the lack of sufficient funding is needed to avoid negative consequences
for the nation's forests and for the communities that live, work and
recreate in them. The Ecological Society supports the establishment of
a non-discretionary fire emergency fund to ensure that both fire
suppression and fire research needs are met in the future.
u.s. geological survey (usgs)
ESA is grateful to Congress for its leadership in restoring past
budget cuts and for report language supporting strengthening USGS core
science programs and cooperative initiatives. We ask that Congress
strongly consider funding USGS at $1 billion for fiscal year 2006. This
7.1 percent boost above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level would
restore proposed cuts to key agency programs and begin to reverse the
nearly decade-long funding shortfall for this agency.
As the Department of Interior's sole science agency, the USGS
conducts research critical to Interior's responsibilities in managing
land, water and in protecting wildlife and environmental resources. In
addition, USGS's long-term monitoring programs, nationwide networks and
multidisciplinary scope make USGS a unique and important research body
in such areas as combating invasive species, maintaining water quality
and quantity, and tracking wildlife diseases. These problems affect the
health, well being and economic security of many U.S. residents, in
addition to being key areas of ecological research.
The President's budget would provide essentially flat funding to
USGS' biology division, a funding increase to the mapping program, and
cuts to geology and water. Overall funding for the science agency would
fall by 0.2 percent to $933.5 million. The Society is concerned that
the proposed cuts would curb the agency's ability to provide integrated
scientific information. For example, proposed cuts to the Mineral
Resources program would terminate research that has important
implications for public health and environmental protection, such as
studies on mercury, arsenic, and other inorganic toxins.
These proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of
the USGS to achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore these
cuts, but this funding should not come at the expense of other high
priority programs.
The USGS budget request would expand funding for several
initiatives, including increases of $300,000 for invasive species
research, $250,000 for ecological systems mapping, and $19.5 million
for land remote sensing activities. It also would expand funding by
$750,000 for the Science on the DOI Landscape initiative, a
collaborative effort building on scientific expertise to meet regional
priorities of Interior Bureaus and local communities.
These initiatives would enhance and integrate ecological knowledge
and deserve the support of Congress.
The USGS budget request for fiscal year 2006 provides full funding
for increases in fixed costs such as employees' salaries. In past
years, increases in fixed costs were not accounted for in the budget
and so were partially absorbed by individual programs, ultimately
curtailing the USGS' ability to carry out research in its core
programs. The Ecological Society encourages Congress to meet the
President's budget request for full funding of fixed costs in fiscal
year 2006 so that fixed costs will not be met at the expense of
research.
The USGS is an exceptional and unique research organization. Many
of the ecological problems that the USGS is charged with addressing
require an interdisciplinary and integrative approach. USGS is
positioned to utilize its expertise in geology, hydrology, geography
and biology to address these complex problems so crucial to maintaining
human and environmental health.
We hope that Congress will do its best to support USGS at the $1
billion level. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Sara Ward of
Ohio and Chair of the National Association of State Energy Officials
(NASEO). NASEO represents the energy offices in the states,
territories, and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting this
testimony in support of funding for the Energy Star program (within the
Climate Protection Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of
at least $10 million above the Administration's fiscal year 2006
request of $50.6 million, including specific report language directing
that the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star program.
The Energy Star program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
the use of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
works with states, local governments and business to achieve these
goals in a cooperative manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
and over thirty-five states are Energy Star Partners. In February, EPA
and NASEO announced a new Clean Energy and Environment State
Partnership program, which already has over ten state members. With
very limited funding, EPA's Energy Star program works closely with the
state energy offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity
to make better energy decisions, without regulation or mandates.
Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as
buildings. 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
energy savings 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 by working closely with
state and local governments to purchase these products and services.
Marketplace barriers are also eradicated through education.
In addition to the state partners, the program has more than 7,000
company partners. More than 360,000 families now live in Energy Star
homes. We are working with EPA, DOE and HUD on the development of a
``Home Performance'' with Energy Star activity. This allows us to focus
on whole-house improvements, not simply a single product or service.
This will be extremely beneficial to homeowners. Pilots have already
been undertaken in New York, Illinois and Wisconsin. We are also
working closely with EPA in the implementation of the new Energy Star
Challenge, which is encouraging businesses and institutions to reduce
energy use by 10 percent or more, usually through very simple actions.
We will work 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. In just one week, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania have agreed to participate.
The state energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at
EPA and in our states to promote programs to make schools more energy
efficient, in addition to an expanding Energy Star business partners
program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been offering critically
useful technical assistance to state energy offices in such areas as
benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting
an energy target and training in such areas as financing options for
building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
This Subcommittee was instrumental in funding the State
Technologies Advancement Collaborative (STAC), which is a joint venture
between the state energy offices, the state research institutions and
the Department of Energy. We are working closely with the Energy Star
program to ensure that STAC coordinates the Rebuild America activities
with EPA's Energy Star program.
The state energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers
in the state environmental agencies and state public utilities
commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary and we
encourage these continued efforts.
state examples
In the examples noted below, the state energy offices have been
active program participants and promotion agents for Energy Star.
Alaska
Thirty companies and public entities in the State are now working
with the Energy Star program, with 7,200 homes already earning the
Energy Star label. With high energy costs, the evaluation tools
prepared by Energy Star have been very helpful in assessing building
performance and recommending and implementing improvements. For
example, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District has upgraded
lighting, installed programmable thermostats and taken other measures
to reduce energy usage.
California
More than 1,850 companies and public entities are participating in
the program, with 202 manufacturers of Energy Star products located in
the State. More than 21,100 homes have already earned the Energy Star
label. The State is focusing on a new homes program, there is a State
``Energy Star'' purchase requirement and companies as varied as Intel
Corporation and Hilton Hotels have been program participants.
Colorado
Energy Star initiatives and projects have been implemented
throughout the State. Some notable examples include the: (1) Poudre
School District in Fort Collins, which completed 95 projects saving
over $300,000/year; (2) Jefferson County Public Schools in Golden,
which are saving $2.8 million each year; and (3) 26 different
homebuilders constructing Energy Star homes.
Hundreds of companies and public entities are participating in the
program.
Idaho
Twenty-eight companies are building Energy Star homes in the State.
Western Window in Caldwell is producing Energy Star windows for use in
the southern part of the State. Utilities are actively participating in
the program, including both investor-owned and municipal utilities. The
State's ``GemStar'' program is promoting the use of high performance
homes. Over 100 companies and other public entities are involved in the
program.
Maryland
Almost 800 companies and public agencies, with active participation
of the Executive Branch, are involved in Maryland. Over 4,000 homes
have earned the Energy Star label. State legislation has promoted the
use of Energy Star appliances, including making some energy efficient
models tax free. Partners include such diverse entities as Harley-
Davidson, Howard County Public Schools and Archstone Smith Realty.
Mississippi
With 60 companies and public entities, numerous manufacturers and
many homes participating in Energy Star and earning the Energy Star
label, Mississippi is moving aggressively to promote the program.
Retailers stocking Energy Star products include Wal-Mart, Best Buy,
Circuit City, Home Depot, Lowe's, Sam's Club, and Sears. Five companies
are now building Energy Star homes.
Montana
Over 50 companies and public entities are participating in the
program, with 210 retail locations selling Energy Star products.
Executive Order 03-01 has directed that Energy Star be included in
state procurement. Active partners include the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, Montana State University, hospitals, schools
districts, etc. The State has forcefully promoted the program.
Nevada
Over 100 companies and public entities are program participants.
The state energy office and the public utility commission are working
together to promote a variety of activities, including a recent Energy
Star appliance rebate program for utilities. The Clark County School
District has reduced annual utility costs by $4 million through energy
efficiency efforts across 147 schools. The City of Las Vegas has saved
4.8 million kWh through aggressive energy efficiency measures. Thirty-
three companies are now building Energy Star homes.
New Hampshire
Over 110 companies and numerous public entities are program
participants. Hundreds of retail locations are selling Energy Star
products. Rebates for Energy Star products are now offered by the
utilities as a result of regulatory actions. The State initiated a
master lease program to promote performance contracting for energy
efficiency initiatives. Over 500 State-owned buildings are either being
evaluated or undergoing modifications.
New Mexico
Over 80 companies and public entities are participating in the
program, with over 2,200 homes already receiving the Energy Star
rating. Active participants thus far include Two Park Square in
Albuquerque, the federal buildings in Gallup and Roswell, the
Albuquerque Indian Hospital and the VA Health Center and scores of
schools in Albuquerque. Six companies are now building Energy Star
homes, led by Artistic Homes.
North Dakota
Thirty companies and public entities are participating, with 3
manufacturers of Energy Star products located in the State. Numerous
schools have been involved, including, for example, Grand Forks West
Elementary School, Grand Forks Winship Elementary School, Cavalier
Public Schools and Walhalla Public Schools. A variety of retailers sell
these products and Thermal Line Windows in Mandan sells Energy Star
windows in 12 states.
Utah
Over 110 companies and public entities are program participants,
with over 170 retail outlets selling Energy Star products. More than
1,800 Energy Star homes have been constructed in the State, with
notable developers including Ence Homes (St. George). Thirty-two
companies are now building Energy Star homes. Amsco Windows of Salt
Lake City is a major seller of Energy Star windows. The University of
Utah has now retrofitted 81 buildings with significant energy
efficiency improvements.
Vermont
Over 150 companies and public entities are program participants,
with 5 manufacturers of Energy Star products located in the State. Over
1,900 homes have already earned the Energy Star rating, with active
promotion of the program accelerating market penetration and
acceptance. The state energy office, the Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation (operating public benefit programs), Efficiency Vermont
(composed of 20 utilities and others), Green Mountain College,
Killington Ski Resort and the University of Vermont are all aggressive
program participants.
West Virginia
Seventy companies and public entities are participating in the
program. The state energy office has provided technical assistance to
industries, public institutions and local governments to promote Energy
Star products and services, including over 100 energy audits leading to
significant improvements. Individual participants have included Royal
Vendors, Inc. (Kearneysville), Simonton Windows (Parkersburg) and
Marion County Schools (Fairmont).
Wisconsin
Almost 800 companies and public entities are participating in
Energy Star. Over 2,300 homes have earned Energy Star recognition. In
addition 45 schools, 6 office buildings, and 4 supermarkets have now
earned Energy Star recognition. In addition to active promotion work by
the state energy office having spearheaded the implementation of 22
facility upgrades leading to $2.6 million in annual savings, 291
builders are constructing Energy Star homes. Johnson Controls, based in
Milwaukee, has been an industry leader in promoting Energy Star through
their performance contracting activities.
We can provide a myriad of other state examples at your request.
conclusion
Increases in funding for the Energy Star Programs are justified.
NASEO endorses these activities and the state energy offices are
working very closely with EPA to cooperatively implement a variety of
critical national programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy
(NRCCE) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Research Center for Coal and Energy is located at
West Virginia University. This statement has been prepared by Richard
Bajura, Director. George Fumich, NRCCE Program Advisor, now deceased,
contributed to this statement. For additional information, contact our
web site at http://www.nrcce.wvu.edu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This testimony requests appropriations for three projects
administered under the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in the
area of water and one program in the area of air quality. Comments on
each project are described below.
The NSFC and the NETCSC programs were funded in fiscal year 2005
appropriations. The remaining two programs have been funded in previous
years, but are not funded in fiscal year 2005.
water programs
1. Rural Water Technical Assistance [RWTA] Projects
This portion of our testimony focuses on two projects funded under
the RWTA provision in the Environmental Programs and Management section
of the EPA budget. The RWTA funds several national organizations that
provide drinking water and wastewater services to small and rural
communities. While the types of services provided by each organization
are different, each organization is dedicated to improving the water
environment of rural America.
Small communities in the United States (populations less than
10,000) need significant assistance for basic water and wastewater
services. Services provided by RWTA organizations enable the
communities to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance using
technologies which are less costly than conventional sewers and
treatment plants.
Section 1442(e) (42 U.S.C. 300j-1(e)) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act provides funding in the amount of $15 million per year through the
Safe Drinking Water Act for Rural Water Technical Assistance.
Congressional support to continue the work of these programs is
imperative because the communities these programs assist cannot pay the
RWTA organizations on a fee-for-service basis.
National Small Flows Clearinghouse [NSFC]--$2 million
The NSFC, one of the programs funded under the RWTA provision of
the Clean Water Act, was created in legislation to provide information
and assistance to small and rural communities on proper technology
selection and the management of onsite and small wastewater systems.
Users of these services include individual home owners, small town
officials who do not have staff support to address regulatory
requirements, developers and state regulators, and professionals who
install and service alternative treatment systems.
NSFC is the premier (and only) comprehensive national source of
information about ``small flows'' systems--those systems that have
fewer than one million gallons of wastewater flowing through them per
day. These systems range from individual septic systems to small sewage
treatment plants and require technologies which are different from the
technologies used for large volume water treatment plants.
Decentralized systems such as onsite septic systems and small cluster
systems serve 25 percent of the total U.S. population, especially in
small communities. Projections through 2019 show that 40 percent of
wastewater utilities and 25 percent of water utilities have
insufficient funds for services, and 29 percent of utilities have
deferred maintenance on their plants.
Using NSFC services, small communities across the nation have been
able to learn how to leverage funding in the face of declining federal
and state support and obtain information about small system
technologies which are less expensive yet meet regulatory requirements.
The NESC's mandate is to serve small and rural communities throughout
the United States by providing information and assistance on small
wastewater treatment system technologies. The NSFC accomplishes this
mandate by:
--Better enabling operators of small water treatment systems to
comply with federal regulations.
--Providing access to expert advice and training on wastewater.
--Guaranteeing the most current, comprehensive information in small
wastewater system financing, technologies, and management.
--Delivering public health and environmental awareness education,
information and technical assistance to small communities and
rural areas.
National benefits of the program include increased health of
residents through effective management of wastewater treatment systems
and reduced costs for infrastructure investments. We request continued
support for the National Small Flows Clearinghouse at $2 million for
fiscal year 2006.
National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities [NETCSC]--
$1.5 million
Environmental professionals such as operators, engineers,
regulators and installers, and local decision makers in small
communities need training to resolve their community environmental
problems. In 1991, Congress created NETCSC to meet this need. In a
unique approach, NETCSC develops, disseminates, and delivers training
customized for small community environmental management. NETCSC
provides training resources to environmental trainers and technical
assistance providers, who in turn train environmental professionals
that serve small communities. NETCSC has developed more than 40 model
training packages. These training packages are delivered and available
coast-to-coast to thousands of participants, often in co-sponsorship
with other training and/or service providing organizations.
Hundreds of environmental trainers across the nation attend NETCSC
training and subsequently use NETCSC training materials in turn to
train thousands of local officials, operators, installers, regulators,
engineers and homeowners. More than 7,000 environmental trainers,
technical assistance providers, and small community professionals
receive NETCSC's environmental training newsletter to obtain relevant
updates on environmental infrastructure, training, security, and
emergency preparedness issues and opportunities.
Since September 2001, NETCSC has been assisting smaller communities
in addressing water security concerns. At the request of the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture,
NETCSC has developed and delivered training courses designed to improve
the security of small drinking water and wastewater systems. NETCSC has
also developed and compiled an array of vulnerability assessment,
emergency response, and security resources. These efforts include
multiple training deliveries, substantial coverage of security issues
in E-Train (NETCSC's newsletter), and substantial coverage of security
issues on the organization's frequently accessed worldwide web sites.
These and other security-related efforts have been undertaken in
consultation with a variety of national, regional, and state and local
partners. A vulnerability assessment guide for small wastewater systems
has also been developed in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency. NETCSC is playing a leading role in assisting small
treatment systems with security training issues. The present request
for the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities
includes an added $0.5 million over the fiscal year 2005 level for a
total appropriation of $1.5 million to expand our work in the area of
homeland security. EPA is the lead agency for homeland security issues
in the area of water.
2. Monongahela Basin Mine Flooding Program--$1 million
This project addresses the assessment, monitoring, and control of
contaminated water from abandoned coal mines in the Monongahela River
Basin area of Northern West Virginia and Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Coal has been mined in the Monongahela River Basin since colonial
times, resulting in more than 1,200 mines having been developed. All
but 10 of them are now abandoned or closed. The non-active mines are
either flooded or are rapidly filling with polluted mine water. Over
the past 30 years, much of this mine water had been treated by active
mining companies. They treated water from adjacent, abandoned mines to
keep their working faces dry. However, after closure of a mine, the
companies are only responsible for the water issuing from their
portals. As a result, significant new discharges are anticipated from
old workings.
The recent water eruption from a mine shaft in the town of
McDonald, PA, near Pittsburgh, illustrates the need for continued
effort for mapping, monitoring, and cataloging the older mine sites. In
the McDonald incident, the mine discharge burst from a long-forgotten
portal and flowed through the town at rates of up to 10,000 gallons per
minute.
We request funding of $1 million for the Monongahela Basin Mine
Flooding Program for fiscal year 2006. The project was supported
previously under the U.S. EPA Clean Water Action Plan. The National
Environmental Technology Laboratory [NETL], through its Environmental
Technologies Program, is a partner in this project.
air quality programs
3. National Alternative Fuel Vehicle [AFV] Day Odyssey--$0.5 million
We seek support from the Environmental Protection Agency for the
third National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day Odyssey, a public outreach
event which supports the EPA programs in clean air through the
deployment and use of alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology
vehicles. EPA was a partner and provided extensive cost-sharing to the
first two Odyssey events in 2002 and 2004. The event is coordinated by
the National Alternative Fuel Training Consortium [NAFTC], a consortium
of 25 higher education educations which also develops curricula and
conducts training on the servicing of alternative fuel vehicles and
advanced technology vehicles.
National AFV Day Odyssey is a focused, well-defined, public
awareness event that brings national attention to cleaner, more energy-
efficient and smarter choices in transportation. The Odyssey is held at
multiple sites simultaneously in conjunction with a central national
headliner event. The Odyssey program has shown that the results of such
a unity-of-purpose event held on one day increases the impact of each
individual site's Odyssey event and catalyzes momentum for the AFV/
advanced technology vehicle movement nationwide.
National AFV Day Odyssey 2004, conducted on April 2, reached over
24 million individuals through media and participant attendance.
National AFV Day Odyssey was conducted in 54 sites in 32 states and 2
Canadian Provinces and involved over 650 Local Partners in the events.
Participating organizations included the National Clean Cities local
coalitions, AFV associations such as the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
and the Electric Drive Transportation Association, Professional
Associations and Industry Associations. Sponsors of the Odyssey event
included General Motors Corporation, Diamler-Chrysler Corporation,
American Honda Motor Company, and Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., and
the USDOE through Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in addition to EPA as
our cooperative agreement partner. In view of the success of the first
two Odyssey events, the NAFTC and its partners wish to establish a
regular cycle for repeating the Odyssey program. We seek $0.5 million
from the EPA for the NAFTC National Alternative Fuel Vehicle Day
Odyssey.
