S. HRG. 109–315, PT. 5 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2007 

109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

H.R. 5386 

PART 5 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Interior Appropriations, 2007 (H.R. 5386)—Part 5 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

26–550 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–315, PT. 5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2007 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 5386 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL 

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

PART 5 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of the Interior 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Nondepartmental Witnesses 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

Professional Staff 

LEIF FONNESBECK

GINNY JAMES

RYAN THOMAS

REBECCA BENN

MICHELE GORDON

PETER KIEFHABER (Minority) 

RACHAEL TAYLOR (Minority) 

SCOTT DALZELL (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006 

Page 

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service ............................................................ 1 

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006 

Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary ............................................. 55 

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 

Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................... 177 

Nondepartmental Witnesses ................................................................................... 209 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Senator Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Burns, Cochran, Allard, and Dorgan. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

STATEMENT OF MARK E. REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF 

LENISE LAGO, ACTING BUDGET DIRECTOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We will call the committee to order, and thank 

you, and good morning. I’m very pleased the Forest Service Chief, 

Dale Bosworth—nice to have you here with us this morning and I 

hope everything is all right over in your camp and also, the Under 

Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment. 

BUDGET REDUCTIONS

I thought you were for the environment, Mark. But it’s nice to 

have you here this morning and of course, you’ve been before this 

subcommittee many, many times. 

We all know there’s a little belt tightening around here in trying 

especially in the non-defense and non-homeland security programs 

for fiscal year 2007. In fact we’ll be debating this budget resolution 

this week and I would imagine that the debate continues on the 

direction of the overall amount of discretionary spending that this 

committee will have to spend. The President’s budget request for 

the Forest Service is $4.096 billion in non-emergency discretionary 

appropriations. 

This represents a 2.5 percent cut, compared to 2006 of $4.2 billion for non-emergency funds. I know that in this budget climate, 
2 

tough choices have to be made about some of the proposed program 

cuts in the Forest Service really concern me. 

For example, funding for maintaining road systems has been cut by $39 million, an 18 percent reduction. This is hard to understand 

given the Forest Service own estimates that they are—have more 

than $4.5 billion backlogged in maintenance work on its roads. 

If we don’t maintain those roads, then people ultimately can’t access the forest whether it’s for recreation, firefighting, or forest 

management. I think that is very shortsighted. 

Funding for State fire assistance has also been decreased over $22 million. That’s a 25 percent reduction. This will reduce by over 

5,000, the number of rural fire departments that receive grants and 

technical assistance. These fire departments are often the first to 

respond to wildland fires and they provide a vital help to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. Another concern is $29 million cut in forest health programs in 

State and private forestry. I remember we had great debates, at 

one time, on the use of this money and how effective it is. In my 

State we have an enormous problem with bark beetles and the forest health funds for that program have been cut in half. 

The dead trees that result from beetle kill add directly to the already excessive fuel loads and greatly increase the fire risk. I 

would draw your attention to the forest, especially in Montana, 

where I get to look at those red trees every time I drive down the 

road and I see nothing—nothing happening in order to take this 

on. Because I’ll tell you, these bark beetles coming through a 7- or 

an 8-year drought, we had trees that were stressed and they become more vulnerable to that beetle than any other tree in the forest. We’ve done hardly anything to take stressed trees and infected 

trees out of the forest to deal with this problem and that’s the only 

way we have to dealing with it. I think that’s the only thing I’ve 

been told, is the removal of those trees. 

BUDGET INCREASES

On the other side of the ledger, a few programs receive significant increases in the proposed budget request. These include the 

timber program, $32.5 million, Forest Legacy, that’s good. Hazardous fuels is $10 million. That’s good and I think you would have 

to put in that definition, these beetle kills. They’re definitely a part 

of that problem. Wildfire suppression, we have an increase of $56 million and 

we’re all interested in hearing from both of you how you formulated 

the 2007 budget and how you made the difficult decisions allocating funding between the various programs. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

Finally another issue that concerns me, is the administration’s 

proposal on reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act. This 

proposal would sell over 300,000 acres of our National Forest System lands, including 14,000 acres in Montana, to pay for continuing payments to counties for another 5 years. 

Now as I’ve traveled around my State and talked to various 

groups and individuals, county commissioners, there is simply no 

support for that proposal in this form. We need to come up with 
3 

a better way to find reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools 

Act. I think the national taxpayer has to be aware of this because 

it impacts communities that rely heavily on forest and forest products. 

So I thank you for joining me today. We’re going to talk a little 

bit about grazing permits and be ready for that. So make sure you 

get out your reference material. I want to see how you justify that 

and so, I look forward to hearing from both of you, Dale and Mark, 

in this hearing today. 

Now, my good friend from North Dakota who has had a great ski 

season this year. They’ve had quite a lot of snow. Thank you for 

joining us. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I agree 

with much of what you’ve had to say. This appropriations request 

really shorts needed funding in many, many areas. Access to public 

lands, fewer roads and trails to provide that access, fewer resources 

for State and local governments, less funding for recreation and resource development. 

FISCAL POLICY

I understand Secretary Rey, Mr. Bosworth, and Ms. Lago will be 

here to support the administration’s budget, that is your job. If we 

were to ask you if you agree or disagree, you must agree because 

you are an appointee and we understand all that. But I think it’s 

also the case that we have a fiscal policy that doesn’t add up. It 

just doesn’t add up. 

The reason that you’re coming in, in fact we—last year, cut a 

half a billion dollars below our previous year’s spending in this subcommittee. Half a billion dollars, not reducing the rate of growth, 

but we cut a half a billion dollars. The President’s budget cuts another one-half billion dollars below that for the next year. 

My point is, the fiscal policy doesn’t add up and the result is a 

lot of good things are going to pay the cost of that and I regret 

that. We have to try to find a better set of priorities and we need 

to be doing it in a way that is thoughtful. 

I did not bring a leafy spurge plant, you’re well familiar with it. 

In fact, you brought pictures to show me I understand, that you’re 

actually taking care of some of that leafy spurge. Not all of it, we 

still have a lot of work to do. But I appreciate your attention to it. 

Mr. Rey was in North Dakota recently, met with some ranchers 

and he actually talked about leafy spurge just a bit. 

You know there are many things, I won’t go over them all, but 

the President is proposing to sell about $800 million in national 

forest lands in order to finance county payments for roads and 

schools. The reason we’re forced into all of these abstinance choices, 

is we have a fiscal policy that doesn’t add. 

We are spending money we don’t have in areas now. I think we’re going to be at $440 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and now 

Katrina, and none of it’s paid for. Nobody’s ever asked to pay for 

any of it, really. 

So we just flounder along and at some point, somebody’s going 

to say you know, this is unsustainable, it’s a fiscal policy that 
4 

doesn’t work. But in its details in this subcommittee, you see the 

consequences of that, and it is cuts in areas that will have real impact, and are not cuts that make sense in the long term. 

Having said all that, I appreciate once again, you’re being here 

and there are many areas to question and I have another Appropriations subcommittee just around the corner that I’m going to 

have to ask some questions of, about the train accident in Minot 

with respect to the anhydrous ammonia, some years ago. I’ve got 

to go ask the FRA some questions about that this morning. 

So I won’t be able to hear all of your testimony, but I want to 

thank all three of you for being here this morning and you need 

to work with us because we need to find ways to make sense of all 

of this in an environment in which the fiscal policy doesn’t add up. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator BURNS. You are welcome and thank you for your statement, Senator Dorgan. And that is the reason they hire us around 

here, is to kind of protect these areas. So we will do that and try 

to find ways to pay for it. 

Mr. Secretary, nice to see you this morning and we look forward 

to your statement. 

Mr. REY. With your sufferance, the Chief is actually going to 

start. 

Senator BURNS. Chief, it’s good to see you. I think everything is 

going well with you. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

Mr. BOSWORTH. Everything is going just fine. Mr. Chairman and 

Mr. Dorgan, I do appreciate the opportunity to be here today and 

talk about the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget for the Forest 

Service. 

As was stated, the 2007 President’s budget for the Forest Service totals about $4.1 billion in discretionary funding. That’s a $104 

million decrease from fiscal year 2006. 

FOREST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

What I would like to do is begin by discussing some of our successes from the past year and then talk about our strategy for accomplishing our agency’s objectives. 

We had some significant accomplishments last year and a lot of 

our accomplishments, I think, are things that are measurable 

through performance measures and we’re able to quantify those. 

Some of the priority areas where we either met or we exceeded our 

target included things like hazardous fuel treatment, noxious weed 

treatment, stream and lake restoration enhancement, timber volume that was sold, terrestrial habitat enhancement, decisions on 

range allotments, and number of miles of trails that were maintained. 

We accomplished much of that important work while also opening a service center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which, in the 

end, will save dollars that will eventually go to the ground. 

I’m particularly proud of our ability to respond to unplanned 

events and in particular, the catastrophic hurricanes that hit the 

gulf States last year—hurricanes Katrina and Rita had a huge impact on the Forest Service, as well as a number of other people. 
5 

Those strong winds affected something like 6 million acres of forest land in five southern States including over 300,000 acres of national forest land. Potential losses amounted to 15 to 19 billion 

board feet of timber and about 90 percent of that was on private 

land. 

Since the hurricanes, the Forest Service has sold 256 million 

board feet of timber that had been damaged during the hurricanes. 

We’ve opened about 2,000 miles of road, and are in the process of 

also repairing some of that road. 

In support of hurricane Katrina response in the days after the 

hurricane, the interagency teams managed all agency radio, phone, 

and data communications; coordinated the receiving and distribution of 1,000 truckloads of supplies; provided evacuees with food, 

clothing, and shelter; and supported emergency medical operations 

at the New Orleans airport. 

At the base camp for example, four crews moved 2,400 patients 

in a 3-day period to and from the Air Force triage hospital in New 

Orleans Airport. An incident command team managed the staging 

area in Mississippi, that was one of the largest air operations in 

the storm-affected area. Our crews unloaded, and refueled, and 

stored 10 to 12 747 plane loads of commodities every day. 

In one incident, the command team shipped over 2.9 million 

meals, 5.6 million gallons of water, and 39 million pounds of ice. 

That’s enough drinking water for 11 million people for 1 day. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRIORITIES

I’d like to move on to talk about the priorities for 2007. The 

budget continues to work with the Healthy Forests Initiative and 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act Authorities in restoring forest 

health. The Forest Service will treat 3.2 million acres in fiscal year 

2007 and the majority of that will be in the wildland-urban interface. 

We’ve been increasing use of our stewardship contracting authorities. We have 209 projects now underway and we expect to 

have 80 more contracts and agreements in fiscal year 2007. 

A key theme from the White House Conference on Cooperative 

Conservation in the Forest Service’s Centennial Congress is that 

our future in the Forest Service is going to be through collaboration 

and not through regulation. We’re going to continue to move that 

way. 

Our new planning processes, our new travel management rule, 

as well as the resource advisory committees that are established 

through the Recreation Enhancement Act, are all going to be ways 

of leveraging public involvement to improve Forest Service efficiency and effectiveness. 

Our budget reflects our continued implementation of our vision 

as the center of excellence, reducing our indirect cost by about $200 

million by the end of fiscal year 2007. The Facilities Realignment 

and Enhancement Act allows us to streamline facility holdings and 

still produce additional funds for our mission critical facility maintenance. 

Our Business Operations Transformation Program is estimated 

to save $241 million by fiscal year 2011, while also improving the 

transparency and accountability of our systems. 
6 

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, our 2007 budget responds to the national need for 

deficit reductions while preparing for new and a much more collaborative era in the future for natural resource management. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I look forward 

to working with you to implement our 2007 program. I’d be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

OVERVIEW

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased 

to be here with you today. 

The fiscal year 2007 President’s budget for the Forest Service totals $4.10 billion 

in discretionary funding, which is a $104 million decrease in funding from fiscal 

year 2006. The budget advances the top priorities of the agency in order to sustain 

the health of the Nation’s forests and grasslands. I will begin today by sharing some 

of the Forest Service’s successes from the past year; these successes demonstrate 

our capabilities to accomplish the challenges ahead. Then, I will discuss our strategy 

for accomplishing agency objectives at a time when our Nation also needs to exercise 

fiscal discipline to provide the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the war on terrorism, strengthening our homeland defenses and sustaining the momentum of our economic recovery. 

FOREST SERVICE SUCCESSES

In 2005, the Forest Service achieved its priorities and demonstrated that it continues to be an agency of great value to the American people. The Forest Service 

exceeded its goals to restore the health of our forests and protect critical resources 

from catastrophic wildfires. Working collaboratively with the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Forest Service controlled 99 percent of all unwanted and unplanned fires during initial attack. 

The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior last year treated hazardous fuels on more than 2.9 million acres of land, and reduced hazardous fuels 

on an additional 1.4 million acres through other land management actions. Federal 

agencies plan to treat 2.9 million more acres in 2006, and accomplish hazardous 

fuels reduction on an additional 1.6 million acres through landscape restoration activities. An additional 4.6 million acres are planned for 2007, which includes 3.0 million acres of hazardous fuels treatments and 1.6 million acres of landscape restoration. By the end of fiscal year 2007, federal agencies will have treated hazardous 

fuels on more than 21.5 million acres of our Nation’s forests and wooded rangelands 

since the beginning of fiscal year 2001, and will have restored an additional 5.1 million acres. 

I am especially proud this year of the strength and resourcefulness that Forest 

Service employees demonstrated during their involvement in the relief efforts following the many hurricanes of 2005. In the first four weeks after Katrina’s landfall, 

Forest Service employees provided support to over 600,000 people affected by 

Katrina, distributing over 2.7 million meals, 4 million gallons of water and 40 million pounds of ice. During peak response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Forest 

Service had 5,500 employees working in the affected region, and total Forest Service 

efforts represented over 250,000 personnel days. Forest Service employees provided 

a variety of critical services, including managing evacuation centers and base 

camps, providing logistical support, clearing roadways, and leading forest restoration efforts on both the private and public forests damaged by the storms. 

These efforts demonstrated the exceptional work ethic and ‘‘can-do’’ attitude of 

Forest Service employees. At the Levi Strauss shelter in San Antonio, Red Cross 

worker Bill Martin reported that ‘‘[Forest Service workers] do everything here. . . . 

They aren’t afraid of getting their hands dirty.’’ At this shelter, Forest Service employees became known as the ‘‘green pants.’’ The nickname arose from evacuees who 

quickly learned that if they needed something done quickly or a question answered 

right away, they could get it from the men and women wearing the green pants of 

the Forest Service uniform. The commitment to service that Forest Service employ-
7 

ees demonstrated during the hurricane relief efforts is the same commitment that 

sustains the health of our Nation’s forests and grasslands. 

The National Forest System continues to provide benefits to the American public, 

including fresh water, flood regulation, carbon sequestration and recreation. 60 million people benefit from clean water provided by national forests and grasslands, 

and in 2005 the American people made over 200 million visits to the national forests 

and grasslands. These statistics underscore the importance of the National Forest 

System to the environmental infrastructure and natural heritage of the United 

States. 