Thank you for considering these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is pleased to
provide written testimony in support of the President's fiscal year
2006 budget request of $76.024 million. This funding will support
ATSDR's ongoing activities and critical programs, including programs to
enhance the understanding of health impacts from exposures to hazardous
substances.
As an agency newly under your jurisdiction, we would first like to
introduce ourselves. We will then discuss some highlights of ATSDR's
Superfund site work, demonstrating how the Agency has been successful
in meeting its goal to mitigate the risks of health effects at toxic
waste sites and how we have assisted the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in documenting the need for and effectiveness of its
remediation efforts. This testimony will address (1) ATSDR's
achievements in carrying out its mission under the Superfund to assess
potential health impacts from exposures of hazardous waste sites; (2)
ATSDR's education of the public and the medical community to mitigate
potential health problems facing communities around the nation; and (3)
ATSDR's partnerships and their protective impact on the public's health
from hazardous substances.
introduction
What is ATSDR? A community discovers its drinking water is
contaminated with a toxic substance that came from the local landfill .
. . An Indian tribe has concerns about mercury in fish and wild game .
. . A child is found to be suffering from exposure to high levels of
lead . . . Basements in a neighborhood have annoying fumes that smell
like gas or oil . . . What health effects might have occurred, or will
occur, as a result of these exposures? These are the types of
environmental health issues that ATSDR addresses every day.
ATSDR was created under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), more commonly known
as the Superfund law. The Superfund program is charged with finding and
cleaning up the most dangerous hazardous waste sites in the country.
ATSDR supports this mission by providing and using the best science,
taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health
information to prevent harmful exposures and disease related to toxic
substances.
atsdr achievements
All the work we do is geared toward meeting the overarching goal of
ensuring that the sites where we work become healthy places to live,
work, and play.
Protecting the Public's Health by Addressing Asbestos Exposure: Our
work in addressing health problems associated with exposure to asbestos
is an example of our efforts. The asbestos exposures that took place in
Libby, Montana, have become well known since ATSDR studies and
screening defined the extent of the health problem. ATSDR medical
screening revealed that:
--Nearly one in five of the 7,300 people participating in the medical
testing during the years 2000 and 2001 were found to have lung
or breathing abnormalities associated with exposure to asbestos
fibers.
--Of the former W.R. Grace employees receiving x-rays, 51 percent had
pleuralabnormalities.
In addition, an updated analysis of deaths due to asbestos-related
disease in the Libby area from 1979-1998 showed increased mortality due
to asbestosis, lung cancer, and other, non-malignant respiratory
diseases. We are continuing to provide medical screening for exposed
individuals and have established a registry to track their ongoing
health status.
But the contamination was not limited to Libby; the asbestos
contaminated vermiculite was shipped for processing to over 200 plants
around the country. ATSDR is now studying the 28 sites that received
nearly 80 percent of the Libby vermiculite mined from 1964 through
1980. The findings from studying these sites will indicate whether the
scope of the project needs to be expanded to include other sites that
processed Libby vermiculite and the associated health concerns. The 28
pilot sites are scattered across the United States and include
locations in California, Colorado, Maryland, and North Dakota. ATSDR is
working to determine whether past (or current) exposures took place at
or near these sites-paying particular attention to former workers and
their families. The Agency will then work with community residents and
state partners to mitigate any existing or potential health effects.
Health statistics reviews to evaluate mortality and cancer registry
data are under way in sixteen states, and pilot mesothelioma
surveillance is being initiated in the states of New York, Wisconsin,
and New Jersey.
Another unfolding asbestos-related challenge is in El Dorado Hills,
California, where workers found a vein of naturally occurring asbestos
during construction of a soccer field at Oak Ridge High School. ATSDR
has evaluated the public health threat associated with exposures to
airborne asbestos fibers at the school, and will be documenting its
findings. ATSDR will continue to consult with state and local agencies
and the EPA to address this issue.
Meeting the Goal to Mitigate the Risks of Human Health Effects at
Toxic Waste Sites: Communities around the country benefit directly from
ATSDR's assessment and interventions concerning potential exposures to
hazardous substances and related risks of adverse health effects.
Indeed, ATSDR has made significant strides in the past year at
documenting the effectiveness of Agency recommendations and
interventions to reduce community members' risk of adverse health
effects. The Agency and its state partners work on hundreds of
Superfund sites each year to evaluate the health hazards at these
sites. Many are found to pose a public health hazard-sites where
children and other residents suffer from potentially harmful exposures.
Examples of Superfund sites where ATSDR's recommendations and
interventions have helped people include the following:
--Tar Creek, Oklahoma.--ATSDR-sponsored activities have helped
produce a significant drop in blood-lead levels (BLLs) among
young children in Tar Creek. In 1996, data from the Oklahoma
State Department of Health (OSDH) showed that among young
children (aged 1-5 years) living at the site, 31.2 percent had
a BLL at or above 10 micrograms per deciliter (gg/dL), the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) level of
health concern. By 2003, OSDH data indicated that elevated BLLs
among children in the same age group had dropped to just 2.8
percent. Las Vegas, Nevada-ATSDR expertise helped limit
injuries from mercury spilled m a Las Vegas home. Over a 2-3
month period, a 17-year-old resident spilled approximately one
quart of elemental liquid mercury inside and outside his home.
When the boy was hospitalized for severe mercury poisoning, EPA
emergency personnel checked the home and found toxic mercury
vapors up to 150 times higher than acceptable levels. One
sink's drain trap contained as much as two tablespoons of the
metal. With the help of ATSDR guidance on cleanup levels and
handling of mercury-contaminated household items, EPA was able
to clean the house and eliminate further exposures. ATSDR also
coordinated with health officials in California to ensure that
several part-time members of the household who had been exposed
but who were in California at the time of the investigation
also received medical follow-up.
--Eureka, Utah.--Interventions by ATSDR and state efforts have helped
decrease average blood-lead levels (BLLs) in children living in
Eureka, where mining activities conducted from 1870 to 1965
resulted in elevated levels of metals in the soil. Children in
this community are 10 times more likely to have elevated BLLs
(at or over IOgg/dL) than children elsewhere in Utah. The Utah
Department of Health, in cooperation with ATSDR, has developed
a successful new health education program designed to encourage
blood-lead testing for residents and to decrease average BLLs
in children. The program reaches approximately 110 Eureka
Elementary students twice per month. Cleanup by the EPA and the
Utah Department of Environmental Quality has resulted in a
return to blood-lead levels below the threshold of health
concern. Blood-lead testing since 2000 indicates that BLLs
among children in Eureka have dropped and stabilized, although
average levels in the city's children remain high compared to
the state average.
--Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical Complex/Couer d'Alene River
Basin, Idaho.--ATSDR has been engaged for several years in
evaluating the public health impact of metals released during
mining and smelting operations at the Bunker Hill site.
Although ATSDR has identified seven chemicals of potential
concern, including aluminum, antimony, arsenic, cadmium, iron,
manganese, and zinc, the contaminant of greatest concern at the
site is lead. In late 2004, ATSDR released for public comment a
public health assessment (PHA) that concluded that (1) high
levels of lead and other metals exist in surface soil,
household dusts, and fish at and near the site; (2) possible
long-term exposure to contaminants existed in a variety of
media; and (3) site conditions have resulted in elevated blood
lead levels in some children. The PHA's recommendations include
conducting further testing of surface soils and household dusts
throughout the River Basin site and remediating or covering
contaminated soil in children's play areas at residences and
common use areas.
atsdr education of the public and medical community
ATSDR also proactively works with EPA and the states to provide a
variety of resources and technical support services, including
emergency response, publication of toxicological profiles, and referral
to environmental health specialists. ATSDR assessments and
interventions concerning potential exposures to hazardous substances
serve as an important link between health and environmental agencies
and stakeholders. For example:
--ATSDR published and distributed more than 12,000 copies of
toxicological profiles, each one on CD-ROM containing
information on more than 800 chemicals. These profiles are
considered the authoritative source of up-to-date information
on the known health effects of these chemicals by federal,
state, and local health and environmental officials, as well as
by private industry.
--ATSDR supports the network of Pediatric Environmental Health
Specialty Units in major medical centers in all 10 EPA/HHS
regions of the country. These units provide pediatricians and
other health care providers with experts on how best to
diagnose and treat patients exposed to such chemical
contaminants as lead, mercury, or dioxin.
atsdr partnerships and health impacts
ATSDR leverages resources and partnerships to maximize health
impacts. ATSDR has an extensive state cooperative agreement program and
research partnerships with organizations such as the American Chemistry
Council to improve and facilitate capacity-building in environmental
health.
Terrorism.--ATSDR has a significant role in planning for and
responding to the threat of terrorist events, including performing
emergency service functions of the National Response Plan. ATSDR's
staff, located in EPA regional offices, work daily with EPA and
regional staff and state partners to provide expertise in planning for
and responding to chemical emergencies. ATSDR has responded and
participated in several public health emergencies of this nature,
including the ricin incident at a South Carolina post office.
Strengthened Ties with EPA and Documented Health Improvements Post-
Remediation.--Another measure of success ATSDR has established is the
percentage of ATSDR recommendations that EPA adopts. More than 70
percent of our recommendations for site action directed to EPA in 2003
have been implemented by EPA, with 10 percent still pending decision.
We also play a critical role in helping EPA and state site managers to
prioritize and identify which sites pose the greatest threat to human
health.
Further, in this past year we have been working with EPA to support
its remediation actions by measuring the effectiveness of its clean-up
efforts in reducing adverse health effects. One of the best examples of
that work is our joint effort at the Doe Run Smelter, in Herculaneum,
Missouri. BLLs for children in the town are decreasing following EPA's
remediation of lead sources and ATSDR-sponsored health education and
intervention activities. In 2001, 28 percent of 118 young children
(aged 6 to 72 months) tested had elevated BLLs. Of the 67 young
children living within a half mile of the smelter, 30 (45 percent) had
BLLs at or above 10 gg/dL, the level of concern set by CDC, and ten
times the percentage of children with such levels nationally. Results
were evident by the following year. By 2002, just 14 percent of the
children tested had elevated BLLs. Similarly, of the young children
living within a half mile of the site, only 17 percent had an elevated
BLL. Another strong example of ATSDR work in support of EPA is a study
that demonstrated that removal of lead-contaminated soil from
residential yards in Idaho's Silver Valley was effective in reducing
blood lead levels in children. Other examples of sites where strong
partnerships have led to positive results include:
--Beloit, Wisconsin.--Wisconsin's Department of Health and Family
Services (DHFS) and ATSDR helped a business owner in Beloit
protect people from breathing hazardous levels of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). Investigating odor complaints from
occupants of a building, state health officials detected high
levels of VOCs in the air. The VOCs, apparently from fuel oil-
contaminated water seeping into the basement, posed an
intermittent, short-term health hazard when vapors from the
basement entered the main building. DHFS consulted with the
building's owners and recommended interim measures to prevent
exposures. The suspected source, an underground fuel oil tank
on an adjoining property, is now slated for removal. Health
officials will follow up to ensure that the measures were
effective.
--Huntington, West Virginia.--ATSDR expertise and guidance helped the
West Virginia Cooperative Partners Program (WVCPP) and local
health officials protect residents and school children from
exposure to benzene, a known carcinogen. When a railroad-car
valve failed at the TechSol facility in Huntington, some 23,000
gallons of coal tar light oil spilled into Kraut's Creek and
into storm sewers. The spill forced people in over 500 homes
and an elementary school to evacuate. To ensure that people
returning to their homes would be safe, WVCPP, an ATSDR
partner, determined safe reoccupation levels and conducted
indoor air tests. As a result, most of those evacuated were
able to return two days later. WVCPP is now working with the
community to address concerns about exposure, and cleanup of
the creek continues.
We look forward to working on these and additional challenges in
the future. We thank you for the opportunity to provide you with
written testimony and we look forward to responding to any questions
you may have.
______
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of
Oregon
I am Delores Pigsley, Chairman for the Confederated Tribes of the
Siletz Indians of Oregon. On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the
Siletz Indians, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity
to present written testimony regarding fiscal year 2006 Appropriations
for the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Our Tribe is fortunate to live along the beautiful Oregon Coast.
But we are isolated from metropolitan areas. As a result, our most
critical funding needs are for health care and education. We urge
Congress to provide additional funds for the Indian Health Service and
the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Education Programs.
indian health service
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz operate a small ambulatory health
facility under a Public Law 93-638 Self-Governance Compact with the
Indian Health Service. Our outpatient program was initially funded by a
special congressional earmark as a demonstration project to serve the
entire community of Siletz, Oregon. The demonstration project has been
successful and today our small facility provides more than 24,000
primary care visits each year.
As you know, diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, teenage suicide
and infant mortality rates are higher for American Indians than for any
other minority, and far higher than for the general American
population. Congress has recognized that the Federal government has a
trust responsibility to provide health care to Native Americans. This
obligation was paid for long ago by the Native people of this country
with millions of acres of land.
Despite the demonstrated health needs in Indian country, the
federal government has consistently failed to appropriate enough money
to fulfill even its basic trust responsibility to Indian people.
Funding for health care, especially preventative health care that
clearly improves the quality of life and helps to avoid more expensive
health care costs in the future, is completely inadequate in the
President's fiscal year 2006 Budget. We urge Congress to honor its
commitment to protect Indian tribes and our members. The failure of the
Administration to recognize this responsibility and request sufficient
funding for tribal health programs, while disappointing, cannot be a
basis for Congress to abdicate its responsibility to appropriate the
funds necessary to meet these needs.
Overall IHS Funding Levels
While the President's budget request for Indian Health Service
represents an increase on paper, it fails to keep pace with medical
inflation rates and will not translate into program improvements or
expansions. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has done a
comprehensive study of the fiscal year 2006 IHS Budget, and made a
series of recommendations regarding Indian health care funding needs.
Our Tribe is an active participant in the Board's activities and we
completely support the analysis and recommendations made by the Board.
We urge the Committee to review the Board's analysis and
recommendations and we have provided a copy of the Board's report to
Committee staff.
The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates that
simply to maintain the current level of services provided in Indian
health programs nationwide, it would be necessary to increase the
Budget for IHS by $317 million (or 12 percent) over the fiscal year
2005 funding levels. While the President's fiscal year 2006 IHS Budget
proposes an increase to IHS funding, that increase is a mere 2.1
percent (including the adjustment for facilities construction) and does
not come anywhere close to accurately addressing the increased costs
for such services caused by medical inflation and growing populations.
As a result, the President's proposed budget will, in fact, fall short
of meeting existing need by $308 million. Our programs cannot afford to
absorb such large losses year after year.
In addition, IHS must be protected from budget rescissions. Budget
rescissions have occurred in each of the last four years, and have
seriously damaged Indian health care programs. This year, after two
rescissions were mandated, our tribal health program experienced a
significant decrease in operating funds. The most responsible budget
adjustments for inflation, pay costs and population growth are
meaningless unless they are protected from across-the-board rescissions
to deal with spending caps in the appropriations process.
Contract Health Services (CHS)
Particularly alarming is the failure to request adequate funding
for Contract Health Services. For Tribes in the Northwest, where there
are no IHS in-patient facilities, Contract Health is the only way some
of our members can receive health care. All specialty care and
hospitalizations are paid for through Contract Health Services. Because
we lack the resources to pay all requests, we must prioritize needs.
Under current funding levels, only Priority I (Emergency/Acutely Urgent
Care) and Priority II (Preventive Care) are considered for approval.
Medical, dental and mental health needs that are not Priority I or II
are deferred. These include CT scans, MRIs, hernia repair, knee and/or
hip surgeries, psychological counseling, back surgeries and many other
treatments that do not meet current funded levels of priority. Later in
the fiscal year, as funds become exhausted, our members are restricted
only to care that will preserve life or limb. Our patients must become
sicker to meet priority for treatment. This is contrary to responsible
health care practice and to the Tribe's goals of promoting the health
and well-being for our membership. If we can spend billions of dollars
in Iraq, we should have the moral decency to fund Indian health at
least at the same level as health care funding for federal prisoners.
CHS is the program that is most vulnerable to inflation pressures.
In order to maintain the current level of Contract Health Services in
light of medical inflation and population growth, CHS funding should be
increased by $62.3 million over fiscal year 2005 levels. While the
President's proposed budget recommends an increase in Contract Health
Services, the President's proposal will actually result in a shortfall
of $35.3 million for CHS in fiscal year 2006. We urge Congress to
increase Contract Health Services funding by $62.3 million above the
fiscal year 2005 level.
Contract Support Costs
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz have partnered with our
neighboring Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, to
explore the feasibility of joint assumption of the Western Oregon
Service Unit, Chemawa Health Center located in Salem, Oregon. Our
mission is to improve service delivery to our tribal members who access
this facility, along with the Chemawa student population and a large
urban Indian population. In order to proceed, it is critical that
Congress appropriate adequate funds for Contract Support Costs, which
cover the costs of the administrative functions of running Tribal
health programs. Contract Support Cost funding was not increased in
either of the last two fiscal years and, in fact, as a result of the
rescissions, the Tribes have seen reductions in this funding. While the
President's fiscal year 2006 Budget proposes a small increase in
Contract Support Costs, that proposal does not even cover the past
years' shortfalls. We estimate a shortfall of at least $107 million,
and we urge Congress to increase Contract Support Costs funding by $107
million over the fiscal year 2005 level.
bureau of indian affairs education funding
The Confederated Tribes of Siletz, under a self-governance compact
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, provides educational programs and
services to Indian children and adults over an eleven-county service
area. Our services include Johnson O'Malley, Adult Vocational Training
and Adult Education. In addition, higher education funding is provided
to our students regardless of address. Every year we see an exponential
growth in the number of students with no increase in funding level. To
see success as individuals and as a united people and insure that no
child is really left behind, additional BIA funding is needed for the
following programs:
Johnson O'Malley
Funds for Johnson O'Malley are frozen at the 1995 TPA. We receive
only $83,000 for this program, which does not cover services for
children or staff time. In 2004, services were provided to 1,299
children. The number of children that receive services has increased at
a greater rate each year since 1995, and we are forced to spread few
dollars among more children. Additionally, we serve tribal children in
the three largest cities in Oregon and receive requests for children
from other tribes. Despite this clear need, the President's fiscal year
2006 Budget proposes to cut the Johnson O'Malley program by $8.8
million. We urge Congress to at least restore those funds, but if at
all possible to increase them.
Higher Education
We have seen significant increases in the number of children
needing and eligible for higher education assistance. In 1995, Siletz
had 35 such students. This number has grown to 155 students in 2004.
The current funding level simply does not cover either the dramatic
increase in students, or the increasing costs of higher education. We
are now unable to cover the basic cost of education for our students.
Lack of BIA funding limits opportunities for our students and they are
unable to reach their potential. The President's fiscal year 2006
Budget proposes only a $500,000 increase in this program and that
increase would only be used for a pilot loan repayment project. We urge
Congress to increase federal funds for the BIA Higher Education Program
and allow those funds to be used for new scholarships.