The Forest Service accomplished all these tasks while simultaneously improving 

its organizational and financial management. In 2005 the Forest Service began its 

Business Operations Transformation Program, which will advance the efficiency of 

its technology, budget, finance and human resources operations, and is expected to 

save the agency $241 million in administrative operation costs over the next five 

years. As part of this effort, the Albuquerque Service Center became operational in 

2005, and will create a centralized location for human resources and financial management operations. 

The Forest Service also achieved its fourth unqualified (‘‘clean’’) audit opinion in 

a row for fiscal year 2005, continuing the agency’s efforts to improve financial performance. Building upon these successes, the Forest Service will use improved financial information to drive results in key areas. 

FOREST SERVICE PRIORITIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service will continue its strategic focus on the following goals: restoring fire-adapted forests; providing sustainable recreation opportunities for the American people; improving the health of our watersheds; and helping our Nation meet its energy needs. 

In addition to these long-term strategic goals, the President’s Budget provides increased support to Forest Service programs that improve forest health conditions, 

protect critical resources from catastrophic wildland fire, and help prevent the loss 

of open space. The President’s Budget demonstrates that the Forest Service can use 

collaborative approaches and operate with renewed efficiency and accountability in 

order to reduce costs while accomplishing its mission. The Forest Service will 

achieve this by: (1) dealing strategically with threats to forest health; (2) expanding 

collaborative efforts; (3) increasing the efficiency of Forest Service programs; and (4) 

improving organizational and financial management. Through these four strategies, 

the Forest Service will build on its past successes and advance its priorities for fiscal year 2007. 

A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO RESTORING FOREST HEALTH

The fiscal year 2007 Budget continues the work of the Forest Service under the 

authorities of the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests 

Restoration Act (HFRA). These authorities have removed administrative process 

delays and expedited critical restoration projects so that the Forest Service can more 

effectively restore national forests and grasslands to a more fire adaptive environment. 

In 2005, the Forest Service treated 2.72 million acres of land to reduce hazardous 

fuels, with over 60 percent of those acres in the wildland-urban interface. The fiscal 

year 2007 budget proposes $292 million for the treatment of hazardous fuels. Combined with other programs; the agency will treat as many as 3.2 million acres, with 

a majority of acres treated in the wildland-urban interface. Recent court decisions 

affecting our use of categorical exclusions to accomplish this work will have an effect 

on our ability to rapidly and efficiently treat these acres that are in need of fuels 

reduction. The Forest Service is also better integrating its hazardous fuels treatments with other vegetation management activities. The result is an additional 1.1 

million acres of hazardous fuels treated in 2005 as secondary benefits to other vegetation management activities. Hazardous fuels treatments, in turn, often have secondary benefits such as wildlife habitat improvement or watershed restoration. 

Another important tool for improving forest health is stewardship projects. These 

projects allow forest managers to more efficiently manage efforts to restore forest 

health through the use of one contract document authorizing the disposal of national forest system timber incidental to and in exchange for services to be performed on national forest system land. The President’s budget will allow the Forest 

Service to award approximately 100,000 acres of stewardship projects in fiscal year 

2007, providing services such as noxious weed treatment, lake restoration, and harvesting biomass for energy use. 
8 

In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service will continue to assist communities adjacent 

to national forest land in the development of Community Wildfire Protection Plans 

(CWPPs). CWPPs enable communities to establish a localized definition of the 

wildland-urban interface in their area, and high-risk areas identified in a CWPP receive funding preference from the Forest Service. As of December 2005, at least 450 

CWPPs had been completed nationwide, covering at least 2,500 communities at risk 

from wildfire 

In 2005, fires burned 8.6 million acres on Federal lands; the fire season was characterized by a continuing drought and dry fuel conditions. Climate forecasts and estimates of fuel loads on our Nation’s forests highlight the continued need for highly 

trained and efficient fire prevention and fire suppression programs. In order to 

maintain these programs, the President’s Budget proposes a $56 million increase 

above the fiscal year 2006 enacted amount for wildland fire suppression. This funding request equals the most recent 10-year average for suppression costs, which are 

on an upward trend. 

In 2005, the Forest Service continued its success in initial fires suppression, containing 99 percent of all unwanted fires. The President’s Budget provides the preparedness funding needed to maintain this initial attack success rate. The development of an interagency fire managing planning and budget model to support cost 

effective allocation of preparedness resources is currently underway. 

The President’s Budget provides additional incentives for reducing suppression 

costs by authorizing use of unobligated wildfire suppression funds for hazardous 

fuels treatment. This provides an incentive for line officers to reduce suppression 

expenses so they can have more resources to conduct hazardous fuels treatment. We 

are also committed to managing wildland fires for resource benefits or, as we also 

refer to it as, wildland fire use. This option is available to Federal agencies that 

have an approved land use plan and a fire management plan that allows for it. Our 

ability to manage naturally occurring fires in order to improve the health of fire dependent forests is increasing each year. The 2005 total of an additional 251,000 

acres was significantly higher than 2004 and we look forward to increasing our capability to use this important tool. 

These programs demonstrate the Forest Service’s approach to restoring national 

forests and grasslands to a more fire adaptive environment. Through stewardship 

contracting, collaboration and community involvement, strategic treatment of hazardous fuels, and well-planned fire prevention and suppression, we are having a 

long-term impact on minimizing wildfire threats. 

The protection of forest health and open space is increasingly affected by the dynamics of a global timber market. Timber prices are now often set globally; the result has been a reduction in the private wood products infrastructure and divestment of timber companies from their timber land in the United States. These trends 

have altered the economic and environmental reality in which the Forest Service operates. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides several strategies to deal with these 

realities. 

The sell-off of industrial timber lands opens up millions of acres to potential development, which in turns adds to the threat of the loss of open space. To counter 

these trends, the President’s Budget requests $62 million for the Forest Legacy Program, a $5 million increase over last year, which will protect an estimated 130,000 

priority acres in fiscal year 2007. The Forest Legacy Program works in concert with 

the cooperative efforts of other Federal, State and non-governmental organizations 

to assist private landowners sustain intact, working forests. 

With the reduction in mill capacity and other related infrastructure, market conditions have created a more limited demand pool and led to higher costs for remaining purchasers, adversely affecting the financial feasibility of restoration work on 

our Nation’s forests and grasslands. The fiscal year 2007 budget addresses this need 

by dedicating $5 million to foster markets in biomass utilization. Additionally, authorities of HFI/HFRA and stewardship contracting enable more efficient and effective partnerships with the local community in treating hazardous fuels, and promote 

investment in the local infrastructure to utilize timber. 

With greater exchange of global goods also comes greater transfer of invasive species. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides over $94 million to Forest Service 

invasive species programs, allowing the agency to complete invasive species suppression, prevention and management on over 61,000 acres of Federal lands and 315,000 

acres of state and private lands. These efforts involve enhanced collaboration with 

Forest Service partners to find and implement solutions to invasive species problems. In 2004 the Forest Service invasive species program underwent a program assessment rating tool (PART) evaluation. As a result of the assessment, new program 

performance measures based on a scientific or policy basis for validating agency actions were developed to more frequently update and utilize forest health risk maps 
9 

for decision making and allocation of resources; and to provide for the measurement 

of the environmental and economic effects of invasive species treatments. 

An additional strategy for protecting forest health involves USDA’s work to broaden the use of markets for ecosystem services through voluntary market mechanisms 

as announced by Secretary Johanns at the White House Conference on Cooperative 

Conservation. As part of this effort, Forest Service Research and Development will 

continue its work regarding the quantification of ecosystem services values. 

INCREASED COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

The White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation, held in August 2005, 

marked an important milestone in the effort to expand and improve collaboration 

in natural resource management. The White House Conference underscored a clear 

lesson learned from the Forest Service Centennial—that the Forest Service has entered a new, more collaborative era of natural resource management. Today we are 

focusing on improving forest health and promoting sustainable recreation. In order 

to work effectively in this new environment, the future of the Forest Service must 

be built on collaboration instead of top-down regulation. 

The new planning rule for the Forest Service creates a dynamic planning process 

that is less bureaucratic, emphasizes sound science, and encourages more public involvement earlier in the planning stages. We also expect that the new system of 

planning will be more strategic, transparent, timely and efficient. The planning 

process will be more effective because the rule requires annual evaluation of monitoring results and a comprehensive evaluation every 5 years. Under the old planning rule, it usually took five to seven years to revise a 15-year land management 

plan; under the new rule, we expect that a plan revision will take from two to three 

years, saving the agency significant time and money. 

The new travel management rule, issued in November 2005, provides another example of successful cooperation resulting in effective rule making. In 2004, OHV 

users accounted for between 11 and 12 million visits to national forests and grasslands. While the Forest Service believes that OHVs are a legitimate use of the National Forest System, unmanaged OHV use has resulted in unplanned roads and 

trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource 

sites. The 2005 travel management rule requires each national forest and grassland 

to designate the roads, trails and areas that will be open to motor vehicle use. The 

Forest Service will engage the public so that travel management will be a cooperative process, which in turn will help increase compliance. The result will be greater 

protection for recreation resources without significant expenditures from Forest 

Service appropriations. 

In 2004 Congress approved the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, giving the Forest Service a 10-year authority to reinvest a portion of collected recreation fees to enhance local recreation opportunities and improve wildlife habitat in 

the area. We are projecting receipts of $54.8 million in fiscal year 2007 under REA. 

The Act also directed the creation of recreation advisory committees that will provide public involvement and comment on recreation fee programs. We are planning 

to establish a number of committees and councils throughout the country to afford 

communities and citizens the opportunity to provide input into the recreation fee 

program. I want to thank Congress for providing the Forest Service with this new 

and effective tool for cooperative conservation. 

A final example of collaboration includes working closely with the Bureau of Land 

Management in the energy permitting process. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows 

the BLM and the Forest Service to develop interagency agreements to support established BLM pilot offices designed to streamline the oil and gas permitting process on federal lands. These agreements will be used to reduce the backlog of oil and 

gas Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) and improve the inspection and enforcement processes. 

We will continue to emphasize the processing of APDs and lease requests, and the 

initiation and completion of several major oil and gas environmental impact statements. This emphasis will increase the resources available to process energy permit 

applications, resulting in a more effective permitting process. Within the energy program, the ‘‘process mineral applications’’ activity will increase by $7 million over the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level to meet the high priority objective of processing energy mineral applications. 

INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF FOREST SERVICE PROGRAMS

The President’s Budget reflects continued implementation of the Forest Service’s 

vision as a ‘‘Center of Excellence in Government’’ in which it will be viewed as a 

model agency recognized for efficiently delivering its services. The Budget continues 
10 

reforms that will streamline the Forest Service’s organization, improve accountability, and focus on measurable results. The Budget reduces indirect costs to $461 

million, and reflects completion of organizational efficiency studies that will lead to 

savings in fiscal year 2008 and beyond. The Budget further reflects a continuing emphasis on Forest Service performance and accountability by including two new performance measures for the National Forest System: (1) the use of volume sold as 

an annual output measure for forest products and (2) an annual efficiency measure 

consisting of the ratio of total receipts for each activity to the obligations for each 

respective activity that generates those receipts. These reforms will foster a greater 

focus on results; lead to improved decisions based on performance; and enhance accountability through the use of more readily available and better quality performance information. 

Through the President’s Budget the Forest Service will continue to make use of 

valuable authorities that Congress has recently made available to the agency, and 

the Forest Service will continue its efforts to increase program efficiency. With the 

provisions of the Forest Service Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act, the 

Forest Service is reducing its administrative site maintenance backlog and improving efficiency in its land management program. This new authority provides a necessary incentive to identify and maintain needed facilities while streamlining facility holdings that reflect a bygone era of forest management. In fiscal year 2006, we 

anticipate $37 million in receipts from this conveyance authority and we will be initiating over 100 administrative site conveyances with projected receipts of over $77 

million by fiscal year 2009. In short, the new authority enables the Forest Service 

to accomplish more with its Capital Improvement and Maintenance funds, while 

also decreasing the deferred maintenance backlog by removing unneeded facilities. 

In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service will continue to implement the fiscal year 

2006 changes to Knutson-Vandenberg (K–V) authority, which allow the Forest Service more flexibility in the expenditure of K–V funds. Consistent with OMB direction 

to offset increases in mandatory spending, the agency has issued direction to the 

field to increase collections into the National Forest Fund to offset the increase in 

the K–V program. I would like to express my appreciation for support that this subcommittee has given the Forest Service in improving this authority. 

Providing high quality recreation opportunities on the national forests and grasslands is of great importance to the Forest Service. National forests and grasslands 

received over 200 million visits occurring in 2005. The fiscal year 2007 Budget contains $250.9 million to provide these opportunities for visitors to National Forest 

System lands. To provide the most efficient use of these funds, we are developing 

a programmatic plan called, ‘‘the capacity-building model for sustainable recreation,’’ that will identify ways to build capacity to meet increasing demand. Tools 

will include partnership development, volunteerism, recreation fee revenues, improved business practices, and prioritization of recreation facility assets. Specific actions in 2007 will include completion of recreation facility master planning to 

prioritize facility assets; completion of a feasibility study on retention of recreation 

special use fees; continued implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act; collaborating with private sector partners to create a web site on 

improved business practices, including use of grant resources and volunteerism; and 

completing a skills assessment to enhance business and financial skills. 

In 2005 the recreation program PART assessment was conducted. As a result of 

this assessment we are taking actions to improve the recreation program performance, including updated performance measures connecting recreation program performance with achievement of the strategic goals; taking measures to improve visitor satisfaction and completing recreation business plans for each of the national 

forest and grasslands. 

The President’s budget reflects the efforts of Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) to improve research programs while also advancing deficit reduction 

goals. To do this, R&D is expanding collaborative and coalition building efforts, focusing funding on research with external partners, and aligning research projects 

along strategic program areas. R&D is hosting two ‘‘Outlook Workshops’’ on future 

forestry research with non-governmental organizations (NGO’s), government partners, academia and industry to encourage a common research agenda for all sectors 

of forestry research. In January 2006, R&D participated in a summit for Deans from 

U.S. forestry programs to lay plans for a common research agenda. The Forest Service will also continue to support the larger research community through the Forest 

Inventory Analysis (FIA). The FIA is the Nation’s only forest census, and it has 

been tracking the conditions of America’s forests for roughly 75 years. The President’s Budget funds the FIA program at a level that will allow the program to cover 

93 percent of the nation’s forests with an annual inventory. 
11 

R&D is also refocusing its research dollars, further increasing R&D’s support of 

external and collaborative research efforts from 13 percent of the R&D budget to 

20 percent over the next five years. Finally, R&D is reorganizing its research along 

strategic programs areas, so the agency can best produce the research that supports 

current priorities. Along these lines, the President’s Budget allocates $1.5 million 

to research on the value of ecosystem services; $3.5 million to research on biomass 

markets and utilization; and includes funding for the reorganization of the Forest 

Products Lab, so the Lab can better focus on research that increases the utilization 

value of wood products, particularly in the areas of biomass, small diameter utilization, and energy and biofuels production from biomass. Through these efforts, the 

science produced by Research & Development will continue to be the foundation for 

effective Forest Service programs. 