Adult Vocational Training
In 1995, we had 12 students in Adult Vocational Training. In 2004
that number has quadrupled to 49 students. With a need for new skills
to compete for jobs in a dwindling job market, more Tribal members are
turning to Adult Vocational Training. With an increase in applications
we are now at the point where we cannot meet the needs of our Tribal
members. This limits the opportunities that they would have with
further training. We urge Congress to increase the BIA funds for Adult
Vocational Training.
Adult Education
Increased funding is also needed to meet growing needs for Adult
Education. Each year, we receive more applications to participate in
this program. In 2004, we had 77 requests for Adult Education, but
again without any increase in BIA funds. Adult Education is also an
integral part of our overall Education program and provides a valuable
service to our Tribal members. Without additional funding, our people
are further handicapped and their opportunities limited.
All of these programs are essential to Indian people. We urge
Congress to assist us by providing federal funds at levels that will
allow us to take real steps to meet our people's needs. Thank you for
allowing us to share our recommendations with you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
fiscal year 2006 indian health service budget analysis
Introduction
The 16th Annual Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
analysis of the Indian Health Service (IHS) Budget continues a
tradition of close scrutiny of the IHS Budget that began in the 1980's.
The character of budget formulation is vastly different for tribes than
it is for the beneficiaries of other programs funded by the federal
government. Trust responsibility and the government-to-government
relationship between tribes and the federal government, by definition,
requires a partnership in the development of the budget. Tribes welcome
the continued commitment to joint development of the IHS budget under
the Administration of President George W. Bush. The Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board presented this budget analysis to tribes at
its March 9, 2005 Budget meeting in Portland, Oregon.
Tribes agree that, given the current budget realities, this is the
best IHS budget of the Bush Administration. It includes an average
increase of over 5 percent for the health services account. This is
double the average increase for the Department's other health and
social service programs. In addition to the reasonable health services
account increase, Northwest tribes agree that the distribution of the
increase and the redirection of new construction facilities dollars to
health services is both smart and it is reflective of tribal
consultation. In nearly every case, the sub-subactivity increases (line
items) are true to the priorities identified by tribes in the budget
formulation process. Compared to the last four years and with other
agencies, IHS did very well and it deserves this increase given its
record of strong performance. Unfortunately, compared to the great need
it is still a budget that, taken together with other trends in health
care finance and inflation, will be less than what is needed to
maintain the IHS funded health programs.
Although willing to concede that the President's request is a
reasonable one and one that reflects priorities identified in the
budget formulation process, tribes have serious concerns. Tribes fear
that the Congress will once again take the President's request and make
changes to suit the priorities of their own constituencies and
secondly, that they will once again apply an across the board reduction
to meet artificial budget targets that have nothing to do with health
care priorities. Tribes want money added to the budget and they are
alert to the danger of Congressional cuts hiding behind the word
rescission.
Northwest Tribes see their role as presenting reasonable estimates
of needs so these needs can be understood and appropriated their fair
share of available funds. Each year the Board first discusses its
priorities during its January Board Meeting and during the February
meeting of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. The Board then
develops its analysis and conducts a budget workshop prior to the House
Interior Appropriations hearing (if hearings are held) on the IHS
budget. In addition to the Budget Analysis, the Board also prepares a
Legislative Plan that presents official Board positions on the budget
and other health legislation. The Legislative Plan is developed by the
Board and presented for discussion and adoption through resolution at
the January Board meeting and again at the Affiliated Tribes of
Northwest Indians at its February meeting. The 2005 Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board Legislative Plan and this budget analysis are
the basis of the Board's lobbying activities (both are available at
www.npaihb.org).
budget formulation: the i/t/u budget formulation team
For the past eight years representatives from the Portland Area
have joined Tribes nationwide in the IHS budget formulation process
that includes direct service Tribes, Tribally operated programs, and
urban programs. This group, commonly referred to as the I/T/U, meets
annually to develop the IHS budget. The Northwest Tribes' long interest
in the budget process allows them to understand the complexity of
developing the final approved appropriations. In the past, various
Administrations have underestimated the need for funding the Indian
Health Service. They have also often over estimated the amount of
revenue received from collections from Medicare, Medicaid, and third
party collections.
This analysis was first conceived as a reality check to the lack of
integrity in past executive branch budgets. The analysis establishes
criteria that are used to grade the President's budget request.
funding true need
The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board supports the work
of both the I/T/U Budget Formulation Process and the Federal
Disparities Index (FDI) Workgroup (formerly known as the Level of Need
Funded). The Indian Health Service Budget Formulation Process and the
FDI Workgroup have both established that the approximate level of
funding needed to meet the true health care needs of Indian people is
$9-10 billion. This corroborates the long-held view that less than 50
percent of true need is funded by the Indian Health Service budget. If
funded at $9 billion, an additional phased-in facilities cost of $9-10
billion would be needed to house the expanded health care services.
This is sometimes stated as a $20 billion need-based budget, but in
reality, the annualized need after facilities are constructed is closer
to $10 billion per year in 2005 dollars. A 10-year phase-in of the $20
billion budget can be achieved if the Congress and the Administration
can commit to several years of sizeable increases.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For more discussion on the ``IHS Needs Based Budget,'' see: The
True Health Care Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, June 2003: available at
www.npaihb.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the years, this analysis has sought to maintain the
integrity of its estimates by not inflating amounts in the manner of
conventional negotiations. Tribal leaders want information that is
reliable so they can make their case to the Congress without fear of
accusations of exaggerated estimates or double counting needs and
challenge the true need. There is nothing to be gained by
overestimating the funding required to meet the health care needs of
Indian people. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board invites
discussion over every estimate presented in this analysis.
The following graph illustrates the diminished purchasing power of
the IHS budget over the past 14 years (also see Table 8). The graph
demonstrates the compounding effect of multi-year funding shortfalls
that have considerably eroded the IHS base budget. In 1993, the IHS
health services accounts received $1.52 billion, had the accounts
received adequate increases for inflation and population growth, that
amount would be $5.2 billion today. The NPAIHB estimates that the IHS
budget has lost over $2.46 billion over the last 14 years.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
audience for this analysis: tribes, the administration and the united
states congress
Efforts have been made to identify pertinent issues that impact
Northwest Tribes and to provide a meaningful discussion of each. This
information is intended to assist leaders of each of our 43 member
tribes in making their own analysis of the budget proposal and its
impact on their respective communities. It is also intended to serve as
a useful analysis for tribes nationwide since in nearly every case the
interests of tribes nationwide are the interests of Northwest Tribes.
It is only by making these views known that effective budget policy can
be developed. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board and
Northwest Tribes actively participate in attempts to develop consensus
positions on budget priorities.
This analysis is distributed to the Administration and to
congressional committees who finalize the annual IHS budget. Although
the analysis is prepared for the tribes of the Northwest, the analysis
is now made available to tribes throughout the country. It is
distributed to the National Indian Health Board, National Congress of
American Indians, Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee, Alaska
Native Health Board, California Rural Indian Health Board, Aberdeen
Tribal Chairman's Association, Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona,
Montana-Wyoming Health Board, and the United South and Eastern Tribes.
It was posted on the Board's website (at www.npaihb.org) as soon at it
is published so all tribes can consider its recommendations for their
own use in the consultation process.
The Congress and the Administration must find common ground to
maintain the purchasing power of health care resources, address unmet
needs, and to facilitate service delivery that meets health objectives
while maintaining fiscal discipline.
The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates it will
take $371 million to maintain the current level of services provided in
our health programs nationwide. Indian Health programs cannot afford to
absorb such a large portion of mandatory cost increases year after
year. The health and very lives of American Indian and Alaskan Natives
are being put at risk by this chronic under-funding of the Indian
Health Service budget. The most obvious effect of these lost revenues
is fewer services and ultimately lower health status for American
Indians and Alaska Natives. If tribes received mandatory cost increases
there would be a decrease in the health disparities between the general
population and American Indians and Alaska Natives.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that services have been cut
despite the best efforts of Indian health programs. Further
efficiencies in Indian health programs will be extremely difficult to
attain. Cutting services for life threatening conditions are very
likely, and in fact--some Northwest Tribes report that this is already
the case in their programs.
restored services will be cut due to inadequate funding
There is strong evidence that services will be cut due to
inadequate funding. After the 10 percent increase approved in the last
Clinton Budget of fiscal year 2001 some services were restored. In
fiscal year 2001, the number of service denials declined for the first
time since 1993. In fiscal year 2004 the IHS deferred payment
authorization for 156,862 recommended cases reached a new high and IHS
funded programs denied care to 23,368 eligible cases, however, they
were determined not to be within medical priorities (Priority One).
These reported amounts understate the actual unmet need since many
tribes no longer report deferred services because of the expense
involved in reporting. More disturbing is that many IHS users do not
even visit IHS facilities because they know they will be denied
services due to funding shortfalls. Last year denial and deferred
services increased to an unacceptable level.
In fiscal year 2002, the first year of the Bush Administration, the
IHS received a budget increase of 5 percent. In 2003, the increase was
3 percent, in fiscal year 2004 the increase was just 2.1 percent, and
again in fiscal year 2005 it is a mere 2.1 percent. This year's fiscal
year 2006 President's request is again only a 2.1 percent increase when
the reduction in new facilities construction is considered. The
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates the lost
purchasing power during the first Bush Administration at $886 million
when the compounding effect of each year's absorption of mandatory cost
increases is included in the estimate. The President's budget request
is far less than what is needed to accomplish the stated goals of the
Administration. It is very hard to argue that some of the management
improvements have increased performance enough to cover these loses.
The unfunded amount for Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF)
cases totaled $13.4 million in fiscal year 2004. There were 667 CHEF
cases funded and 756 were not due to lack of funding. It is estimated
that millions of dollars in unreported cases exist since Indian health
programs do not report cases once they know the funding has been
exhausted during the fiscal year. Nearly every one of the 20 tribes in
attendance at the March 9, 2005 Budget workshop reported that they are
already at Priority One. Others noted that they have shifted economic
development funds to their contract health program to avoid priority
one status. Tribes should not have to sacrifice their economic
development to fund the federal obligation for health care services.
How will this funding gap be filled? Unfortunately, some believe
increased revenues from tribes or from the Medicaid program are filling
this gap. Last year every state planned cuts to its Medicaid program.
Washington has proposed a benefit reduction and has proposed cost
sharing premiums, which American Indian and Alaska Native will have to
pay if things stand with CMS. The number of American Indians and Alaska
Natives who lost their coverage is estimated to be as high as 2,400 in
Oregon. Without Medicaid coverage, these people will seek out services
at IHS and Tribally operated facilities.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' reports ``A Quite Crisis'' and
``Broken Promises'' document the harsh realities of life in Indian
Country. The reports discuss the United States' obligation to provide
programs and services to Native Americans. In short, the report finds a
crisis in the persistence and growth of unmet funding needs of Indian
programs and concludes that conditions in Indian Country could be
greatly relieved if the federal government honored its treaty
obligations and commitment to provide funding. The report offers eleven
recommendations, which if implemented, would greatly improve the lives
of Indian people. Two of those recommendations include exempting Indian
programs from across-the-board rescissions and funding the unique needs
of Indian Country (which includes funding the disparate health
conditions of Indian people). Failure to fund anything less will only
signify that this Country's agreements with Indian nations and other
legal rights are only empty promises.
There seems to be a misconception in the Congress and with the
general public that Indian Tribes are getting rich by operating
casinos. That myth must be dispelled. Tribes are not getting rich
through gaming. Like state lotteries, proceeds from Indian gaming must
be used for purposes like building houses, schools, roads and sewer and
water systems; to fund the health care and educational systems; and, to
develop a strong, diverse economic base for the future. Tribes like all
elected governments have many competing needs for resources and often
dedicate a portion of gaming revenue to health care as this is what
they have had to do to prevent illness and deaths due to funding
shortfalls in their health programs. The health funding needs are so
critical in Indian Country that gaming revenue alone will not solve the
problem.
The NPAIHB's recommends an increase of 12 percent or $317 million
over fiscal year 2005 to fund current services and maintain the current
program. Program increases above current services amount to $228
million. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board recommended
increase for current services and program increase totals $599.3
million. This amount is required if the Administration is serious about
addressing health disparities. The enhancements include small facility
construction, pharmacy, Information Technology improvements, and
increases above current services for many of the line items in the
budget. It adequately funds mandatory cost increases and addresses
unmet needs for the Indian Health Service, and addresses disparities in
health status between the general population and the American Indian/
Alaska Native population.
This year's analysis continues to be dedicated to those who are
suffering right now, just six months into fiscal year 2005, in health
programs that are already in Priority One status. As we noted last
year, there are a few members of Congress, some HHS bureaucrats, a
reporter or two nationally that knows what the term means. Priority One
means dishonor for all Americans and ill health for American Indians--
this is beyond dispute for members of Northwest Tribes.
acknowledgements
This analysis is based on over 16 years of contributions from
delegates and staff of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
including: Pearl Capoeman-Baller, Chair; Julia Davis, former Chair;
former Executive Directors: Doni Wilder (1990-1998) and IHS Portland
Area Office Director; Cheryle Kennedy (1998-2000); and, Ed Fox,
Executive Director (2000-current) and Jim Roberts, Policy Analyst.
--Senate Democratic (http://www.senate.gov/budget/democratic/) and
Republican http://www.senate.gov/budget/republican/Budget
Committee publications.
--The House analysis is available at www.house.gov/budget/
prezbudget.htm.
--The Budget for fiscal year 2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget/fy2006/is the President's budget request of February 7,
2005. It is actually a set of documents with narrative and
statistical information on the President's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2006.
--Congressional Budget Office (CBO http://www.cbo.gov/), The Budget
and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006-2015, January, 2005 and
Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for
Fiscal Year 2006, March 4, 2005. These documents examine the
federal budget under different economic assumptions and provide
estimates that are used for comparison to those of the
President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
--Department of Health and Human Services fiscal year 2006. DHHS
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget In Brief, February 3, 2005 available at
http://www.hhs.gov/budget/docbudget.htm.
--The Indian Health Service, Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees Fiscal Year 2006 available at
www.ihs.gov/AdminMngrResources/Budget/index.asp.
--Additional information about the U.S. Budget is available at the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/
pubs/fedbud.htm.
the fiscal year 2006 northwest portland area indian health board budget
analysis and recommendations
The fiscal year 2006 President's request for the Indian Health
Service (IHS) budget is $3.05 billion and is an increase of $62.9
million (2.1 percent increase) over last year's final enacted level.
NPAIHB estimates that it will take $371 million to maintain current
services for IHS and tribally operated health programs. Thus, the
President's request will fall short by $308 million. The expenses
associated with pay act increases and staffing for new facilities
($27.4 million) and proposed program increases ($35.4) exhausts the
President's proposed increase of $62.9 million. Despite the small
overall increase, Table 1 depicts comparatively large increases for the
health services account line items. This is achieved by postponing new
facilities construction for one year. By doing so, IHS is able to
allocate increases to tribally identified priorities in the health
services line items such as Dental (9.8 percent increase), Mental
Health (7.8 percent increase) and Public Health and Health Education
(10 percent).
TABLE 1.--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final President's Change over fiscal
------------------------ Change over budget year 2005
Fiscal Fiscal fiscal year fiscal year --------------------
year 2004 year 2005 2004 2006 Amount Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Services:
Hospitals & Health Clinics........... $1,249,781 $1,289,418 $39,637 $1,359,541 $70,123 5.4
Dental Health........................ 104,513 109,023 4,510 119,489 10,466 9.6
Mental Health........................ 53,294 55,060 1,766 59,328 4,268 7.8
Alcohol & Substance Abuse............ 138,250 139,073 823 145,336 6,263 4.5
Contract Health Services............. 479,070 498,068 18,998 525,021 26,953 5.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-total, Clincial Services....... 2,024,908 2,090,642 65,734 2,208,715 118,073 5.6
======================================================================
Prevention Health, Services:
Public Health Nursing................ 42,581 45,015 2,434 49,690 4,675 10.4
Health Education..................... 11,793 12,429 636 13,787 1,358 10.9
CHRs................................. 50,996 51,364 368 53,737 2,373 4.6
AK Immunization...................... 1,561 1,573 12 1,645 72 4.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub-total, Prevention Health....... 106,931 110,381 3,450 118,859 8,478 7.7
======================================================================
Urban Health......................... 31,619 31,816 197 33,233 1,417 4.5
Indian Health Professions............ 30,774 30,392 (382) 31,503 1,111 3.7
Tribal Management.................... 2,376 2,343 (33) 2,430 87 3.7
Direct Operations.................... 60,714 61,648 934 63,123 1,475 2.4
Self Governance...................... 5,644 5,586 (58) 5,752 166 3.0
Contract Support Costs............... 267,398 263,683 (3,715) 268,683 5,000 1.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Services.................... 2,530,364 2,596,491 66,127 2,732,298 135,807 5.2
======================================================================
Facilities:
Maintenance & Improvement............ 48,897 49,204 307 49,904 700 1.4
Sanitation Facilities Const.......... 93,015 91,767 (1,248) 93,519 1,752 1.9
Health Care Facilities Const......... 94,554 88,597 (5,957) 3,326 (85,271) -96.2
Facil & Env Hlth Support............. 137,803 141,669 3,866 150,959 9,290 6.6
Equipment............................ 17,081 17,337 256 17,960 623 3.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Facilities.................. 391,350 388,574 (2,776) 315,668 (72,906) -18.8
======================================================================
Total, IHS......................... 2,921,714 2,985,065 63,351 3,047,966 62,901 2.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the final enacted fiscal year 2005 ihs budget
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 (Public Law 108-447)
initially provided $3.03 billion for the Indian Health Service (IHS),
however after two rescissions, the final enacted fiscal year 2005 IHS
budget is $2.99 billion. The final fiscal year 2005 IHS appropriation
is a $63.4 million increase, or a 2 percent increase, over the fiscal
year 2004 spending level. Last year, the NPAIHB estimated that it would
take $380 million just to maintain current services in fiscal year
2005. The fiscal year 2005 budget increase of $63.4 fell short by
$316.6 million. Pay cost increases, staffing for new facilities, and
program increases alone accounted for $63.1 million. No funding was
programmed for inflation and population growth in the final IHS fiscal
year 2005 budget.
The approved fiscal year 2005 IHS budget includes an additional
$66.1 million, an increase of 2.6 percent, for the Health Services
Accounts. The Health Facilities accounts were cut by .7 percent. Only
three of the Health Facilities Construction accounts received any type
of increase. Two years ago, the Health Facilities Construction account
received a significant increase 13.6 percent ($12.9 million) however it
did not benefit any Northwest tribes. Portland Area tribes are
supportive of using a new health facility construction priority system
that would hopefully include funding for the type of facilities needed
in the Northwest; funding that would include both facilities and
staffing packages.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Congress continues the use of rescissions to deal with spending
caps in the appropriations process. These rescissions have begun to
have a significant impact on the IHS appropriations. Over the last four
years, the rescissions as a percentage of the approved IHS budget have
increased significantly. In fiscal year 2002, the rescission ($1
million) was approximately 1 percent of the approved increase ($130
million) for the IHS budget. In fiscal year 2003, the effect of the
rescission ($18 million) grew to 17 percent of the approved increase
($109 million) for the IHS budget. In fiscal year 2005, the rescissions
($42 million) have escalated to become 40 percent of the approved
increase ($105 million) for the IHS budget. Members of Congress can now
have it both ways; they can first say they supported increases and then
go on to say (after elections) that they supported fiscal
responsibility by cutting funding. No one has even engaged the Congress
in a discussion about how unfair and illogical across the board cuts
are to IHS funded programs.