IMPROVING ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

In support of the President’s Management Agenda, the fiscal year 2007 budget 

continues the Forest Service’s efforts to improve organizational and financial management. The Forest Service’s Business Operations Transformation Program is improving the overall efficiency of the Forest Service’s administrative operations and 

increasing the agency’s ability to redirect funds from indirect costs to mission delivery. The Albuquerque Service Center successfully opened this past year, bringing 

nearly 400 employees to a consolidated budget and finance center that will better 

serve the needs of Forest Service internal and external customers. During the next 

five years, the Business Operations Transformation Program is estimated to result 

in $241 million in savings for the Forest Service. 

The centralization of Forest Service budget and finance will also create greater 

transparency, accountability and efficiency in the agency’s financial management. 

The Forest Service continues to improve its financial management, as evidenced by 

the agency’s 4th consecutive unqualified (‘‘clean’’) audit in 2005. Building upon these 

successes, the Forest Service will use improved financial information to drive results 

in key areas. 

The President’s Budget also continues support for the Forest Service Competitive 

Sourcing program, and focuses on proper and timely implementation of completed 

competitive sourcing studies and rigorous analysis of the studies’ results and savings. 

In fiscal year 2007 the Forest Service will continue its work in Budget and Performance Integration through implementation of its strategic plan, Performance Accountability System, and by making effective use of the Program Assessment Rating 

Tool (PART). The Forest Service Strategic Plan helps the agency and its field units 

develop programs of work that address natural resource needs while maximizing 

limited resources and improving performance accountability. The Strategic Plan will 

be revised in fiscal year 2006 to reflect the latest needs and resources of the agency. 

Through the PAS, the Forest Service is integrating existing data sources so that 

timely, consistent and credible performance information will be available for project 

and program managers as well as external customers. In addition, PART efforts will 

ensure that the agency’s activities are aligned with its strategic plan. Thus far the 

Forest Service has used PART to evaluate the following programs: Wildland Fire 

Management, Capital Improvement & Maintenance, Forest Legacy, Invasive Species, Land Acquisition, Recreation and Energy. These assessments have resulted in 

development of improved performance measures to better track accomplishments 

and increase accountability and better integration of strategic goals with program 

accomplishments. For the fiscal year 2008 budget process, the Forest Service will 

complete a PART analysis of mission-support activities and programs aimed at improving watershed quality, and will reassess Wildland Fire and Invasive Species. 

Results from the PART process have been, and will continue to be, used to improve 

program management and develop better performance measures. 

CONCLUSION

The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President’s commitment to providing the 

critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities. The fiscal year 2007 

budget responds to the national need for deficit reduction while preparing the Forest 

Service for a new, more collaborative, era of natural resource management. With 

this budget the Forest Service will continue to identify and support more efficient 

and effective methods of pursuing its mission. This will be accomplished through increased collaboration, the use of new legislative authorities, expanded program efficiencies and improved organizational and financial management. Through these efforts the Forest Service will continue to sustain the health and productivity of the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands. 
12 

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President’s Budget. I look forward 

to working with you to implement our fiscal year 2007 program, and I’m happy to 

answer any questions that you may have. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Chief. Now, Mr. Secretary, we welcome you to the table. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. REY

REAUTHORIZATION OF SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

Mr. REY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to speak exclusively today about the administration’s proposal to reauthorize the 

Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act of 2000. 

That legislation, as you know, was enacted by Congress in 2000 

to provide counties guaranteed payments for their school and road 

systems to offset the dramatic decline in timber sale receipts that 

occurred during the 1990s. 

What the administration is proposing, is a one-time 5-year reauthorization for the legislation. In reviewing the 2000 legislation and 

the progress that has been made to date in implementing it, the 

authors of the 2000 legislation essentially wanted to effectuate 

three transitions. 

First was a transition to stabilize county school funding over the 

period of 6 years, so that the counties could diversify their economies and become less reliant on Federal timber receipts. 

The second was to stabilize the timber sale program or give the 

Federal agencies a chance to stabilize the timber sale program and 

make the receipts a more certain proposition, as opposed the situation that existed as a consequence of appeals in litigation during 

the 1990s. 

The third was to effectuate a transition where we improve the 

relationships between Federal land managing agencies and county 

governments, and Federal land managing agencies and local citizens. 

In our judgment, looking at the progress that has been made 

over the 6 years of the original authorization, the second and third 

of those three transitions have been nearly complete. 

With respect to timber sale receipts, they are now stable and increasing slightly and will continue to increase slightly. They are already at levels that were achieved in the early 1970s and they are 

dependable for the future. 

Second, with respect to the operation of the resource advisory 

committees established under the 2000 legislation, there has been 

a dramatic improvement in the relationship between the Federal 

land managing agencies and local governments and local interest 

groups. 

Those groups, through the efforts of the resource advisory committees, have indeed invested $36 million per year each of the last 

6 years in resource investments on the Federal lands. The result 

of those investments is to encourage volunteerism, particularly volunteerism among student groups in the management of the national forest and the Bureau of Land Management’s lands involved. 

That’s why, in our proposal to reauthorize the legislation, we would 

retain those resource advisory committees. 
13 

It’s the first of those three transitions that involves the county 

budgets and dependence on Federal receipts which is not complete. 

Some counties have indeed diversified their economies and are less 

dependent today than they were 6 years ago on Federal timber receipts. 

Others have clearly not, and it’s because that transition is not 

complete and because the authorization for the legislation expires 

at the end of this year, thereby ending the guaranteed payments, 

that the administration has proposed a 5-year reauthorization of 

the legislation to try to extend and complete the first of those three 

transitions. 

To fund that reauthorization, we propose a one time sale of Forest Service lands that have been identified using criteria in each 

of the individual national forest plans as being isolated, difficult, 

and expensive to manage, and no longer meeting National Forest 

System needs. 

Lands fitting these categories in total amount to about 309,000 

acres of land, involving some 2,900 parcels in 31 States. A complete 

list of all of those tracts went up on our website on February 10. 

On March 1, we provided a notice in the Federal Register opening 

a 30-day public comment period on that list of tracts so that the 

public could give us their views on the proposition generally and 

on individual tracts specifically. 

Today we are sending up legislative language to effectuate the 

authority to convey those lands for your consideration as well as 

letters to both the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker 

of the House. 

To reauthorize the secure rural school legislation, it is not necessary to sell all 309,000 acres of land to raise the needed funds. 

We think it will probably take somewhere between 150,000 to 

175,000 acres of land, which gives us a lot of flexibility to work 

with the list and to work with the interested public to evaluate 

each tract on a case by case basis before we send the final list up 

to the Congress later this spring. 

We offered this proposal understanding that land sales are a sensitive proposition and in doing so, we look back across the last 25 

years of history at both land sales proposals that were enacted by 

Congress, such as the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 

Act of 1998, the Educational Land Grant Act of 2000, and our own 

proposal enacted by Congress—in fact, enacted by this committee 

last year to convey access for Forest Service administrative sites. 

We also looked at a number of proposals that have been offered 

over the last two decades that have not met with Congress’ support. What we discovered in evaluating both sets of proposals is 

that those that were successful and that were enacted by Congress 

seemed to share three characteristics. Those characteristics are 

thus: first, they had to be precise. There had to be an exclusive list 

of what was being discussed with very little tolerance for ambiguity 

about what was being considered and what might be sold or conveyed out of public ownership. 

The second characteristic was transparency. There had to be an 

adequate opportunity for everybody who had a view, to offer that 

view, and express whether they thought it was a good idea in general or whether specific tracts that were being discussed should be 
14 

taken off the table. There was very little tolerance for slipping a 

proposal of this nature into a Senate House conference at the 11th 

hour. 

Third, there had to be an agreed-upon public purpose; that the 

land sales would serve the proposition that the sales would fund 

general deficit reduction didn’t and hasn’t, over the last two and a 

half decades, garnered much support. 

Our intent and our objective in proffering this proposal to Congress is to meet each of those three criteria. First, precision, by 

eventually offering you an exclusive list of everything that is being 

considered so there is not doubt, ambiguity, or uncertainty at what 

might be at stake or at issue. 

Second, by giving the public an opportunity to testify by advancing this as part of the President’s budget in the first place and 

making sure we have collected all of the commentary that we can 

about the proposition generally and about specific tracts individually. 

Then third, given the broad bipartisan support for the initial enactment of the 2000 Secure Rural Schools bill and the similarly 

broad bipartisan support for its reauthorization, we believe we’ve 

met the standard of a broadly supported public purpose to use the 

funding generated by the land sales. We think it’s important to 

look at our proposal in a larger context. 

On the average, using the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

and other authorities, the Forest Service acquires between 100 and 

115,000 acres a year—lands that are identified as meeting high ecological values and serving National Forest System needs. 

We’re probably going to continue, with the Congress’s support, 

that rate of acquisition. That means in less than 2 year’s time we 

would net out from an acreage standpoint the effects of this proposal to convey lands that don’t meet national forest needs and 

aren’t ecologically sensitive. 

A decade ago when I entered public service, if we wrote testimony for you describing the National Forest System, we would describe it as 191 million acres of national forest managed for the 

Federal good. Today that testimony speaks of 193 million acres of 

national forest. So we’ve grown the system over 2 million acres in 

less than a decade’s time. 

So that’s the context I think it’s most fair to look at this in. We 

have a great deal of commentary over the month and a half that 

this proposal has been part of the public discourse. Indeed, in response to that commentary we’ve made some changes. 

For instance, people told us as they reviewed the proposal, that 

even if we agree, for the sake of argument, that these lands no 

longer meet National Forest System needs, that’s not the same as 

saying they no longer meet public needs. They may be meeting 

needs that the public enjoys, even if that’s not something that’s integral to the management of the National Forest System. 

Indeed, we know that on some of these isolated tracts which have 

road frontage, we’ve given county governments a special use permit 

to put in picnic tables for a roadside turnout or a picnic area. 

So what we’ve added to the proposal that we’re sending to you 

today, is the proposition and a proviso that will offer these lands 

to State, county, and local governments, or land trusts acting on 
15 

their behalf at fair market value on a right of first refusal basis. 

So if there is a public service that they are performing, that public 

service can continue, albeit being provided by another, perhaps 

more appropriate unit of government. 

Beyond that, we’ve heard a lot of rhetoric that this is a bad 

precedent—an unprecedented development and it’s neither of those. 

Indeed today in this Congress so far, the Forest Service has testified on 24 separate bills that involve the conveyance of over 34,000 

acres of Forest Service land into other ownerships and so, this is 

no more or less of a precedent than any of the other conveyance 

legislation that Congress has considered either in this Congress or 

in preceding Congresses over the last several decades. 

I will say that proposals like this do sometimes generate unexpected results, and perhaps the most pleasing unexpected result 

that this one has generated is that we’ve heard over the last month 

and a half from groups who are on a weekly basis critical of the 

Forest Service’s management. They are saying that but for the Forest Service’s management, dire and catastrophic things would 

occur. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, it’s pleasing to know that when faced with a prospect of an 

alternative, some groups more fully support what the Forest Service does on a day-to-day basis. In this job, you take your compliments wherever you can find them and so I am registering that 

one for the record today. 

With that, we’d be happy to answer any questions that you’ve 

got. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. REY

OVERVIEW

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget for the Forest Service. I am pleased 

to join Dale Bosworth, Chief of the Forest Service, at this hearing today. 

In my testimony, I will discuss two main issues. First, I will focus on the proposal 

in the President’s Budget to continue funding for an amended Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act. Second, I will discuss the increased funding 

for the Northwest Forest Plan that is requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget, 

which will promote improved forest health and more robust forest products economies in the Pacific Northwest. 

CONTINUING TRANSITIONAL SUPPORT TO RURAL COMMUNITIES THROUGH THE SECURE

RURAL SCHOOLS ACT

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public 

Law 106–393) was enacted to provide transitional assistance to rural counties that 

had been affected by the decline in revenue from timber harvests on Federal lands. 

These counties traditionally relied on a share of receipts from timber harvests to 

fund their school systems and roads. The funding provided by the Act has been used 

to provide over 4,400 rural schools with critical funding and has addressed severe 

maintenance backlogs for county roads. Resource Advisory Committees (RACs) established under the act have developed and proposed forest health improvement 

projects. A recent study by the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment, 

Assessment of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act— 

Dr. Jonathan Kusel (January 2006), on the effectiveness of RACs under title II and 

community programs under title III of the Act was encouraging. 

Each year the level of interaction between RACs, local governments, and citizens 

has increased, resulting in broader support and understanding of our mission. Addi-
16 

tionally, funding for title III has also been used to complete community wildfire protection plans which are necessary to efficiently plan protection strategies for our 

rural communities. 

The last payment authorized under the Act would be made in fiscal year 2007 

based on timber and other receipt levels for fiscal year 2006. The Administration 

is committed to provide transitional assistance to counties and States covered under 

the Secure Rural Schools Act. The Department of Agriculture has worked hard to 

find the offsets needed to temporarily fund this assistance, while targeting and 

gradually phasing it out. 

Our legislative proposal described in the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget for 

the Forest Service would provide a source of funding for payments under the Secure 

Rural Schools Act by authorizing the sale of certain National Forest System lands. 

These parcels meet criteria identified in existing Forest Land Management plans as 

potentially suitable for conveyance. Many of these lands are isolated from other contiguous National Forest System lands, and because of their location, size or configuration are not efficient to manage as a component of the National Forest System. 

Isolated tracts can be expensive to manage because of boundary management and 

encroachment resolution costs. The sale of these lands will not compromise the 

health or integrity of the National Forest System; instead, it will allow the agency 

to consolidate Federal ownership and reduce management costs. 

The legislation would authorize to the Secretary of Agriculture to sell sufficient 

national forest land to fund an $800 million account that would be used to make 

Secure Rural Schools Act payments over a five year period. Payments from the land 

sales fund will be adjusted downwards and eventually phased out. This adjustment 

recognizes that the Secure Rural Schools Act provided transitional assistance to 

rural communities adapting to a changing timber economy and a changing federal 

role in resource extraction. 

Funds from the land sales account would be in addition to payments to the States 

from annual timber and other receipts on national forests and BLM lands. For administrative purposes, the Secretary of Agriculture would also make the supplemental payments from this account for Bureau of Land Management O&C lands. 

Payments will continue to be targeted to the most affected areas. Timber receipts 

are expected to rise over the next five years, which should further help in reducing 

the impact of the payment phase-out. 

Since payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act began in 2001, the affected 

economies have made important strides in economic diversification and are now less 

dependent on federal timber receipts. In addition, the Forest Service has reestablished itself as a catalyst for economic development by conducting hazardous fuels 

treatments that can support a market in forest biomass. By selling isolated federal 

lands, we will further contribute to diversified rural government funding. 

When the Federal lands are sold and become private property, they will be added 

to the county tax rolls, providing a sustainable funding source for local governments. 