The information that follows describes how insufficient funding has
created funding shortfalls that threaten health care services for
American Indian and Alaska Native people.
fiscal year 2006: preserving the basic health program funded by the ihs
budget
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2006 IHS budget falls far short of
preserving the existing IHS programs. Tribes and IHS are focused on
preserving the basic health care program funded by this budget.
Preserving the purchasing power of the IHS base program should be the
first budget principle, not an afterthought. How can unmet needs ever
be addressed if the existing program is not maintained? Tribes have one
overriding concern that is crucial to this discussion. There must be a
trusting relationship between tribes who are concerned about improving
their health status, the Administration that is charged with that
responsibility, and the Congress who holds the purse strings. Tribes,
IHS and Congress must continue to focus on the goals and objectives of
the IHS program and assure that the necessary resources are available
to continue to make improvements in health status. If the
Administration is serious about addressing health disparities it must
improve its commitment to adequate funding for the Indian Health
Service. If it is not serious it should stop highlighting these
disparities as if words are the same as action.
the office of management and budget
The Office of Management and Budget continues in its refusal to
share vital budget information with Tribes. The ``who-struck-john''
table that allows tribes to understand where budget cuts were made is
embargoed information. This table should be public information. The OMB
could open the process even further by sharing budget information prior
to the first Monday in February. The continued embargo of the fiscal
year 2006 budget information allows the Administration to violate
accepted standards of government-to-government consultation. Tribes
have specifically requested that OMB allow the Department of Health and
Human Services to share the OMB passback information with tribes so
they can provide their comments to the Administration and the IHS to
assist in preparation of its appeal to the Department and OMB. Sharing
the final budget information with tribes would allow them to prepare
their testimony for the oversight committees in a timely manner.
Tribes cannot be content with an under funded program that so
deeply affects their communities. In the course of this budget review,
the President's budget request is evaluated, major issues and concerns
are identified, and suggestions are provided that will benefit tribes
and IHS. Recommendations for funding levels are also included. It is
hoped that this document will be a valuable resource for the
Administration, the Congress, and the congressional staff that are
responsible for understanding the Indian Health Service Budget. The
treaties, executive orders, and the legislation that tribes have fought
so hard to achieve with the government of the United States remain the
basic foundation of the unique status of health care for Indian people.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Medicare and Medicaid Collections
The IHS Congressional Justification document proposes that the IHS
and Tribes will increase their Medicare and Medicaid collections by
$8.4 million in fiscal year 2006. While the IHS and Tribes have
significantly increased their ability to collect third party
reimbursements, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have entered a
period of no growth or actual reductions in collections.
The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) will be fully implemented in
2006 and it will negatively impact the ability of Indian health systems
to collect third party resources from this very important program. The
President has also proposed $48 billion in cost savings in the Medicaid
program over the next ten years and current discussions are underway
for Medicaid reform. Tribes support the concept of a Medicaid
Commission and welcome the invitation to be a part of that Commission's
work. The prospect of IHS and Tribal programs increasing Medicaid
collections is not likely given the President's proposed savings and
the fact that states continue efforts to balance their budgets with
cost containment in Medicaid programs.
Increasing Medicare collections will be difficult since the MMA
fails to adequately integrate Indian health programs into the
prescription drug program. It fails to protect the right of elderly and
disabled Indian people to receive prescription drug coverage without
charge from the federal government. The new program raises significant
issues of access and cost-sharing which will impact how and where
elderly and disabled Indians get coverage. The Medicare program also
threatens to significantly reduce reimbursements to Indian health
programs for prescription drugs provided by IHS and Tribally operated
programs.
Beginning in 2006, Medicare enrolled-seniors who previously got
their pharmacy coverage under Medicaid (Dual-Eligibles) will be
required to choose or be assigned to a private prescription drug plan.
There is no guarantee that if they continue to receive prescriptions
from Indian programs or that payment will be made to the I/T/U
programs. It is estimated that there are 25,963 \2\ to 30,544 \3\
individuals in the IHS patient database who are receiving both Medicare
and Medicaid. While there is no comprehensive data on the per-capita
drug costs for dual-eligibles in the Indian health system, estimates
can be made by examining average state per-capita spending for this
population. In 2002, the average per-capita spending for dual-eligibles
was $918.\4\ This is thought to be a very conservative figure for
Indian Country, in view of the higher rates of illness that have
expensive drugs associated with their treatment, including diabetes and
mental illness. Thus, if this average is projected to 2006, the
expected average per capita spending on drugs for dual-eligibles would
be $1,756. Using these population and per-capita spending data, it is
estimated that the Medicaid payments for dual eligible drug costs to
Indian health programs ranges from $23 million to $53 million.\5\ \6\
NPAIHB estimates that between $10 million to $25 million in payments
are likely to be lost by Indian health programs unless tribally
recommended changes are made. The President's proposed budget fails to
take into consideration this dramatic effect of the MMA on the Indian
health system. In fact, the dual eligible issue could result in as much
as a 20 percent decrease in Medicare collections for the IHS and Tribal
health programs. In their present form, the Part D rules would
jeopardize the ability of the Indian health system to maintain this
level of dual eligible (Medicaid) reimbursements. These important
revenues must be protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This number represents 85 percent of the three-year total of
active users.
\3\ This is the number of active users, defined as at least one
visit in the past three years.
\4\ From Table 2, ``Full'' Dual Eligible Enrollment and
Prescription Drug Spending, by State, 2002, in ``The `Clawback:' State
Financing of Medicare Drug Coverage'' by Andy Schneider, published by
the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, June 2004.
\5\ This low number was calculated using the 25,963 figure for dual
eligibles in 2003 and the $918 per capita spending in 2002. It is
probably unrealistically low for 2006 given the increase in aging
population in Indian Country and the increase in drug prices.
\6\ This higher number uses the 30,544 number of dual eligibles in
2003 and the $1,756 estimated spending in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state fiscal crisis continues to threaten the viability of IHS
and Tribal health programs as states continue efforts to contain costs
in Medicaid programs. At the end of 2004, there were at least 22 states
across the country that projected funding shortfalls averaging from 6-8
percent of their general fund spending. Over half of these states have
American Indian tribes in them. Oregon and Washington are two of the
states that project funding shortfalls. Despite improving revenues,
projected state deficits threaten many public services including the
Medicaid program. This will negatively impact the ability for Tribes to
obtain Medicaid reimbursements.
The unique status of tribes and Indian people has also been
challenged by the Executive branch. In 2004, CMS informed Oregon and
Washington that it would not approve waiver amendments containing
special provisions for Indian participation in the Medicaid program.
This is a departure from past CMS policy, in which Indian people were
allowed special provisions for participation in Medicaid and SCHIP
programs. CMS indicates that such treatment would have consequences
related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former CMS policy is one
that acknowledges the federal government's unique legal
responsibilities under the trust obligation to provide recognized
privileges to American Indians and Alaska Natives. This standard holds
that the federal government's unique legal responsibilities under the
trust obligation provide recognized privileges to American Indians and
Alaska Natives. It is a standard that permits American Indians and
Alaska Natives to be treated differently in federal programs because of
the political status of Tribes as sovereign nations and is the standard
that should be followed by CMS in determining eligibility, access to
services and cost sharing issues for American Indian and Alaska Native
people.
Congress acknowledges the Federal trust responsibility for Indian
health on a continuing basis through annual appropriations to the
Department of Health and Human Services for the operation of Indian
Health Service programs, in fiscal year 2005, a total of $3 billion was
supplied for provision of health services and health facility needs in
Indian Country. This budget is supplemented by some $600 million
collected by Indian health programs from Medicare, Medicaid and other
third-party insurance sources. By including Medicare and Medicaid
collections in the IHS appropriations, Congress expects that these
resources will be available to IHS and Tribes in order to provide
health services to American Indian and Alaska Native people.
The Medicaid program could be a more effective means of financing
Indian health programs if it would exempt American Indians and Alaska
Natives from cost sharing including co-pays, premiums and any other
form of cost sharing. It makes little sense to Indian people to sign up
for a health program that charges them for health care services that
their tribe gave up lands and other considerations to secure for all
generations. The practical effect is that they will not sign up for
Medicaid and the IHS funded programs will end up paying all the costs
of their health care. If this becomes the case, CMS will save the
federal government millions of dollars, but renege on rights guaranteed
by law and treaties. The Administration or Secretary of HHS could
easily exempt American Indians and Alaska Natives from these cost
sharing requirements. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs fiscal
year 2006 Views and Estimates letter supports this same exemption.
Tribes in the Northwest have repeatedly stated their preference for
full funding of the health needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives
by fully funding the Indian Health Service over grants or increases in
Medicare and Medicaid collections. However, most tribes are reconciled
to the fact that all revenue sources must be pursued until some type of
entitlement to full funding is secured through the IHS budget. The past
four years' reductions in state Medicaid programs do call into question
the wisdom of relying on this uncertain source of income. Northwest
Tribal leaders again call on the Congress to consider making Indian
health an entitlement similar to the Medicare program promise to those
over 65 years.
current services budget: maintaining the current health program and the
president's proposed fiscal year 2006 ihs budget
This year's fiscal year 2006 IHS budget increase of $62.9 million
(an increase of 2.1 percent) is far short of the $371 million needed to
maintain current services. In addition, Portland Area tribes are
recommending an additional $228 million for program increases to
addresses health priority needs. This brings the total recommended
increase to $599 million or 20 percent (see Table 4).
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Current services estimates' calculate mandatory costs increases
necessary to maintain the current level of services. These
``mandatories'' are unavoidable and include medical and general
inflation, pay costs, staff for recently constructed facilities and
population growth. The 10 percent increase received in fiscal year 2001
was the last budget that allowed tribes to reduce denials of services.
The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates a fiscal year
2006 current services need of $371,293,000. This is the amount
necessary to fund inflation and population growth and fully fund
contract support costs. Anything less will continue the trend of denied
health care services as illustrated above.
There are a number of ways to compute current services. The Indian
Health Service usually estimates pay cost increases and reports this as
separate from inflation. The reason for this has less to do with budget
presentation and more with the simple fact that since Congress passes a
pay act each year these are costs that are very precisely computed for
federal employees. The Indian Health Service has also added reasonable
tribal pay estimates and also reports these. The pay act is legislation
that requires compliance, no matter how long it may take the President
to act on pay cost increases. Last year, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act that the President signed included a 3.5 percent
overall average pay increase for Federal employees, which became
effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning
on after January 1, 2005.
TABLE 3.--SUMMARY OF MANDATORY COST INCREASES (CURRENT SERVICES)
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase
needed to
Mandatory Cost maintain
current
services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHS inflation estimated at 12.5 percent................. 62,259
Health Services Account (not including CHS) inflation 127,182
estimated at 7.5 percent...............................
Facilities Inflation Needs (M&I, Sanitation, etc)....... 15,325
Contract Support Costs (unfunded amount)................ 112,000
Population Growth....................................... 54,526
---------------
Total Mandatory Costs............................. 371,293
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on Medical Inflation.--Medical Inflation is estimated at between 8
to 14 percent in the Northwest states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho
Health care analysts understand that increases in medical spending
reflect increases in the value of services and pharmaceuticals and not
simply inflation as measured for most goods and services Medicare and
Medicaid will increase their spending by 9 percent in fiscal year
2006, but NPAIHB assumes Indian health programs will not achieve the
same level of cost containment due to the lack of large group
purchasing power.
In the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board proposed budget
(Table 4), pay act costs are not displayed separately from general and
medical inflation costs. Personnel inflation is a part of the overall
inflation adjustment and does not need a special treatment for the
purposes of calculating a current services budget. The proposed budget
applies an 8 percent inflation adjustment in fiscal year 2006 for the
health services accounts. This amount is added to the fiscal year 2005
budget as the estimated amount needed just to maintain current
services. The CHS account has a separate adjustment of 12.5 percent
percent since 100 percent of this line item is subject to the higher
level of medical inflation for specialty and hospital care. The Urban
line item is also estimated at 12.5 percent as a result of inflation
and the lack of any real increases in past years. Contract Support
Costs need is estimated at $112 million amount, the amount provided by
the Office of Tribal Activities, and includes inflation and past year's
shortfalls. Finally, the facilities account estimate uses a 4 percent
adjustment since the inflation rate for facilities activities is
similar to the general inflation rate.
TABLE 4.--COMPARING PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 REQUEST TO CURRENT SERVICES BUDGET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enacted President's Change
fiscal year request over Increase Current (President's
2005 19- 2006 7-Feb- fiscal for services is less)
Nov-2004 2005 year 2005 inflation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERVICES:
Hospitals & Clinics............. $1,289,418 $1,359,541 $70,123 $90,259 $1,379,677 -$20,136
Dental Health................... 109,023 119,489 10,466 7,632 116,655 2,834
Mental Health................... 55,060 59,328 4,268 3,854 58,914 414
Alcohol Substance Abuse......... 139,073 145,336 6,263 9,735 148,808 -3,472
Contract Health Services........ 498,068 525,021 26,953 62,259 560,327 -35,306
Public Health Nursing........... 45,015 49,690 4,675 3,151 48,166 1,524
Health Education................ 12,429 13,787 1,358 870 13,299 488
CHRs............................ 51,364 53,737 2,373 3,595 54,959 -1,222
AK Immunization................. 1,573 1,645 72 110 1,683
Urban Health.................... 31,816 33,233 1,417 3,977 35,793 -2,560
Health Professions.............. 30,392 31,503 1,111 1,216 31,608 -105
Tribal Management............... 2,343 2,430 87 94 2,437 -7
Direct Operations................... 61,648 63,123 1,475 2,466 64,114 -991
Self Governance................. 5,586 5,752 166 223 5,809 -57
Contract Support Costs.......... 263,683 268,683 5,000 \1\ 10,54 274,230 -5547
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, SERVICES............... 2,596,491 2,732,298 135,807 \2\ 189,4 2,796,479 -53,634
41
===========================================================================
FACILITIES:
Maintenance & Improvement....... 49,204 49,904 700 1,968 51,172 -1,268
Sanitation Facilities........... 91,767 93,519 1,752 3,671 95,438 -1,919
Health Care Facilities 88,597 3,326 (85,271) \3\ 3,326 3,326 ............
Construction...................
Facil & Env Hlth Support........ 141,669 150,959 9,290 5,667 147,336 3,623
Equipment....................... 17,337 17,960 623 693 17,869 -70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, FACILITIES............. 388,574 315,668 -72,906 15,325 315,141 -88,231
===========================================================================
Total, IHS.................... 2,985,065 3,047,966 62,901 204,766 3,111,620 -141,865
===========================================================================
Other increases:
Population Growth............... ........... ........... .......... 54,526 54,526 -54,526
Contract Support Cost (CSC)..... ........... ........... .......... 112,000 112,000 -112,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Pop. Growth/CSC...... ........... ........... .......... 166,526 166,526 -166,526
===========================================================================
Program Enhancements................ ........... ........... .......... ......... 228,000 ............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................ 2,985,065 3,047,966 62,901 371,293 599,293 -308,392
===========================================================================
Percent increase.................... ........... ........... 2.11 12.4 20.1 ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Contract Support Costs (CSC) are calculated for inflation at 4 percent, however are not factored into the
total for increase for Inflation column. Rather, the CSC estimate of $112 million is used to determine the
total increase required for CSC inflation. (Source: Indian Health Service, Office of Tribal Activities)
\2\ Does not include $10,547 CSC increase (see footnote above).
\3\ The President cut the Health Facilities construction line item by $85 million; this is good budgeting
practice until the IHS completes its revision of the Health Facilities Construction Priority System. This will
allow the facilities construction needs of Indian Country to be re-prioritized with current data and reflect
the true health facility needs of Indian people.
fiscal year 2006 slight increase for inflation and population growth is
inadequate
The President's fiscal year 2006 IHS budget request includes $46
million for inflation and $33.4 million for population growth. IHS and
Tribal health programs have not received funding for population growth
since 1993 so this year's increase is a welcome recognition of the need
to provide funds for this mandatory cost increase. Tribes have long
testified that resources must increase to compensate for population
growth just as they must increase for actual inflation costs. If one
takes the American Indian population growth rate of 2.1 percent (the
actual increase in 2004 user population) and multiplies this by the
health services account it results in a suggested increase of $54.5
million for fiscal year 2006. At a minimum, IHS and tribal health
programs will require this amount to keep pace with population growth.
The President's budget falls short by $21 million for funding
population growth. There has been no additional funding to cover the
population increase of approximately 17 percent between 1995 and 2005.
Population growth is built into the funding mechanisms for the
Medicare and Medicaid budgets. Medicare is only now beginning to absorb
the retiring baby boomers and growth will increase expenditures from
$325 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $520 billion in fiscal year
2010.\7\ Medicaid expenditures are projected to increase from $186
billion in fiscal year 2005 to $262 billion over the same period.
Medicare and Medicaid are entitlement programs that automatically
receive population growth increases. That is one reason why annual
Medicaid and Medicare expenditures growth is estimated at 7 percent
over the next five years. If more participate, funds increase
accordingly. It is inequitable that health services for American
Indians and Alaska Natives are not likewise increased when the Indian
population increases. Unlike Medicaid and Medicare, where spending
increases are automatic to accommodate growth of enrollees, for the
Indian Health Service budget population growth adjustments can only be
secured by approving appropriations increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Source.--The Budget and Economic Outlook: fiscal years 2006 to
20015, Congressional Budget Office, January 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
tribal recommendations for program increases
Portland Tribes debated various program increases that they felt
were essential to address current priority needs. Facilities funding
for small ambulatory clinics continues to be a high priority for the
Portland area. The balance of the increases are basic increases for
high priority issues (line items) such as Mental Health, Alcohol and
Substance Abuse, Public Health Nurses, Community Health
Representatives, and Health Education. Many of these increases
supported important components necessary to address long term care
needs for the growing elder population in Indian communities. There was
a spirited discussion on keeping the request within the bounds of
political feasibility. Everyone who participated felt that the funding
increases for the line items listed above were far short of what was
needed. However, it was decided that they wanted to highlight these
areas as key opportunities to make major improvements in health status.
It was a very difficult decision not to add funding in every line item,
but a decision was made to limit increases to what was felt might be
politically feasible.