All of these factors combine into a unified plan to promote robust local economies 

and reduce the dependence of county governments on direct federal assistance. 

The Administration remains committed to acquiring environmentally sensitive 

lands and protecting them from development. This commitment is reflected in the 

President’s request for a $5 million increase in funding for the Forest Legacy program, which will protect an estimated 130,000 priority acres in fiscal year 2007 

through the purchase of conservation easements or fee simple title. In addition, our 

land acquisition program and land exchange program has been adding about 

100,000 acres per year to the National Forest System for the last several years. By 

selling lands that are inefficient to manage or are isolated with limited ecological 

values and purchasing critical, environmentally sensitive lands, the Forest Service 

will maintain the integrity of the National Forest System while funding payments 

under the Act in a fiscally responsible manner. 

INCREASED FUNDING OF THE NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

The 2007 Budget also reflects the President’s commitment to sustainable forestry 

in the Pacific Northwest through increased funding for the 1994 Northwest Forest 

Plan. The Northwest Forest Plan affects the management and administration of 

24.5 million acres of Federal land, of which 19.4 million are managed by the Forest 

Service within 19 national forests in western Oregon, western Washington, and 

northern California. The Northwest Forest Plan was designed to produce a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales while protecting the long-term health of 

forests, wildlife and waterways of the region. The Plan has succeeded in meeting 

its environmental goals. A 2004 Forest Service review of the first 10 years of the 

Northwest Forest Plan found that the net gain in older forests since 1994 was be-
17 

tween 1.25 and 1.5 million acres, over twice the 600,000 acres expected during the 

first decade of the plan. 

The 2004 review found that the Plan has not been successful at providing a predictable level of timber and non-timber resources. In order to recognize the needs 

of all parties affected by the Northwest Forest Plan, the President’s budget increases funding for the Plan by $66 million, with $41 million for forest products, 

$6 million for hazardous fuels treatment, and the remaining $19 million for assorted 

ecosystem management programs. This level of funding allows the Forest Service 

to offer the Plan’s goal of 800 million board feet of timber per year. 

The economies of the Pacific Northwest have experienced marked change over the 

past 15–20 years. The region went from harvesting 4 billion board feet of timber 

in 1990 to 409 million board feet in 2000, and the forest economies of the region 

have suffered from the lack of a predictable timber supply. The goal of the Administration is not to return to the peak levels of timber production; instead, the fiscal 

year 2007 budget provides for a sustainable, predictable level of timber harvest that 

also protects forest health. The current forest products economy offers great opportunities for businesses able to use new technologies and tap into expanding markets 

for new products. With a predictable timber supply established, the Pacific Northwest will be better equipped to adapt and succeed in the changing forest products 

market. 

One of the best examples of new opportunities in forest products is the rapidly 

expanding market for wood pellets as a fuel source. The demand for wood pellets 

for commercial and home heating has boomed as Americans face higher heating 

costs from traditional sources. Wood pellets suppliers have reported shortages from 

New Mexico to Rhode Island. Pellet producers, such as Forest Energy Corporation 

in Show Low, Arizona, are running their processing mills 24 hours a day and seven 

days a week to try and meet demand. In making the wood pellets, Forest Energy 

Corporation uses the small-diameter wood produced from hazardous fuels treatments in Arizona’s national forests. Expanded funding for the Northwest Forest 

Plan will create similar win/win situations in which both sustainable harvested timber and the byproducts from hazardous fuels treatments are used to meet the growing demand for forest products. 

In addition to meeting the Northwest Forest Plan’s timber targets, the Forest 

Service will improve over 3,900 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat and 120 miles 

of fisheries habitat in fiscal year 2007. The Forest Service has developed a comprehensive strategy for aquatic restoration within the Northwest Plan area to restore priority watersheds. 

The President’s Budget also enables the Forest Service to continue to emphasize 

the treatment of hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface and address the 

reforestation needs of recent large forest fires. With the expanded NWFP funding, 

the agency will continue to emphasize partnerships and integrated projects to protect municipal watersheds, recover habitat for endangered and sensitive species, and 

control the spread of invasive species. 

The 2007 President’s Budget provides $610 million to continue implementation of 

the Healthy Forests Initiative, to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. 

The budget proposal, more than a $12 million increase over 2006, takes an integrated approach to reducing hazardous fuels and restoring forest and rangeland 

health. Along with $301 million to the Department of Interior (DOI), the fiscal year 

2007 budget provides a total of $913 million to implement the Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

Through the continuation of the Secure Rural Schools Act and through expanded 

funding of the Northwest Forest Plan, the President’s Budget promotes sustainable 

rural communities and the expansion of a forest products economy that is compatible with improved forest health. These efforts, in combination with the President’s 

continued support of the Healthy Forests Initiative, highlight the Forest Service’s 

commitment to managing the Nation’s forests and grasslands with greater innovation and renewed efficiency. I look forward to working with Congress to enact the 

President’s fiscal year 2007 budget. At this time I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

NEW GRAZING PROPOSAL

Senator BURNS. Senator Dorgan is on kind of a short time line 

and for another hearing. So we’ll allow that he can lead off the 

questions here this morning, so that he has other things. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Chief 

Bosworth first off, you’ll recall last year that you all had issued 
18 

some new rules with respect to leasing land, or shared cattle and 

whether under those circumstances people would qualify for grazing permits. I held a subcommittee hearing in Bismarck on August 

30 of last year and we had the room filled with people pretty upset 

about things. 

We had your folks testify and the folks from your regional office, 

one of the things I discovered is that they learned about these new 

proposals at the same time that I learned about them. There was 

no consultation with the local folks. It appeared to me to be a pretty significant problem of communication. Have you reviewed that 

circumstance? 

Now you withdrew the proposals and should have, but what concerned me mostly about that, was that it appeared to me somebody 

in Washington just said here’s our new approach and sent them 

out and caught everybody by surprise, even your local and your regional folks. Can you describe what happened there? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. I have looked into that and as you’ve said, 

we withdrew the handbook. We have a process where we can issue 

interim directives and then receive comment at the same time. It’s 

a good system. It works fairly well. 

I think this was an inappropriate use of that system. I think we 

should have gone out and talked to people before we issued the interim directive and found out what people thought. Then we could 

issue a directive with whatever changes need to be made, as opposed to just issuing the interim directive. 

Senator DORGAN. I appreciate hearing that you also feel that was 

a problem and has been corrected because that shouldn’t happen. 

You shouldn’t catch your own people by surprise out there. So I appreciate the response. 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT/EBERT RANCH

Mr. Rey, you were in North Dakota recently. You have requested 

opportunities in funding to purchase the Theodore Roosevelt original ranch site in the Badlands and we have agreed I think, on a 

number of provisions with respect to that. 

I would like for us to exchange those letters and put them in this 

hearing record as well. I believe we’re all set in terms of how we 

do that for a no net gain of Federal lands. 

Mr. REY. That is correct. 

[The letters follow:] 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, February 9, 2006. 

Hon. MARK REY, 

Undersecretary for Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC. 

DEAR MR. REY: As per our recent conversation, this letter will serve as a record 

of my position on the Department’s request to reprogram $1.45 million towards the 

purchase of the Ebert Ranch property in Billings County, North Dakota. I support 

the preservation of this important piece of history, which includes the viewshed of 

President Theodore Roosevelt’s former ranch on the North Dakota Badlands. However, I am only willing to lend my support to this reprogramming and to future 

funding for the acquisition if the Department agrees to certain conditions that will 

help resolve local concerns. 