TABLE 5.--IHS BUDGET PROGRAM INCREASES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHS Unfunded Need, Deferred Services, and Denials of CHEF.. 55,000
Mental Health.............................................. 18,000
Alcohol and Substance Abuse................................ 15,000
Public Health Nursing...................................... 5,000
Health Education........................................... 5,000
Community Health Representatives........................... 5,000
Self Governance............................................ 5,000
Pharmacy................................................... 30,000
Information Technology..................................... 20,000
Sanitation Facilities Construction......................... 10,000
Small Ambulatory Clinics................................... 25,000
Joint Venture.............................................. 15,000
M & I...................................................... 5,000
Guaranteed Loan Program.................................... 15,000
------------
Total................................................ 228,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was noted that this increase above current services raises the
Portland Area request to a level that may not be politically feasible
(from the basic current services amount of 12.8 percent to 18.8 percent
with these program increases), but it was decided that highlighting
these priorities was necessary to indicate to the Congress areas
especially deserving of increases above current services levels.
staffing for new facilities
Staffing the new facilities opening at the following locations--
Pinon, AZ; Idabel, OK; Coweta, OK; Red Mesa, AZ; Sisseton, SD; and St.
Paul, AK--will require $18.4 million in fiscal year 2006. The ``new
staffing package'' becomes a recurring appropriation. The increase
associated with staffing for new facilities is more than the amount of
applied to other mandatories so its benefit to Indian Health Service
programs calls into question the wisdom of building these facilities if
funding is not available to maintain current programs.
TABLE 6.--STAFFING NEW FACILITIES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing
Facility Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinon, AZ Health Center.................................... 4,119
Idabel, OK Health Center................................... 562
Coweta, OK Health Center................................... 6,960
Red Mesa, AZ Health Center................................. 3,171
Sisseton, SD Health Center................................. 3,524
St. Paul, AK Health Center................................. 144
------------
Total................................................ 18,480
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The significance of staffing new facilities is that it removes from
distribution funds necessary to maintain current services. Staffing
packages for new facilities are like pay act costs in two respects: (1)
They come ``off the top,'' i.e., they are distributed before other
increases, and (2) They are recurring appropriations. Northwest Tribes
frequently ask: Why did our health program receive a 1 percent increase
in funding this year when we were told there was a 2 percent or 3
percent increase for the Indian Health Service budget? In fiscal year
2004, the IHS received a 2.1 percent increase; however Portland Area
Tribes realized less than a 1 percent increase in their health care
budgets. In fiscal year 2004, the new staffing was over 60 percent of
the IHS budget increase. In fiscal year 2005, new staffing costs
accounted for over 50 percent of the increase. As the graph
illustrates, the reason for this gap between the annual approved
increases for the IHS accounts and actual program level increases is
the cost of staffing new facilities.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Staffing costs are obviously legitimate costs that must be provided
when a new facility is built. Unfortunately, the existing programs
absorb the cost of mandatories for new facilities rather than an
additional appropriation. As Table 7 (below) highlights, the staffing
of new facilities has received 27.7 percent of all increases in the IHS
health services account over the past 12 years. In fiscal year 2006,
$18.5 million will go to staffing new facilities. This amount is down
from last year, however is still quite significant. If scheduled new
facilities construction proceeds as planned, it is estimated that this
percentage will rise to over 50 percent of the overall IHS budget in
fiscal year 2007 through 2010. NW tribes cannot support this level of
funding for staffing when we do not have enough funding to maintain
current services.
TABLE 7.--PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL IHS INCREASE EXPENDED ON STAFFING FOR NEW
FACILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995....................................................... 19.1
1996....................................................... 28.3
1997....................................................... 43.2
1998....................................................... 28.7
1999....................................................... 13.0
2000....................................................... 8.0
2001....................................................... 5.8
2002....................................................... 14.2
2003....................................................... 27.8
2004....................................................... 64.0
2005....................................................... 51.0
2006....................................................... 29.4
------------
Average.............................................. 27.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once we subtract pay act costs ($29.3 million in fiscal year 2006)
and the costs of staffing newly opened facilities ($18.49 million),
there is simply no money left to maintain the current health care
program. Since the President has requested only an overall $62.9
million increase, there is a balance of $15.1 million left for the rest
of the IHS budget. Since the actual pay act increase will probably be
from 2 to 3 percent, the balance will be less than one-third the amount
needed for federal and tribal employees pay increases.
health services account
The Compounding Effect of Multi-year Funding Shortfalls
Table 8 below demonstrates the loss of real resources in the Health
Services Account due to increases that have been inadequate to pay for
cost increases due to inflation (medical and general) and population
growth. The inflation and population figures presented in Table 8 are
based on the NPAIHB previous year's analysis and recommendations to
fund current services. Table 5 illustrates the annual and cumulative
impact of annual under-funding of mandatory cost increases. This
information is depicted graphically in Figure 1 of this document.
TABLE 8.--INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES ACCOUNT FISCAL YEAR 1993-FISCAL YEAR 2006
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved Budget with
health inflation & Real resource
Year services growth loss
budget adjustment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993............................................................ 1,524,990 1,540,087 15,097
1994............................................................ 1,646,088 1,644,195 -1,893
1995............................................................ 1,707,092 1,744,221 37,129
1996............................................................ 1,745,309 1,847,113 101,804
1997............................................................ 1,807,269 1,945,326 138,057
1998............................................................ 1,841,074 2,060,512 219,438
1999............................................................ 1,950,322 2,274,992 324,670
2000............................................................ 2,074,173 2,411,496 337,323
2001............................................................ 2,265,663 2,610,497 344,834
2002............................................................ 2,389,614 2,630,009 240,395
2003............................................................ 2,475,916 2,644,996 169,080
2004............................................................ 2,530,364 2,661,614 131,250
2005............................................................ 2,596,492 2,804,211 207,719
2006............................................................ 2,732,298 2,923,559 191,261
---------------
Total real resources lost fiscal years 1993-2005.......... .............. .............. 2,456,165
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The loss of purchasing power over the past fourteen years is
conservatively estimated at $2.46 billion. It is difficult to estimate
how much collections from Medicaid (and to a lesser extent Medicare)
have reduced these shortfalls. One reason for the difficulty is that
collections estimates are understated in each year of the IHS budget
justification because only IHS facilities' collections are reported.
One thing is clear, and that is Medicaid collections have not grown in
the Portland Area in the past three years due to the state fiscal
crisis in Oregon and Washington. States nationwide are continuing to
cut benefits and eligibility for the Medicaid program in an attempt to
balance state budgets.
The following section reviews the IHS budget at the ``sub-
subactivity'' level for the health services account. The number in the
parenthesis is the page number in the Congressional Justification for
the Indian Health Service fiscal year 2006 budget. The reader will note
that the percentage increase for each line item is well over the
average proposed fiscal year 2006 increase for the Department of Health
and Human Services.
TABLE 9.--HOSPITALS AND CLINICS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Request....................................... 1,289,418
Increase/Decrease (5.4 percent)......................... 70,123
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................ 1,379,677
President's Proposed.................................... 1,359,541
Shortfall............................................... 20,136
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hospitals and clinics (ihs 3)
The Hospitals and Clinics line item would receive $1,289,418,000
under the Administration's request. The Administration's request is
$20.1 million short of the amount needed to maintain services. Pay act
cost increases for this account total $20.5 million and staffing new
facilities requires an additional $18.5. This account will also receive
$18.2 million for population growth and $15.9 million for inflation,
bringing the total current services for this line item to $73.1
million. The Administration's increase of $62.9 million will not even
cover the cost of the proposed current service increases.
This line item funds hospitals and many services some might expect
to find under administrative costs such as information technology. In
some Areas, funds that should be under contract health care are
actually found in the H & C line item. The Portland Area receives far
less per capita than most areas from this line item, under 5 percent of
all funding despite Portland's nearly 7 percent share of the IHS user
population. There are logical reasons for this, most importantly, the
lack of expensive hospitals in the Portland Area (one of two areas with
no hospitals) and the high costs associated with service delivery in
Alaska.
epidemiology centers
Permanent Funding for the Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center (IHS 10)
IHS funds 8 Epidemiology Centers, seven tribal and one urban. One
of these centers, the Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center (The
EpiCenter), is located in the Portland Area at the Northwest Portland
Area Indian Health Board. The EpiCenter is providing epidemiological
and programmatic assistance on a variety of health issues. It has taken
the lead in helping Northwest Tribes work to achieve the Health Status
Objectives specified in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
Amendments of 1992. The eight Epi-Centers include:
--Alaska Native Epi-Center, Anchorage, AK
--Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Epi-Center, Bemidji, MN
--Inter-Tribal Council Epi-Center, Phoenix, AZ
--Northern Plains Epi-Center, Rapid City, SD
--NPAIHB Epi-Center, Portland, OR
--Oklahoma Area Epi-Center, Oklahoma City, OK
--United South and Eastern Tribal Epi-Center, Nashville, TN
--Seattle Indian Health Board Epi-Center, Seattle, WA
The Board would like tribal EpiCenters to be funded at a level that
will enable them to be a fully functional epidemiological and
surveillance centers. Recent increases have allowed the NPAIHB
EpiCenter to be funded at a level that allows it to provide
professional, high quality work for Indian health programs. Last year,
the Board supported the President's proposed increase of $2.5 million
for EpiCenters in order to fund two new centers and to raise the amount
of funding for current EpiCenters. There is likely to be another
EpiCenter that will be added in fiscal year 2006 and additional funding
will be needed in order to sustain the current level of effort. There
is some merit in having an EpiCenter in each area, but this goal must
compete with other Indian Health Service priorities. The feasibility of
having EpiCenters in each of the 12 IHS Areas must be seriously
examined before expanding to all 12 areas.
the indian health care improvement fund
The Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 1992
authorized the Indian Health Improvement Fund plus additional
initiatives to address the unmet health needs of Indian communities.
The Level of Need Funded (LNF) methodology, now termed the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Package Disparity Index (FDI), has been used
to distribute funds appropriated to the fund. Tribes expect some
appropriation to be included each year to raise tribes' funding level.
In fiscal year 2005 $18 million will be distributed using the FDI
formula.
hipaa
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA) requires that IHS and tribal health programs comply with
national standards for electronic health care transactions and protect
the security and privacy of health data. The fiscal year 2003 budget
appropriation included $850,000 to implement the new privacy standards.
Of major importance in the HIPAA legislation is the issue of data and
transaction standardization--a mandate very few healthcare providers
can sidestep if they bill third parties for services provided to
patients. There is no funding in fiscal year 2006 to comply with the
on-going special requirements of HIPAA. This un-funded mandate deserves
an on-going appropriation until it is fully implemented.
TABLE 10.--DENTAL HEALTH
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 119,489
Increase/Decrease (9.6 percent)............................ 10,466
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 7,632
President's Proposed....................................... 10,466
Shortfall.................................................. (2,834)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dental services (ihs 13)
The President's increase of $10,466,000 represents a 9.6 percent
increase for the Dental Health services account. While the amount is
$2.8 million more than the NPAIHB's estimate to maintain current
service, it will not cover the programming costs proposed by the
President. The fiscal year 2006 request includes $2 million to cover
pay cost increases and $5.8 million is for phasing-in of new dental
staff at Pinon, AZ; Idabel, OK; Coweta, OK; Red Mesa, AZ; Sisseton, SD;
and St. Paul, AK. Dental Services is also slated to receive increases
of $1.1 million for inflation and $1.5 million for population growth.
The increases for current services total $11.4 million, and are
$900,000 more than the President's recommended increase of $10.4
million.
This is an increase that is very much appreciated by IHS and tribal
dental programs especially since both Washington and Oregon, as have
other states, have eliminated adult dental services from their Medicaid
programs. This will mean additional users to the IHS system. Indian
dental programs are unparalleled in their ability to provide efficient
and effective health care services to the patients who need dental
care. The Board has one of the seven Dental Support Centers that
provide consultation services to area health programs.
TABLE 11.--MENTAL HEALTH
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 55,328
Increase/Decrease (7.8 percent)............................ 4,268
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 3,854
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 4,268
Shortfall.................................................. (414)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mental health (ihs 16)
This request of $59.3 million is a 7.8 percent increase over last
year's line item and is adequate to cover the NPAIHB estimated costs of
$58.9 million to maintain current services. The Mental Health line item
also received a decent increase in fiscal year 2004. Tribes appreciate
the attention to this very important area. Suicides occur more
frequently (72 percent higher) and among younger people in the Indian
population with the age group 15-24 having the highest rate. This is a
shocking statistic. Consider that the highest rate for non-natives is
for individuals over 74 years and one can conclude that a horrendous
loss of productive years needs to be addressed in a concerted effort.
Pay costs and new staffing packages will take 66 percent of the
increase, leaving the balance to cover the costs of $1.6 million to
cover inflation and population growth. None of the increase will
provide for expanded services by current programs.
TABLE 12.--ALCOHOL & SUBSTANCE ABUSE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 145,336
Increase/Decrease (4.5 percent)............................ 6,263
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 9,735
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 6,263
Shortfall.................................................. 3,472
------------------------------------------------------------------------
alcohol and substance abuse (ihs 21)
Alcohol and substance abuse continues to be the highest priority
identified by tribal leaders and health directors during the IHS budget
formulation process. The fiscal year 2005 enacted level for this
account is barely a 1 percent increase over fiscal year 2004. This
year's proposed increase of 4.5 percent reflects tribal priorities
during the IHS budget formulation process. However, it will fall short
of maintaining current services by $3.4 million. More needs to be done
to address the circle of violence, depression, intergenerational
violence, and domestic abuse in tribal communities. The cost for
treatment of alcohol and substance abuse is increasing at a rate that
exceeds the availability of funds. The use of methamphetamine is on the
rise throughout Indian Country and is causing tremendous cost to the
Indian health care system. Studies show that to be effective Tribes
need to pay for 180-day inpatient treatment costs and provide
significant aftercare treatment. Currently, there are no programs in
the Northwest to provide for this type of adult treatment. Dual
diagnosis patients needing a combination of mental health and alcohol
treatment services would benefit from a larger appropriation for these
services.
The proposed increase of $6.3 million will go to cover $2.2 million
for pay costs, $2.1 million for inflation, and $1.9 is to cover the
costs of population growth.
TABLE 13.--CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 525,021
Increase/Decrease (5.4 percent)............................ 26,953
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 62,259
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 26,953
Shortfall.................................................. 35,306
------------------------------------------------------------------------
contract health services (ihs 26)
This year's requested CHS increase of $26.9 million is a reasonable
percentage of the overall increase, but far short of need. The $35.3
million shortfall means referrals for dental services and specialty
care will be curtailed. It means tribes will once again fall into
PRIORITY ONE in the winter instead of spring of the fiscal year. CHS
funding is the most critical line item for Tribes in the Northwest. The
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board estimates $62.3 million is
needed to maintain the current level of services purchased with
Contract Health Service (CHS) dollars. The fiscal year 2006 request
includes $18.9 million to fund inflation and $7 million for population
growth. This is the first time since fiscal year 2001 that the CHS
program has received any funding to cover these critical areas. In
fiscal year 2001, President Clinton requested $40 million for the first
time since 1992. The increase was sufficient to fund population growth
and the medical inflation rate and for the first time Tribes saw the
level of CHS denials begin to fall (see Figure No. 2). This year's
request is far short ($35.3 million) of the amount needed to truly fund
inflation and population growth. CHS funding for new facilities is
estimated to be $1 million.
Congress should note that there are no pay costs associated with
the CHS program, yet the providers that tribes purchase specialty care
services from are as deserving of pay cost increases as federal
workers. In many cases these increases would go to small town
practitioners and rural hospitals. CHS purchases of specialty care are
a very efficient method of providing health care services that
contributes to rural economies. CHS is a much more efficient method of
providing care than building new hospitals.
CHS represents about 18 percent of the total health services
account. In the Northwest it represents over 20 percent of the Portland
Area Office's budget. The consequence of twelve years of un-funded
inflationary increases has been declining services for tribes who
depend upon Contract Health Services to support inpatient and specialty
care. IHS areas like the Portland Area (with no hospitals) are
particularly hurt by the lack of sufficient increases to cover medical
care inflation. There is only so much that can be done to restrict
medical priorities. Rationing and erosion of service has been a
constant problem, particularly for CHS programs. The Portland Area
strongly supports distribution of CHS dollars with a formula that
recognizes that some areas are strongly dependent on this funding
source. The new formula for CHS distribution was not supported by
Northwest tribes.
TABLE 14.--LOST PURCHASING POWER 1993 TO 2005 FOR CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES LINE ITEM (CHS)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Un-funded Un-funded
Year Approved inflation medical population Total un-
budget need inflation growth funded
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.......................................... 308,589 ( \1\ ) ............ ........... ...........
1993.......................................... 328,394 331,425 3,031 6,480 9,511
1994.......................................... 349,848 354,260 4,412 6,896 11,308
1995.......................................... 362,564 373,635 11,071 7,347 18,418
1996.......................................... 362,564 390,428 27,864 7,614 35,478
1997.......................................... 368,325 406,744 38,419 7,614 46,032
1998.......................................... 373,375 419,433 46,058 7,735 53,793
1999.......................................... 385,801 438,218 52,417 7,841 60,258
2000.......................................... 406,000 414,350 8,350 8,102 16,452
2001.......................................... 445,773 444,570 (1,203) 8,526 13,096
2002.......................................... 460,776 490,350 29,574 9,240 51,036
2003.......................................... 475,022 518,373 43,351 9,500 52,851
2004.......................................... 479,070 536,558 57,488 9,581 67,070
2005.......................................... 498,068 557,836 59,768 9,961 69,730
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen Year Total..................... ........... ........... 380,601 106,438 505,032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Base Year.
Contract Health Services is the program most vulnerable to
inflation pressures. Between fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 2005, the
NPAIHB estimates that over $1/2 billion have been lost to inflation in
the CHS program nationally. Unfunded medical inflation alone exceeds
$380 million, while unfunded population growth is $106 million--
representing $505 million in lost purchasing power as depicted in the
Table 14 above.
TABLE 15.--BUDGET HISTORY OF CHS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 1996 TO FISCAL YEAR
2006
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase
CHS over Percent of
approved previous increase
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996............................. $362,564 ........... ...........
1997............................. 368,325 $5,761 1.56
1998............................. 373,375 5,050 1.35
1999............................. 385,801 12,426 3.22
2000............................. 406,756 20,955 5.15
2001............................. 445,773 39,017 8.75
2002............................. 460,776 15,003 3.26
2003............................. 468,130 7,354 1.57
2004............................. 479,070 10,940 2.28
2005............................. 498,068 18,998 3.81
2006............................. 525,021 26,953 5.13
------------
Ten Year Total............. ........... ........... 3.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15 charts the past 11 years funding for CHS. The increase has
been about 3 percent each year while medical inflation rate experienced
in the Northwest is approximately 10 percent over the past decade. CHS
should receive medical inflation adjustments at least equal to the
Medicaid program (projected to be 8.4 percent for through 2007 \8\)
since both purchase care from private providers. Since the fiscal year
2005 approved appropriation was $498 million, a fair inflation
adjustment would total $62.3 million for fiscal year 2006. The
President has requested an amount that is not sufficient to protect
real resources that continue to be lost to medical inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015, p.
57, Congressional Budget Office, January 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medicaid's enrollment growth rate is projected at 1.8 percent over
the next 5 years and is less than the projected increase in the Indian
population (2.1 percent); so population growth does not justify the
higher rate of growth for Medicaid. Surely no one believes that the
relatively small Indian Health Program is able to secure better rates
from providers than the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The IHS should
expedite the publication of regulations to implement Section 506 of the
Medicare Modernization Act (MMA). This provision would require
hospitals that accept Medicare payments to pass on those same rates for
services provided for under the CHS program. The Board assisted in the
development of these very beneficial regulations however, they have not
been published by the IHS or CMS. In the meantime, Tribes continue to
drawdown on their CHS budgets, and the Section 506 regulations would
provide a significant cost savings that would allow for additional
services to Indian people.
catastrophic health emergency fund (chef)
The CHS budget includes a Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF)
of $18 million intended to protect the daily administration of local
CHS programs from overwhelming expenditures for catastrophic health
cases. This fund is a lifesaver for Indian health programs. Its purpose
is to fund catastrophic health care cases with large expenses.
Northwest Tribes urge the Congress to consider fully funding CHEF since
these cases are all well-documented need and critical to the financial
stability of the small programs that exist in the Portland Area and
many other Areas of the Indian Health Service.
The current fiscal year 2005 threshold is $23,800 before a case is
considered for funding. The Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund is an
important source of funds for programs that experience high cost cases.
These cases place a tremendous financial and ethical burden on a
Service Unit or a tribe if the case occurs near the end of the year
after the Fund has been exhausted.
In fiscal year 2004,\9\ CHEF claims totaling $13.3 million for 756
cases went unpaid and were absorbed by local CHS budgets. The actual
unfunded need is certainly greater than $13 million because the fund is
usually depleted by the third quarter of the fiscal year. CHS deferred
services include those cases within the CHS medical priority area,
however, are deferred due to lack of funding. Portland Area Tribes
strongly urge the Congress to fully fund CHEF since the impact of not
funding it fully threatens Indian Health programs more than any other
line activity in the budget. Based on fiscal year 2004 data (the most
current year data are available) the CHEF need is easily $32 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fiscal year 2004 is the most current year that CHEF data area
available since expenditures are not reported until the following
fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fiscal year 2004, the IHS estimates that there are 156,862
deferred services totaling $144.7 million. This is an increase of 8,339
cases over fiscal year 2003. In addition, there are another 23,368
eligible cases that meet the eligibility requirements for CHS services,
but are denied because the care is not within the CHS medical
priorities (Priority One). Every year tribes simply do not submit
claims since they know that in the last quarter claims are not likely
to be approved.
TABLE 16.--PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request....................................... 49,690
Increase/Decrease (10.4 percent).......................... 4,675
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate.......................... 3,151
President's Proposed Increase............................. 4,675
Shortfall................................................. (1,524)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
public health nursing (ihs 33)
The President's request for Public Health Nurses (PHNs) is a 10.4
percent increase though it is not enough maintain current services. The
NPAIHB estimates it will take $3.1 million to maintain current
services. The President proposes new staffing of $2.8 million (60
percent of increase). This will leave only $1.9 million to cover the
costs of maintaining current services.
PHNs are at the center of many community based health care services
including home visits to provide: disease surveillance, direct therapy;
and group education comprise 40 percent of the PHNs time. The growing
elderly population has resulted in a 15 percent increase in home visits
by PHNs. It is clear that this growing need requires greater than
average increases if we are to meet this demand. A significant amount
of time is dedicated to maternal and child health promotion. The
important work being done to lower infant mortality and Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome cannot be maintained if funding falls below the rate of
inflation. SIDS awareness campaigns have resulted in a lower rate of
infant deaths, yet it is still the greatest cause of infant mortality
with rates that are the highest of any group in the United States.
TABLE 17.--HEALTH EDUCATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request....................................... 13,787
Increase/Decrease (10.9 percent).......................... 1,358
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate.......................... 870
President's Proposed Increase............................. 1,358
Shortfall................................................. (488)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
health education (ihs 36)
The President's request for Health Education is quite significant
given the past year's increases for this account. In fiscal year 2006,
the President has requested $13.8 million, an increase of 10.9 percent.
It is more than double past year's requests. The amount needed to
maintain current services is $870,000. After staffing new facilities,
there is only $553,000 available for current services. The President
has also requested $214,000 for pay costs, $164,000 for inflation and
$175,000 for population growth.
The Health Education program communicates the importance and on-
going need for comprehensive clinical and community health education
programs. It ensures education to patients, works with hospitals,
clinics, and community education programs to integrate IHS patient
education protocols and code systems.
TABLE 18.--COMMUNITY HEALTH REPRESENTATIVES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 53,737
Increase/Decrease (4.6 percent)............................ 2,373
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 3,595
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 2,373
Shortfall.................................................. 1,222
------------------------------------------------------------------------
community health representatives (ihs 39)
The President proposes spending $52.7 million for the Community
Health Representatives (CHRs) Program (an increase of 4.6 percent over
last year). No new staffing dollars are proposed for the CHR program.
Increases for CHRs includes $863,000 for pay cost increases, $785,000
for inflation, and $724,000 for population growth. Increased training
for CHRs has made them effective partners on the health care team. CHRs
are at the forefront of much of the preventive health that needs to be
emphasized in Indian health programs. Unfortunately, the requested
level of funding will result in cuts at the program level since it does
not cover inflationary cost increases.
TABLE 19.--URBAN HEALTH
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 33,233
Increase/Decrease (4.5 percent)............................ 1,417
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 3,977
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 1,417
Shortfall.................................................. 2,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
urban health (ihs 49)
The 34 Urban Health Programs serve a diverse patient base with
tribal affiliation from around the country. Most American Indians and
Alaska Natives are urban Indians (an estimated 57 percent) with
approximately 605,000 American Indians or Alaska Natives are eligible
to use Title V Urban Indian Programs. In some cities, however, such as
Phoenix, Anchorage, Albuquerque and Seattle, far more urban Indians
receive their care from IHS and tribally operated programs than urban
programs. There is no data to accurately describe the true need, but it
is clearly underfunded in the Indian Health Service budget. The
availability of care in urban settings relieves the caseload at IHS/
tribal programs and saves many from difficult transportation
challenges. Like the CHS program, medical inflation and past year
shortfalls require at least a 12.5 percent increase just to maintain
services. In fiscal year 2005 Urban Programs received only a 1 percent
increase. This year's increase of $1.4 million will cover pay cost
increases of $482,000, inflation $485,000, and population growth
$449,000. This will leave a shortfall of $2.6 million that will cut
into current services. This means that many patients will be forced to
travel great distances back to reservations to secure care at their
tribe or another Indian health programs.
TABLE 20.--INDIAN HEALTH PROFESSIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 31,503
Increase/Decrease (3.7 percent)............................ 1,111
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 1,216
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 1,111
Shortfall.................................................. 105
------------------------------------------------------------------------
indian health professions (ihs 54)
The Administration's request is $31.5 million, an increase of 3.7
percent over fiscal year 2005 levels. Last year's final approved budget
for this account (a cut of 1.3 percent) makes absolutely no sense when
the IHS is experiencing critical shortages of physicians, nurses,
dentists, pharmacists and optometrists and a growing concern of other
professions essential to staffing health facilities. This year's
increase includes $44,000 for pay cost increases and $1.1 million for
inflation. The NPAIHB estimates the current service need to be $1.2
million, with the President's request short by $105,000. The
scholarship and loan repayment programs are vital to the IHS system
developing its own human resource capital.
TABLE 21.--TRIBAL MANAGEMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 2,430
Increase/Decrease (3.7 percent)............................ 87
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 94
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 87
Shortfall.................................................. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tribal management (ihs 58)
For the first time in two years, the President's request includes
an increase for Tribal Management. The Tribal Management program is an
essential component of the Self-Determination program that awards
grants to Tribes to assist them to assume part of all of their IHS
programs. The grants allow tribes to assess, evaluate, and develop
their capacity to assume IHS programs. The President's request is
adequate to maintain the current level of effort, however does not
provide for any expansion of the current program. The President's
increase of $87,000 will be used to cover the costs inflation.
TABLE 22.--DIRECT OPERATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 63,123
Increase/Decrease (2.4 percent)............................ 1,475
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 2,466
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 1,475
Shortfall.................................................. 991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
direct operations (ihs 60)
Direct Operations includes the cost of management at IHS
headquarters and the 12 Area Offices. This year the President request
includes $63.1 million, an increase of 2.4 percent over last years
spending level. The fiscal year 2005 final approved budget only
included a 1.2 percent increase, so the Presidents request is more than
double the amount received last year. The increase will cover $1.1
million of pay costs and $357,000 for inflation--leaving a shortfall to
cover current services of $991,000.
TABLE 23.--SELF-GOVERNANCE
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 5,752
Increase/Decrease (2.9 percent)............................ 166
NPAIHB Current Services Estimate........................... 223
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 166
Shortfall.................................................. 57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
self-governance (ihs 64)
Two years ago, Congress reduced the Self Governance line item by
$4.7 million, a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. The final
enacted fiscal year 2005 budget did not include an increase for the
Self-Governance programs. In fact, once last year's rescissions are
applied, the Self-Governance programs once again lost funding by having
its base budget eroded by $51,000.
The fiscal year 2006 request of $5.752 million is a 2.9 percent
increase, however, will not even cover past year's shortfalls,
inflation, population growth, and the loss to last year's base budget.
The Self-Governance office supports compacted tribes operating programs
under the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000. This law, Public
Law 106-260 established compacting as permanent, under the new Title V
of Public Law 93-638. The Self-Governance process serves as a model
program for federal government outsourcing, which builds Tribal
infrastructure and provides quality services to Indian people. It is
estimated that Tribes operate $1.8 billion, or 55 percent of the total
IHS budget, and it is imperative that they receive the necessary
resources to develop and build their administrative infrastructure and
allow for new and expanded programs.
The fiscal year 2006 requested increase will go to cover $18,000
for federal pay cost increases and $148,000 for inflationary costs.
This will leave an estimated $57 million to maintain the current
program.
TABLE 24.--CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Request........................................ 268,683
Increase/Decrease (1.9 percent)............................ 5,000
CSC Unmet Obligations Estimate............................. 112,000
President's Proposed Increase.............................. 5,000
Shortfall.................................................. 107,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
contract support costs (ihs 121)
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975
authorizes Tribes to enter into contracts or self-governance compacts
to manage federal programs previously administered by the IHS. The
well-documented achievements of the Indian self-determination policies
have consistently improved service delivery, increased service levels,
and strengthened Tribal governments, institutions, and services for
Indian people. Every Administration since 1975 has embraced this policy
and Congress has repeatedly affirmed it through extensive amendments to
strengthen the Self-Determination Act in 1988 and 1994. The President
fails adequately request Contract Support Costs (CSC) funding to
support the administrative functions of running Tribal health programs.
In the fiscal year 2005 final appropriation, Congress failed to
provide an increase for the second straight year and when the
rescissions of fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 are applied, the
CSC line item has actually had its base funding eroded by $6.9 million
over the past two years. The $264 million provided for CSC is not
adequate to fund past year's shortfalls or provide necessary resources
for Tribes to continue to manage health programs assumed from the
Federal government. The damaging cuts to CSC are contrary to the
Administration's principles of government outsourcing. The fiscal year
2006 increase of $5 million will not even restore the CSC base funding
lost over the last two years!
For the first time in two years, the President request includes a
small increase of $5 million for the CSC account. The increase will be
directed for new and expanded Public Law 93-638 programs. Congress must
appropriate an additional $107 million to eliminate the ongoing
shortfall. The continuing shortfall threatens to pit tribe against
tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all inflationary
increases in order to fund new contractors.
information technology infrastructure (ihs 74)
The Information Technology Infrastructure account supports the
adoption of information technology in the Indian health care system.
The activities supported by this program go to reduce medical errors
and improve health care quality, and modernize the administrative
functions of the IHS system. The Resource Patient Management System is
the enterprise health information system and is supported by this
account. In fiscal year 2006, the President proposes a $1.7 million
decrease for this very important function. Many tribal leaders and
health directors feel that this decrease is a direct result of the data
set-aside funds from the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. It is
felt that the residual function of maintaining the RPMS and other data
systems is being offset by the data improvement funds from the SDPI.
The information technology needs of Indian Country are too great and
this offset should not continue in the future.
medicaid, medicare and private collections (ihs 78)
The fiscal year 2006 budget justification for the first time in
many years, proposes increases of $8.4 million in Medicare and Medicaid
collections. This estimate may not be entirely accurate given severe
cutbacks in the Medicaid program in many states. While the IHS and
Tribes have significantly increased their ability to collect third
party reimbursements, the Medicare and Medicaid programs have entered a
period of change.
The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) will be fully implemented in
2006 and proposed changes will significantly impact the ability of
Indian health systems to collect third party resources from this very
important program. Increasing Medicare collections will be difficult
since the MMA fails to adequately incorporate Indian health programs
into the prescription drug program. It fails to protect the right of
elderly and disabled Indian people to receive prescription drug
coverage without charge from the federal government. The new program
raises significant issues of access and cost-sharing which will impact
how and where elderly and disabled Indians get coverage. The Medicare
program also threatens to significantly reduce reimbursements to Indian
health programs for prescription drugs provided by IHS and Tribally
operated programs. The current Medicaid all-inclusive rate is $206 for
outpatient visits.
No one really knows how much is collected for Medicare and
Medicaid, but at least the Administration does not inflate the
estimates and then use the inflated estimates to justify lower
increases in the IHS budget. The estimates are not worth restating
here. One wonders why the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid cannot
produce better figures since they are paying the bills. In addition,
they are paying states 100 percent of the costs of American Indians and
Alaska Natives.
There are some indications that collections will not increase as
much as estimated by the Administration because enrollment growth in
Medicaid has stopped in Washington and is declining in Oregon over the
past two years. In addition, CMS has recently denied Washington's
request to exempt American Indians from co-payments at the point of
service, with a similar issue pending in Oregon. The NPAIHB and the
American Indian Health Commission are working with the state to
challenge this change in CMS policy.
changes in medicare and medicaid rules needed
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid should work with states and
tribes to insure that American Indians and Alaska Natives can choose
Indian Health Programs as their providers. They should not be
automatically assigned to managed care plans nor should they be
required to pay co-payments or premiums. The Medicare program also
threatens to significantly reduce reimbursements to Indian health
programs for prescription drugs provided by IHS and Tribally operated
programs. Beginning in 2006, seniors that get their pharmacy coverage
under Medicaid (Dual-Eligibles) will be required to choose or be
assigned to a private prescription drug plan and may no longer receive
prescriptions from Indian programs. Tribal programs have become
increasingly dependent on Medicaid reimbursements to help their under-
funded programs. IHS funding covers only about 50 percent of the health
needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. The new law could
significantly reduce the payments to the Indian programs by both
encouraging the elderly and disabled to enroll in private prescription
drug programs, which may or may not include IHS and Tribal pharmacies
in their networks, and by reducing the rate of reimbursement. CMS
should exempt American Indian people from the premiums for enrollment
into the Part D program and waive the co-pay associated with filling
prescriptions under the new Part D program.
special diabetes funding (ihs 81)
Fiscal year 2004 was the first year of the $150 million per year
authorized for diabetes by the 107th Congress. In response to
Congressional direction, the IHS developed and implemented a
competitive grant program entitled, the Targeted Demonstration Project.
The competitive grant program provides $24 million to focus on primary
prevention of Type 2 diabetes and reduction of cardiovascular risk in
American Indian people. A careful evaluation of this expenditure of
over $100 million for a research project should be conducted annually
to ensure the wise use of limited funds.
The Special Diabetes program will most surely result in program
dollar savings in future years. Tribes welcome new resources for
diabetes and hope to make these funds a recurring addition to the IHS
budget until such time as they are not needed. These funds are a good
investment. They are helping tribes nationwide to understand the
magnitude of the burden of disease from diabetes and to develop
interventions. They will likely save future spending on this disease.
Improved health status depends on adequate appropriations. In some
cases failing to maintain current services will result in the need for
greater resources in the future. In addition to the human suffering it
causes, diabetes is a financial drain on Indian health program
resources. If prevention activities are successful, much suffering and
expense will be avoided. Tribes are successfully developing programs to
prevent and treat this serious disease that disproportionately impacts
Indian people. The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board's
EpiCenter is assisting tribes in this effort and continues to report on
progress made by Northwest Tribes. Northwest tribes have invested over
$1 million of their own diabetes allocation in improving Diabetes data
reporting and information generation since the start of the SDPI.
health facilities account (ihf 1)
Maintenance and Improvement (M&I) (IHF 3)
Over the past 12 years (fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 2005) there
has been less than a 5 percent increase in M&I despite the fact that
the inventory of space has increase appreciably (over 30 percent in the
Portland Area). Many tribes have seen a decrease in their funding due
to the lack of adequate increases to reflect the growth in new and
expanded facilities. The current (2004) replacement value of facilities
eligible for M&I is $2.25 billion. The capital assets of Indian health
facilities must be protected from deteriorating due to lack of funding
for routine maintenance.
The IHS Backlog of Essential Maintenance and Repair (BEMAR) survey
for October 2004 estimates that there is a chronic backlog of $482
million in needed repairs to Indian health facilities. In fiscal year
2002 $14,145,000 was available for program deficiencies identified by
BEMAR. The Indian Health Service should continue to update this
information to provide Congress with the basis for increased funding to
address this need.
The President's request for M&I is $49.9 million, an increase of
$700,000 or 1.4 percent over last years enacted level. The NPAIHB
estimates that it will take at least $1.9 million to adequately address
the M&I needs of Indian health facilities. This leaves a shortfall of
$1.3 million.
Sanitation (IHF 8)
Approximately 7.5 percent of all AI/AN homes lack safe water in the
home compared to less than 1 percent average nationally. Unfortunately,
the enacted fiscal year 2005 budget for Sanitation services was cut by
$1.1 million even though the list of documented projects totaling $915
million. The President's fiscal year 2006 request includes $93.5
million for Sanitation Facilities, an increase of $1.75 million or 1.9
percent over last year's enacted level. The NPAIHB estimates that it
will take at least $3.7 million to adequately address the sanitation
needs of Indian Country. This leaves a shortfall of $1.9 million.
Health Facilities Construction (IHF 14)
Northwest tribes reluctantly support the one-year pause in new
facilities construction if the money saved is redirected to the health
services account. As noted above, facilities, especially hospitals, are
expensive to build and their staffing packages more costly still. The
Administration and Congress funded $88.6 million in fiscal year 2005
while allowing Contract Health Services to erode with funding 75
percent below the level needed to maintain services.
The cost of the Ft. Defiance Hospital through fiscal year 2004
totaled $125 million--far above the initial estimate of $105 million.
The latest projections for the Phoenix Indian Medical Center have
jumped from $526 million to over $589 million, an increase of $53
million in a little over one year. The Portland Area tribes are on
record as opposing any new facilities construction projects until the
IHS completes its revision of the Health Facilities Construction
Priority System. The current priority list was developed in 1991 and
virtually locks out Tribes from badly needed construction dollars
unless you are one of the facilities on the current list. The current
environment of delivering health care services has changed dramatically
from large hospital based systems to smaller outpatient health clinics,
and the current use of facilities health construction dollars may not
be the most beneficial use of valuable resources.
Alternative Methods of Acquiring Health Facilities
If new facilities construction dollars are restored to the fiscal
year 2006 budget, some of these funds should go to alternative funding
mechanisms. Northwest Tribes have long encouraged more alternative
methods to construct new facilities. These alternative methods of
acquiring health facilities must be supported. There is such an
enormous need that depending exclusively upon IHS appropriations for
all health facility requirements is not realistic. The Indian Health
Service and Tribes have developed a strategy that will greatly increase
the number of new ambulatory health facilities constructed, but some
IHS funding is required for this strategy of leveraging financing to
work.
The Indian Health Care Improvement Amendments (Section 818 of
Public Law 102-573) authorized joint venture projects in which a tribe
plans and constructs a health facility and IHS provides the equipment,
staffing and operations costs. The Administration requests no funds for
additional projects. $20 million would fund 2 to 3 projects per year.
The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Section 306 of Public Law
102-573) authorized a grant program for the construction, expansion and
modernization of small ambulatory care facilities. This is a program
that has long been needed to assist tribes to secure quality health
care in isolated rural areas. In the Northwest this could mean
replacing old, worn out trailers that serve as the health clinics in
tribal communities. Small modern clinic facilities assist tribes to
attract health care professionals, provide a health focus for the
community, and where tribes are agreeable and resources available, can
provide health care services to underserved non-Indian individuals in
the community. $25 million would support 4 to 10 projects a year. There
is an excellent record of achievement that should be rewarded with
increased appropriations.
The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board has also suggested
that the Indian Health Service secure authority to make loan guarantees
for tribes who are seeking outside financing for health facilities.
This would create another opportunity for tribes to build needed
facilities rather than waiting for the Indian Health Service to fulfill
its obligation. A loan guarantee would substantially reduce the debt
service associated with financing facilities. A $15 million fund
(possibly funded with government bonds) could support construction of 7
projects a year with tribes repaying their loans with Medicaid
collections or other sources of revenue.
Facilities and Environmental Health and Engineering Support (IHF-35)
This line item consists of four subsidiary activities; facilities
support, environmental health support, and the Office of Environmental
Health and Engineering support. The fiscal year 2005 enacted level
included $141.6 million for this account, and increase of 2.7 percent.
The President's fiscal year 2006 request is $150.9 million, an increase
of $9.2 million or 6.6 percent. The NPAIHB estimates that it will take
$5.7 million to maintain the current levels of service.
Equipment (IHF 55)
The Administration requests $17.960 million for Equipment, an
increase of $623,000 or 3.6 percent over last year's enacted level.
Indian Health Service estimates an inventory of $320 million in
equipment with an average estimated life expectancy of 6 years. New
facilities, including facilities built with non-IHS funds would benefit
from additional funding for the equipment line item. The equipment line
item funds normal equipment replacement due to age and maintenance. A
reasonable estimate is that Indian health programs will need an
additional $18 million annually to cover needs for biomedical, facility
and telecommunications equipment. This amount will only cover the cost
of upgrades and will not cover the cost of equipment--even where that
would be more cost effective in the long run.
the fiscal year 2006 ihs budget in the context of the new budgetary
realities
It is worthwhile to consider the overall budgetary context in any
analysis of the fiscal year 2006 Indian Health Service budget. When
President Clinton left office there was a budget surplus that was
anticipated to continue to grow to $6 trillion over ten years.
Unfortunately, the recent recession combined with tax cuts and war
spending associated with fighting terrorism and funding for homeland
defense has completely reversed the expected revenue and spending
picture. It is anticipated that deficit spending will continue over the
next ten years.
TABLE 25.--ANNUAL BUDGET SURPLUS/DEFICIT PROJECTIONS
[In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------ Total
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO Baseline Projections................ (539) (487) (477) (473) (463) (461) (2,900)
President's Budget Projections.......... (394) (332) (278) (250) (246) (229) (1,729)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--CBO--The Budget & Economic Outlook Fiscal Year 2006-Fiscal Year 2015, January 2005
Table 25 above compares significant differences between the
estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and President (OMB)
over the next five years. The current budget deficit is $412 billion.
As the table illustrates, the CBO estimates a $539 billion deficit,
while the President proposes a $394 in fiscal year 2006. Over the next
five years, the President proposes to cut the deficit by 50 percent
from $412 down to $229 billion.
Budget Realities
For fiscal year 2006, discretionary programs represent
approximately one-third of the budget of the United States government.
Debt interest will represent approximately 7 percent of the budget down
from 11 percent last year. Mandatory spending for Social Security Act
programs like Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory programs such as
veterans programs represent over 54 percent of the budget. Debt
interest is projected to stay approximately the same over the next five
growing to 11 percent in fiscal year 2010. The CBO projections do
include a modest estimate of $32 billion for supplemental requests for
the war efforts that continue to linger in Iraq. It is expected that
this amount will be greater than that, and perhaps as much as $40
billion in fiscal year 2006.
Discretionary Spending
President Bush has proposed $843 billion in discretionary spending
authority for fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2005 spending amounts
for discretionary included $840 billion in spending authority and $11.5
billion for disaster relief enacted in October 2004. This means that
discretionary spending will only grow by 1.7 percent or $14 billion
from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. Meanwhile, the Defense
appropriations have grown by 4.4 percent.
Last year, the CBO estimated the Iraq war could cost as much as $41
billion, however the current supplemental appropriation is $82 billion.
The CBO has estimated a $32 billion supplemental appropriation for Iraq
in fiscal year 2006. Last year, the CBO estimated that the ongoing
military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the continuing war on
terrorism could cost $280 billion over ten years. These costs have
exceeded the initial estimates of the war and will continue to have an
impact on U.S. spending with a severe effect on discretionary spending
over the next five years.
Discretionary Spending for Indian Programs
Federal spending on Indian programs is considered discretionary
spending. This does not mean the U.S. Government has no obligation to
fund Indian programs, but it does mean that an annual appropriation is
required to fund these programs, including the Indian Health Service
budget. This year's HHS budget only includes $67.1 million, or 10.5
percent, of its total budget for discretionary programs. The IHS budget
($3.05 billion) represents less than 1 percent of the overall HHS
budget ($642,188 billion) and 4.8 percent of the discretionary portion
of the HHS budget. The President proposes to hold discretionary
spending to 1 percent (less the rate of inflation). Given the costs of
the war in Iraq, the Administration's proposal to cut the deficit in
half in five years, and some of the reform efforts to curtail mandatory
spending--the prospect for discretionary programs does not look good in
fiscal year 2006.
Appropriations Subcommittees
The House has reorganized its appropriation subcommittee structure
from 13 down to 10 subcommittees. The House Interior Subcommittee has
responsibility for the IHS appropriation and has also picked up the
responsibility of appropriations for the Environmental Protection
Agency. It is not expected that the environmental issues will compete
directly with Indian health care, therefore the added responsibility
should not off-set the needs of Indian health programs. However, with
the Senate continuing to have 12 appropriations committees, it is
difficult to see how the Senate and House can work on appropriations
bills with one body having 12 and the other having 10 committees. It is
to be seen if the Senate will follow suit with the same reorganization
structure of the House. If the Senate does not change, it will make it
difficult to conference appropriation bills and legislation that
impacts the different committees. The Senate and House Interior
Appropriation Committees develop the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Indian Health Service budgets. IHS funds are transferred to the
Department of Health and Human Services (similar to FDA funds from
Agriculture to HHS). The Interior Appropriations Committee appropriates
only 2 percent percent of all discretionary spending or about 5 percent
of all non-defense discretionary spending. The Bush Administration's
fiscal year 2006 request for the Interior Appropriations Bill totals
$19.8 billion in budget authority. This is a $200 million decrease from
the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. If this ends up being the 302(b)
allocation to the committee, the committee will be under severe
constraints in allocating these small increases across the varied
programs of the committee.
The Indian Health Service Budget and Department of Health and Human
Services
The fiscal year 2006 Budget Authority of the Department of and
Human Services totals approximately $642 billion. The final enacted
fiscal year 2005 appropriation for the Indian Health Service budget
totals $2.98 billion. This means the Indian Health Service represents
less than one percent (0.53 percent) of all spending by the Department.
By comparison, Medicare represents $340,412 (53.2 percent) of all
spending and Medicaid $193 billion (30 percent) of total spending by
the Department of Health and Human Services in fiscal year 2005. The
Part D drug benefit of the Medicare Modernization Act will increase
Medicare spending in fiscal year 2006 to over 50 percent of HHS's
budget. Medicaid's spending is down from 31 percent last year to 30
percent this year, a reflection of this Administration's attempt to
control spending in mandatory programs and the shifting of some costs
to Medicare.
Although the IHS fiscal year 2006 increase compares favorably to
other HHS agencies, Table 26 below shows the IHS, as the only agency
whose only business is providing health care services, lags behind most
agencies that do not suffer from the effects of medical inflation
eroding their core programs.
TABLE 26.--FIVE HEALTH CARE AGENCIES OF THE HHS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5-year
2006 percent
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 percent increase
change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDC............................................................. $3,823 $4,449 $4,340 $4,440 $4,572 $4,017 -12.1 4.8
NIH............................................................. 20,535 23,554 27,178 28,041 28,444 28,845 1.4 28.8
HRSA............................................................ 6,304 6,209 7,017 7,188 7,373 5,982 -18.9 -5.4
IHS............................................................. 2,604 2,758 2,849 2,922 2,984 3,048 2.1 14.6
SAMHSA.......................................................... 2,966 3,136 3,158 3,235 3,269 3,215 -1.7 7.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--DHHS Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2005.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
NIH Program Increases compared with IHS
The chart below illustrates the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
budget increases over the last seven years as compared to the increases
received for the Indian Health Services. Over the last seven years, the
NIH has received $11 billion in budget increases, while the IHS has
only received $627 million--a difference of 94 percent.
The Department's discretionary program spending is just 10.5
percent ($67.1 billion in budget authority) of its total spending.
Other discretionary programs in the Department include the National
Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
The Agenda of the 109th Congress
Republicans in the 109th Congress will continue to control both the
House and the Senate, while at the same time having a Republican
president. Despite nominal control of the government, it is once again
unclear whether this Congress will pass a budget resolution since the
Republicans do not have a veto-proof Senate. If there is a budget
resolution it is likely there will be a reconciliation bill. Since such
a bill only requires 51 votes for passage it is the likely vehicle for
important agenda items of the Republican Party. If a reconciliation
bill is introduced, it could mean certain cost savings measures will be
taken by Congress that will adversely effect Indian health programs.
Reconciliation directives instruct various committees to meet budget
targets through spending and tax measures.
The must-pass appropriation bills will be a key test of
bipartisanship claims of President Bush. If he insists on his extremely
low increase for non-defense spending (and he has House support for
this), battles with the more moderate Senate could ensue. The
Republicans in the Senate will have their own difficulties securing 60
votes to pass Administration-sponsored legislation.
The agenda for the 109th Congress will be focused on reacting to
the Presidential priority of cutting the deficit in half over the next
four years, wrestling with the challenge of reforming Social Security,
and controlling spending in the Medicaid program. The Administration's
tax cutting proposals are becoming more difficult to justify, but will
do well in the current Congress. Finally an $83 billion supplemental
for increase defense spending is likely.
The Performance Assessment Rating Tool
A feature of the President's Management Agenda, the Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is being used to measure the success of
federally funded programs to meet their goals and assess intended
results. This year marks the third year that PART has been used to
assess programs and make recommendations to improve performance. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uses these factors to make
decisions about funding and budget increases. For the first time in
three years, federally funded programs have seen the impact that PART
will play in the appropriations process. In fiscal year 2006, there are
154 programs that the President has proposed to cut or drop in the
budget. Fourteen of these programs are in the Department of Health and
Human Services. Three of the identified programs include Indian related
programs (BIA School Construction Program, Native American Housing
Block Grant Program, and the EPA Discretionary Proposal for Alaska
Natives).
Although the Indian health programs have scored quite well in the
PART process, it is a wake up call to make sure that Indian health
programs comply with the requirements of the PART process. This is the
first year that significant cuts and reprogramming have occurred as a
result of PART. This year, the administrative elements of 638 programs
will be scored using PART and tribes and the IHS will need to work
together to ensure the best rating possible.
Conclusion: The Purpose of this Report
This document and the Portland, Oregon budget workshop that was
held March 9, 2005 represent an effort by the NPAIHB to provide tribes
with an analysis of the Administration's proposed Indian Health Service
budget and the pertinent legislation to assist them in their efforts to
improve health care for their people. It is intended to identify issues
that will impact or benefit all Northwest Tribes. While it is
recognized that individual tribes will have their own particular issues
and projects, it is hoped that tribes will also embrace the main budget
and legislative issues identified in this document. Issues with broad
support are most likely to achieve congressional action.
Budget formulation should be a participatory process. One of the
best ways to develop such participation is for Tribes and the Indian
Health Service to agree on common principles and determine the cost of
achieving those objectives. It is the connection between budget
principles and funding that can bring Tribes and IHS together on the
budget. The evaluation of this budget in Table 27 is based on these
principles.
Evaluation Based on Budget Principles: Table 27
Table 27 grades the President's fiscal year 2006 IHS budget against
criteria (or principles) that the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
Board has developed and applied to budget analyses over the past five
years. It is the Northwest Tribes' attempt to make an inherently
subjective process more objective. The Northwest Portland Area Indian
Health Board stands ready to engage in an honest debate over each
aspect of this evaluation to clarify our position in the debate over
funding Indian health programs. As noted above, the President's
proposed fiscal year 2006 increase for the Indian Health Service is
greater than nearly every other discretionary program. Unfortunately,
the obligation to fund health services is not considered discretionary
by Northwest tribes. The President's grades reflect this view by
Tribes. As Tribal and IHS health programs go on Priority One status in
March of 2005 they cannot give the President high marks for meeting the
health care needs of Indian people.
TABLE 27.--GRADING THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2006 INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President
February 8, 2005
fiscal year 2006 Senate House
grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria or Budget
Principle:
1 Budget Information C- ........ ........
Shared with Tribes in
Consultation Sessions
Prior to release date
of the first Monday in
February
2 Appropriate adjustment D ........ ........
will be made to fully
cover expected
inflation
3 Appropriate increases C+ ........ ........
will be included to
address population
growth
4 Appropriate adjustments B ........ ........
will be made to fully
fund tribal and federal
employee compensation
5 The Contract Health D+ ........ ........
Service Budget will be
increased to fully fund
the need for deferred
services
6 Collection estimates are C- ........ ........
not represented as
fulfilling the federal
responsibility to fully
fund the IHS budget
7 Increases will be F ........ ........
provided to address the
goals of the Indian
Health Care Improvement
Act
8 Full funding will be D+ ........ ........
included to support
staff associated with
new construction
projects
9 The Catastrophic Health F ........ ........
Emergency (CHEF) Fund
will be budgeted at a
level to cover all
qualifying cases
10 Funding will be provided F ........ ........
to cover Contract
Support Costs for
tribes electing to
compact or contract
their health care
services
11 Adequately support D- ........ ........
maintenance of IHS and
tribal health
facilities
12 The public announcements F ........ ........
relating to the budget
will honestly depict
what is in the budget
13 Provides adequate F ........ ........
funding to reduce
health disparities
14 Honor the federal trust F ........ ........
responsibility to
provide health care
services to American
Indians and Alaska
Natives
Overall Grade D ........ ........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Advocates for Health, Public Parks, and
Recreation
The undersigned organizations urge your support for a fiscal year
2006 appropriation of $100 million from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund for assistance to state and local governments, and $25 million for
the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program. These federal matching
grant programs contribute importantly to nationwide health and wellness
strategies.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recognizes that
obesity is a full-scale epidemic, with related health care costs
exceeding $117 billion a year. Children and youth especially benefit
from regular physical activity and the development of healthy habits,
including active recreation. About 15 percent of all children are
overweight, a condition that increases the risk of high blood
cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes. By being physically
active on a regular basis, often at public park and recreation sites,
youth may be able to avoid or delay many health problems.
Studies reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association
(March 10, 2004) on the increasing rate of mortality attributable to
physical inactivity and poor diet also suggest that investments in
public park and recreation facilities that encourage active lifestyles
are an imperative. The 365,000 deaths annually due to physical
inactivity and poor diet is the ``largest increase among all causes of
death,'' the JAMA report observes. The International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) conducted a survey in 2004 to determine
how communities could address the critical and growing issue of obesity
at the community level. Nearly 89 percent of the respondents agreed
that community park and recreation departments should take the lead in
developing communities that are conducive to active living.
A report by the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion reinforces our recommendations. The Center observed,
``(C)haracteristics of our communities such as the accessibility and
location of parks, trails, sidewalks and recreation centers . . . may
play an even greater (than social environments) role in promoting or
discouraging an individual or family's level of physical activity.''
Congressional support of investments in public access through
recreation development and resource conservation holds high potential
for perhaps stabilizing health care costs over the long term. For
example, the four diseases that may be prevented by appropriate active
lifestyles, including active recreation--heart disease, cancer, stroke,
and diabetes--are life-threatening and costly to treat. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention has observed that if physically inactive
people were to become sufficiently active, we could potentially reduce
health care costs by over $75 billion a year. Active recreation also
can promote mental health by reducing feelings of anxiety and
depression.
With appropriate funds, thousands of public park and recreation
facilities in American communities will be created, restored, and
expanded, thus offering greater opportunity for active lifestyles. We
urge your support for federal-state-local fiscal partnerships that will
further these objectives.
American Public Health Association; American Running Association;
Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation; Association of State and
Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors; California Food Policy
Advocates; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Directors of
Health Promotion and Education; East Coast Greenway Alliance; Elyria
City Health District; Healthy Streets Campaign and the Chicagoland
Bicycle Federation; International Health, Racquet & Sportsclub
Association; Louisiana Public Health Institute; MetroParks Tacoma;
National Center for Bicycling & Walking; National Recreation and Park
Association; New York State Nutrition Council; North American Society
for Pediatric Exercise Medicine; Pedestrians Educating Drivers on
Safety; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association; Shape Up
America!; Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Texas Public Health
Association; United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association; U.S. Soccer
Federation; U.S. Soccer Foundation; United States Tennis Association;
U.S. Youth Soccer; and YMCA of the USA.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians
introduction
The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians appreciates the
opportunity to present testimony on the President's budget for fiscal
year 2006 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
Service (IHS). The Tribe is disappointed that the Administration has
failed to acknowledge the unique needs facing Indian tribes. The
President's fiscal year 2006 budget continues to include programs
essential to Indian tribes in across-the-board budget cuts in the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill without assessing the
successes Indian tribes have had in taking greater control over the use
of BIA- and IHS-funded programs. We agree with the statement of Senator
John McCain who, while a fiscal conservative, stated that:
``I object to many of the decreases in funding that are proposed in
the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget for Indian programs. The
federal government has continually reneged on its trust and moral
obligations to meet the educational, healthcare, and housing needs of
Indians, and these needs far outweigh the imperceptible contribution
that the proposed cuts will make to reducing the deficit.''
The President's fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies'
budget is an unfortunate shell game, redistributing flat or reduced
appropriations for Indian programs among existing and newly created
programs for Indian tribes, rather than realistically assessing the
needs of Indian tribes, most of which are confronted with higher levels
of unemployment and health issues than the general public. For example,
increasing funding for the Office of Special Trustee by $78 million for
the Interior Department's historic accounting of Individual Indian
Money Accounts while reducing funding for other Indian programs
essentially forces Indian tribes to underwrite the cost of a court-
ordered mandate--to quantify more than a century of negligence and
incompetence--with funds otherwise appropriated by Congress to benefit
Indian tribes and their members. This is an action not worthy of a
great Nation. We ask the Congress to restore federal appropriations for
Indian tribes and to finance court-ordered mandates from separate
funds.
Without adequate federal investment in tribal governments, and the
limited infrastructure which characterizes most rural Indian
communities, Indian tribes will continue to struggle to meet the needs
of their members. Cuts of $9.3 million in the BIA's Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) budget, a program essential to Tribal government
operations, hampers the ability of tribal governments to provide basic
services to their members as well as to attract businesses and other
economic development opportunities to their reservations. Coupled with
significant cuts of $44 million in HUD's NAHASDA Indian Housing Block
Grant (IHBG) program and reductions of $86 million in the Indian Health
Service's facility construction program, the President's budget
contributes to rather than reverses the debilitating cycle of
unemployment, poor housing, health and societal ills that diminishes
the futures of so many Native Americans today. Many of the programs
targeted for reduction are pass-through programs which the federal
agencies essentially block grant to Indian tribes, the local
governments best able to prioritize limited resources to maximal
effect.
Cutting the BIA's TPA budget, which the BIA obligates to hundreds
of Indian tribes, will force Indian tribal governments to lay off
experienced personnel and curtail program operations at a time when
demand is only increasing. This is a misuse of federal funds and has
little effect on the deficit.
bureau of indian affairs
Move the Huron Band Out of BIA's ``New Tribes'' Funding and Award
Adequate BIA Resources Commensurate with Our True Needs
The Tribe was restored to federal acknowledgment as a historic
Indian tribe in 1995, yet the BIA continues to award the Tribe only
``new tribes'' funding, and has not adequately assessed our true needs
and obligated appropriate funding. As a result, the Tribe has been
deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. We request that
the BIA Midwest Region be instructed to examine the needs of our Tribe
and increase TPA funding based on the actual needs of our members and
Tribal government rather than continue with only modest increases to
the ``new Tribes'' funding we have been receiving since the late
1990's.
Restore Cuts to the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) Program
As noted above, the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) budget
of $760 million is divided up among hundreds of Indian tribes which
assume Department of Interior programs serving or benefiting Indian
tribes under authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act. Public Law 93-638. This unique form of government
contract is perhaps the only government contract where the entity
contracting with the United States must subsidize the program it is
carrying out on behalf of the United States. For-profit businesses
usually make significant profits on government contracts, but sovereign
Indian governments are given inadequate funds to carry out essential
government programs for their members and are not provided the full
level of funding required to meet the program's requirements.
In December 1999, we submitted a fee-to-trust petition to the
Interior Department to accept four parcels of land totaling 365 acres
into trust. The application is still pending. Our primary economic
initiative, to establish a tribal gaming facility on a 79 acre parcel
in Calhoun County pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, has
been delayed by legal challenges. We will persevere with that effort
until we succeed. But in the interim, our needs and the needs of our
members are not being met. The Tribe requests increases to the BIA's
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) program to increase funds for such TPA
programs as Aid to Tribal Government, Education, Law Enforcement,
General Assistance and Real Estate/Rights Protection programs. We ask
that Congress increase the TPA budget by 6.5 percent or $50 million
above the fiscal year 2005 appropriations level.
Increase Contract Support Cost Funds
Under the Indian Self-Determination Act, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services, are required to provide Contract Support Costs
(administrative overhead) on top of the base program funds obligated to
an Indian tribe's Indian Self-Determination Act contract or Self-
governance agreement. For a number of years now Congress has capped the
amount of Contract Support Costs available to Indian tribes assuming
BIA-funded programs. Historically, Contract Support Cost funding has
not been adequate to provide 100 percent of the costs incurred by
Indian tribes. The BIA usually awards tribes a fraction (e.g., 90
percent) of the Contract Support Cost funds they require. The balance
of the cost incurred by Indian tribes is either subsidized by the
tribes or taken from the direct program award, thus diminishing
services.
We ask the Congress to restore the $2.0 million reduction proposed
by the Administration and increase funding for Contract Support Costs
from $134.6 to $150 million.
indian health service
The Tribe operates two health clinics, one in Grand Rapids and one
in Battle Creek, Michigan to serve the health needs of our 600 tribal
members. The Tribe serves a seven county service area encompassing
Allegan, Barry, Branch, Calhoun, Kalamazoo, Kent and Ottawa counties.
With federal funds from the IHS, plus a grant from the Inter-Tribal
Council of Michigan, we employ two nurses, two Community Health
Representatives (CHRs), a diabetic coordinator, a full and part-time
social worker, a child welfare specialist, and until recently a nurse
practitioner. As our members age, our health care costs continue to
rise. While we hope one day to have the resources to cover all of the
health care needs of our members, at present we are reliant on IHS
funds to meet the health needs of our members.
The President's budget request for Contract Health Services is $525
million, a 5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2005 level. Every
health facility which does not offer a full complement of medical
services must refer patients to better staffed or equipped clinics and
hospitals. Tribes must use Contract Health Services funds to pay for
such referrals. Medical inflation costs far exceed 5 percent and we
request that Congress increase the appropriation for Contract Health
Services by $52 million to $550 million for fiscal year 2006 so that
Indian tribes may provide additional health services to more members
and other eligible Native Americans. Our Tribe has an especially high
incidence of cancer and diabetes. Additional funding will help us
diagnose and treat more members so that they can continue to lead
productive and longer lives.
Thank you for permitting us the opportunity to submit comments on
the President's fiscal year 2006 Interior and Related Agencies budget.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Advocates for Health, Public Parks, and Recreation, prepared
statement...................................................... 342
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, prepared
statement...................................................... 306
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
Opening statement............................................ 54
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement...................... 296
American:
Forest and Paper Association, prepared statement............. 265
Geological Institute, prepared statement..................... 237
Hiking Society, prepared statement........................... 149
Horse:
Defense Fund, prepared statement......................... 152
Protection Association, prepared statement............... 152
Humane Association, prepared statement....................... 152
Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement....... 153
Institute of Biological Sciences, prepared statement......... 239
Mustang and Burro Association, Inc., prepared statement...... 152
Society:
For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, prepared
statements...........................................152, 156
Of Civil Engineers, prepared statement................... 251
Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement................ 259
Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, prepared statement......... 152
Americans for the Arts, prepared statement....................... 256
Appalachian:
Mountain Club, prepared statement............................ 266
Trail Conference Land Trust, prepared statement.............. 268
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation,
prepared statement............................................. 157
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, prepared
statement...................................................... 228
Awwa Research Foundation, prepared statement..................... 161
Bosworth, Dale N., Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Summary statement............................................ 8
Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana:
Opening statements........................................... 1, 53
Questions submitted by.......................................36, 98
Cass County, Minnesota, prepared statement....................... 162
Center for Environmental Education and Information, prepared
statement...................................................... 152
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, statement
of............................................................. 72
Colorado River Board of California, prepared statement........... 163
Confederated Tribes of the:
Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement.......... 164
Siletz Indians of Oregon, prepared statement................. 309
Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................ 168
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
Opening statements........................................... 3, 56
Questions submitted.........................................49, 137
Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement...................... 171
Eastern Forest Partnership, prepared statement................... 270
Ecological Society of America, prepared statement................ 298
Endangered Species Coalition, prepared statement................. 172
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California,
statement of................................................... 72
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement... 176
Forest Guardians, prepared statement............................. 152
Friends of:
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, prepared
statement.................................................. 174
Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Inc.,
prepared statement......................................... 175
The Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement........... 270
Fund for Animals, prepared statement............................. 152
Grand County Council, Grand County, Utah, letter from............ 179
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared
statement...................................................... 179
Highlands Coalition, prepared statement.......................... 186
Hoosic River Watershed Association, prepared statement........... 188
Humane Society of the United States, prepared statements.......152, 182
Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts
Development, prepared statement................................ 189
International:
Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico, prepared
statement.................................................. 192
Society:
For the Protection of Mustangs and Burros, prepared
statement.............................................. 152
Of Tropical Foresters, prepared statement................ 192
Intertribal Timber Council, prepared statement................... 193
Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement............... 273
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, questions
submitted by................................................... 140
Kashdan, Hank, Director, Program and Budget Analysis, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Summary statement............................................ 3
Kennesaw Mountain Historical Association, prepared statement..... 241
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
statement...................................................... 196
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator from Vermont, opening
statement...................................................... 57
Least Resistance Training Concepts, Inc., prepared statement..... 152
Mesa County Commissioners, prepared statement.................... 198
Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District, prepared statement................................... 185
National Association of State:
Energy Officials, prepared statement......................... 300
Foresters, prepared statement................................ 274
National:
Coalition for History, prepared statement.................... 261
Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement.. 241
Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, prepared
statement.................................................. 244
Humanities Alliance, prepared statement...................... 262
Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement........... 247
Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement........... 199
Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement.......... 201
Research Center for Coal and Energy, prepared statement...... 303
Wildlife:
Federation, prepared statement........................... 276
Refuge Association, prepared statement................... 280
Native Plant Conservation Campaign, prepared statement........... 282
Nevada, State of, letter from.................................... 143
Northern:
Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement...... 207
Forest Alliance, prepared statement.......................... 284
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, prepared statement.. 311
Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Summary statement............................................ 57
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians, prepared statement 343
Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement................. 286
Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement... 207
Penobscot Indian Nation, letter from............................. 144
Public Service Company of New Mexico, prepared statement......... 250
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement.................... 216
Return to Freedom, prepared statement............................ 152
Rey, Hon. Mark E., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture......... 1
Rivers and Trails Coalition, prepared statement.................. 218
Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, prepared
statement...................................................... 219
Sappier, James, Tribal Chief, Penobscot Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 145
Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and
Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior.... 53
Shay, Sgt. Charles, prepared statement........................... 147
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,
prepared statement............................................. 220
Society:
For Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statements.....152, 224
Of American Foresters, prepared statement.................... 287
Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement..... 227
State:
And Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators,
prepared statement......................................... 228
Of Wyoming, Office of the Governor, prepared statement....... 230
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska:
Opening statement............................................ 53
Questions submitted by....................................... 135
The:
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of
Oregon, prepared statement................................. 166
Nature Conservancy, prepared statement....................... 232
Wilderness Society, prepared statements....................291, 293
Town of Greenville, Maine, prepared statement.................... 290
Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Office of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior..................................... 53
USGS Coalition, prepared statement............................... 253
Vaquero Heritage Foundation, prepared statement.................. 152
Village of Wellington, Florida, prepared statement............... 231
Wild Horse:
And Burro:
Coalition, prepared statement............................ 152
Freedom Alliance, prepared statement..................... 152
Observers Association, prepared statement.................... 152
YMCA of Glendale, California, prepared statement................. 236
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Adaptive Management--Sierra Nevada Framework..................... 31
Air Tankers...................................................... 42
Alaska:
Fire Season--2005............................................ 25
Railroad..................................................... 25
Appropriation Process............................................ 34
Back Country Airstrips........................................... 46
Bark Beetle Damage--San Bernardino National Forest............... 33
Community Fire Plans............................................. 31
Conditions in Montana............................................ 34
Efficient Response to Wildfires.................................. 6
Energy........................................................... 21
Financial Accountability......................................... 36
Fire:
Readiness Capability......................................... 41
Suppression Costs............................................ 43
Firefighting Borrowing........................................... 51
Forest:
Health....................................................... 20
Program Cuts............................................. 41
Legacy....................................................... 48
Service Operational Efficiency............................... 7
Future Direction of the Forest Service........................... 10
Grazing.......................................................... 16
Allotments................................................... 50
Permits...................................................... 38
Green Mountain National Forest Land Acquisition.................. 49
Hazardous Fuels:
Funding...................................................... 40
Reduction Funding............................................ 27
Healthy Forests:
Initiative................................................... 6, 18
Reserve Program..............................................18, 29
Restoration Act.............................................. 35
Kake Land Exchange............................................... 24
Leafy Spurge..................................................... 49
Litigation Costs.................................................20, 21
Maintenance Cuts................................................. 39
Montana Timber Issues............................................ 38
Moving Forward--A New Century of Service......................... 6
Need for Special Firefighting Allocation......................... 45
New Fire Technologies............................................ 46
Northeastern Research Station Budget............................. 49
Northern Forest Lands Council--Northeast State Foresters
Association Reporting.......................................... 48
Noxious Weeds.................................................... 17
Off Highway Vehicle Rulemaking................................... 45
Our New Planning Process is More Flexible, Efficient, and
Responsive..................................................... 13
Planning Rule....................................................22, 37
Quincy Library Group............................................. 32
Red Cedar Export Policy.......................................... 23
Research Guides Our Decisions and Delivers New Solutions......... 12
Road Maintenance................................................. 32
State and Volunteer Fire Assistance Cuts......................... 41
Timber Sale Pipeline............................................. 24
Title IV--Silvicultural Assessments and Accelerated Information
Gathering...................................................... 19
We:
Are:
Implementing a Long-term Strategy to Reduce Wildfire
Threats................................................ 11
Looking for New Ways to Reduce Wildland Fire Suppression
Costs.................................................. 12
Can Reap Multiple Benefits from Preserving Open Space........ 13
Have:
Made Great Strides in Performance and Financial
Management Accountability.............................. 15
New Approaches to Tackle the Public's Growing Recreation
Needs.................................................. 14
Need to Reverse the Trend of Deteriorating Facilities........ 14
Wildland Fire Outlook for This Year.............................. 43
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary
Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation.................................. 62
Actions.......................................................... 135
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)........................... 107
Lease Sales..................................................79, 82
Blackfoot Challenge.............................................75, 108
Budget Overview..................................................60, 64
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Budget Reorganization........................................ 125
Detention Center Funding..................................... 127
GAO Audit of BIA Irrigation.................................. 125
Indian Claims Settlement..................................... 127
Replacement School Construction.............................. 139
School Replacement Funding................................... 78
Tribal Priority Allocations.................................. 127
Tribally Controlled Community Colleges and Other Educational
Facilities................................................. 126
Bureau of Land Management........................................ 135
Construction................................................. 124
Range Improvement Fund....................................... 122
Rural Fire Assistance........................................ 123
Sage Brush/Sage Grass Initiative............................. 121
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act................... 121
Wild Horse and Burro Program................................. 119
CALFED........................................................... 94
California Ecosystem Restoration Projects Relating to Central
Valley Anadromous Fish Doubling................................ 94
Cobell Litigation................................................ 57
Conservation Easement Programs................................... 75
Contract Support Costs........................................... 85
Cooperative Conservation......................................... 61
Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units.............................. 105
Current Fiscal Year 2005 Projects................................ 94
Desert Protection Act............................................ 92
Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge............................. 90
Energy Development...............................................60, 65
Flag Guidance................................................ 108
ESA Consultation Budget.......................................... 134
Facility Condition Indices....................................... 106
Financial and Business Management System......................... 100
Fish and Wildlife:
Migratory Bird Program....................................... 132
Service...................................................... 136
Construction............................................. 131
Court Order on Wolves.................................... 118
Fish Hatcheries.......................................... 80
Science Initiative........................................... 132
State Wildlife Grants........................................ 118
Fisheries Program................................................ 133
Fleet Expenditures............................................... 104
Habitat Restoration Top Priorities............................... 95
Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program................................ 96
Headwaters Forest Reserve Resource Management Plan............... 96
Healthy Forests Restoration Act.................................. 85
Historic Preservation and Heritage Tourism....................... 60
Holt Collier Wildlife Refuge..................................... 83
Icon Security--U.S. Park Police.................................. 101
Lake:
Berryessa.................................................... 96
Champlain Fisheries.......................................... 81
Landowner Incentive Program...................................... 131
Leafy Spurge..................................................... 138
Leslie Salt Ponds................................................ 90
Long Term Projects............................................... 95
LWCF Funds Reprogramming......................................... 92
Management Excellence............................................63, 71
Mandatory Proposals.............................................. 71
Marijuana Propagation in National Parks.......................... 97
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission........................... 83
Minerals Management Service:
5-Year Plan.................................................. 119
Hurricane Impacts on Oil Production.......................... 117
Royalty in Kind Program...................................... 115
User Fees.................................................... 118
MNI Sose Water Rights............................................ 139
Natchez Trace Parkway............................................ 82
National:
Park Service Partnerships.................................... 109
Wildlife Refuge System....................................... 138
New England National Fish Hatchery Funding....................... 81
Office of:
Surface Mining--SMCRA Reauthorization........................ 116
The Special Trustee--Historical Accounting and Cobell
Litigation................................................. 128
Park Operations.................................................. 97
Preserve America................................................. 99
Program...................................................... 86
Presidential Inaugural........................................... 105
Program Terminations and Reductions.............................. 70
Proposed Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program...... 76
Range Improvement Fund........................................... 89
Recreation:
And Historic Preservation.................................... 67
Fee Program.................................................74, 101
Relocation Costs................................................. 103
Resource Protection.............................................. 65
Rural:
And Community Fire Funding................................... 90
Fire Assistance..............................................86, 87
Safecom and Disaster Management.................................. 104
Science.......................................................... 63
Scientific Integrity............................................. 138
Serving Communities.............................................. 68
Standing Rock Irrigation......................................... 137
State Assistance (``Stateside'') Program......................... 98
Stateside Grants Program......................................... 77
Stewardship Contracting.......................................... 63
Tribal:
College Funding.............................................. 77
Colleges..................................................... 76
Priority Allocations......................................... 139
Trust Management and Historical Accounting....................... 58
Tsunami Warning System Funding................................... 84
U.S. Geological Survey:
Assistance to Refugees....................................... 91
Landsat Satellite Mission/Funding............................ 111
Minerals Resources Reduction................................. 114
Tsunami-Related Activities................................... 112
User Fees........................................................ 61
Water Acquisition for Instream Flow Top Priorities............... 95
Wild Horse and Burro Program..................................... 73
Wildland Fire.................................................... 62
-