First, I expect the Department to submit a legislative proposal for the necessary 

land conveyance that reflects that the purchase of the Ebert Ranch property will 

not be completed until all of the other 5,150 acres of the Dakota Prairie Grasslands 

the agency proposes to sell are actually sold. This will ensure that there will be no 
19 

net increase in Federal lands in the state, and there will not be a diminished property tax base for local government. I also expect the Forest Service to take steps 

between now and the time the fiscal year 2007 Interior Appropriations bill is passed 

to make sure that these sales move forward in a timely manner once the bill is 

signed into law. 

Second, the conditions under which the property is acquired must not interfere 

with the other multiple uses that currently exist for that property. Grazing, oil and 

gas development, recreation and other multiple uses must all be preserved. In particular, the Department should commit to transferring all grazing allotments affiliated with the Ebert Ranch property to the Medora Grazing Association in order to 

ensure that these acres stay in production. 

Moreover, the Forest Service must also demonstrate that it wants to work with 

local stakeholders to resolve other grasslands management issues by agreeing to 

codify specific policy changes. The agency’s July 2005 attempt to make policy 

changes to its grazing handbook and manual without appropriate public involvement severely undermined public trust. The changes included the elimination of 

leasing base property and shared livestock by grazing permittees, which would be 

disastrous for many ranchers in North Dakota. To ensure that these policies are not 

reissued, I intend to amend your sale authority with legislative language that protects North Dakotans from any future restrictions for grazing permittees on the 

leasing of base property or shared livestock. I ask that you affirm your commitment 

that the Administration will support my efforts to add these provisions, which I 

would make specific to North Dakota. 

I also expect the Service to work directly with grazing associations and other interests to develop a mutually acceptable plan to implement the grazing Record of 

Decision for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Management Plan. This includes negotiating a reasonable compromise with grazing associations and other interested parties on the proposed Allotment Management Plan pilot demonstration project. 

Finally, virtually every other scenario that was explored for the Federal Government to acquire the Ebert Ranch property would have required Governor John 

Hoeven to approve the transaction. You have chosen to structure this acquisition so 

that the land can be acquired by the Department without his approval. However, 

I still believe that the best interests of the State of North Dakota are served by ensuring that he supports the Federal Government’s efforts to purchase and conserve 

this property. Therefore, I ask that the Department obtain Governor Hoeven’s support, in writing, for the acquisition of this property prior to the reprogramming of 

any funds. 

You have previously indicated to me that the Department is willing to meet these 

conditions and ensure my support for this acquisition. I request that your respond 

to this letter reaffirming that commitment. I look forward to working together to 

resolve issues of mutual concern and protect this historic property. 

Sincerely, 

BYRON L. DORGAN, 

U.S. Senator. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, 

Washington, DC, March 3, 2006. 

Hon. BYRON L. DORGAN, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR DORGAN: This is in response to the February 9, 2006, letter outlining your position on the Department’s request to reprogram $1.45 million towards 

the purchase of the Ebert Ranch property in Billings County, North Dakota. I appreciate your support for the acquisition of this important historical property. In addition, we will continue to seek the necessary approval for reprogramming with the 

House Appropriations Committee. Your support for the reprogramming is provided 

only if the Department could assist in the resolution of several local concerns. The 

Department’s response to these conditions is as follows: 

We recognize the need to dispose of a like number of acres of the Dakota Prairie 

Grasslands (DPG) in order to insure there is a no net increase in Federal lands in 

the state upon completion of the proposed acquisition. The Department is prepared 

to submit a legislative proposal providing the Secretary of Agriculture the authority 

needed to convey the necessary acreage through land sales at market value. Every 

effort will be made to insure these lands are offered for sale in a timely manner 

once this authority is provided. Preparatory work to that end is already underway. 
20 

When acquired, we will manage the property as a component of the DPG in accordance with the Forest Plan direction which provides for a full complement of 

multiple use resource activities. Grazing allotments associated with the Ebert Ranch 

would continue to be grazed through existing arrangements with the grazing Association. 

We will provide legislative language to continue the grazing permittee practice of 

leasing base property and shared livestock specific to the state of North Dakota 

without timeframe restrictions. 

We have and will continue to work with the appropriate grazing associations in 

the development of the demonstration project for allotment management planning 

on the DPG. The objective of the project is to provide a long term sustainable multiple use management through sound and practical management of grassland ecosystems for the multiple benefits of local communities and the public. 

Finally, it is true that the current structure of the Ebert Ranch acquisition would 

not require the Governor to approve the transaction. However, we will continue to 

work with the Governor to assure his support for the acquisition. 

I look forward to working with you and other appropriate Congressional members 

to both resolve the issues of mutual concern on the Grasslands, and acquire this 

historic property. 

Sincerely, 

MARK REY, 

Under Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment. 

NATIONAL RECREATION RESERVATION SYSTEM

Senator DORGAN. Let me also ask Chief Bosworth about this 

issue ricocheting around which you’re very well familiar with, the 

contracting for the National Recreation Reservation System, a $100 

million contract. 

Now I’m just an observer of this, but my understanding is the 

GAO has twice evaluated this and indicated that they felt the contract was improperly awarded. Yet, I think the Forest Service, from 

what I understand, has intended or decided to go forward with the 

procurement of this anyway. 

Is that the case? Do I have the facts right? 

Mr. REY. Essentially, that’s correct. GAO issues opinions in response to contract disputes. Under the law, those opinions are advisory. 

With respect to GAO’s first opinion, we agreed there were some 

flaws in the contract administration which is why we reoffered it. 

In response to their second GAO opinion, we think they mis-analyzed the record as it existed at the time. It is within our authority 

to proceed and the unsuccessful contract bidder can now, if they 

choose, decide that they want to pursue this further action through 

the Court of Claims. 

So far, they’ve filed a protective notice, but there are discussions 

ongoing. I don’t know where that will head. 

Senator DORGAN. Is it quite unusual for an agency, despite the 

advice of the GAO or the evaluation of the GAO, to proceed anyway? You worked in the Senate I believe, and you understand that 

we rely to a substantial degree on the GAO. 

The GAO is our investigative arm. They have investigated this 

twice and both times come up saying you’re short and this 

shouldn’t proceed. Yet, you’re proceeding anyway. Have you done 

that, and can you cite other areas where you’ve proceeded against 

the advice of the GAO? 

Mr. REY. There have been no other areas I know of where the 

Forest Service has, but it’s not uncommon in the case of other 

agencies. We’d be happy to sit down with you and go through these 
21 

specifics of this. There are some countervailing reasons why we did 

not want to offer the contract a third time. 

Had we offered the contract a third time, the prevailing bidder 

the first two rounds made it quite clear that they would appeal 

that result. So we wouldn’t have been before GAO a third time 

under that circumstance. 

So this is a case where the two companies involved are quite determined to exercise all of their remedies and options. Eventually, 

we have to get beyond that and offer a contract, so we can offer 

recreation reservations to the public. 

So one of the strong considerations, was the virtual certainty 

that we would have been before GAO a third time anyway. But I 

think if we can have the opportunity to give you a briefing in greater detail, you will see some circumstances that also mitigated in 

favor of moving forward. 

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Senator DORGAN. Let me finally, Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your indulgence. Let me say that I want to submit some questions 

for the record including questions about leafy spurge—to the extent 

there is some improvement, good for you. 

Our ranchers—and I’m sure in Montana and Colorado feel the 

same way—our ranchers want the Federal Government to be a 

good neighbor and a good neighbor means taking care of your 

weeds. So, I want to submit some questions and those questions 

will include among other things, the leafy spurge issues. 

Now I ask that you respond to the written questions. Thank you 

very much for being here. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator. You know you can go to a 

lot of fancy things in this town and if somebody asked you what 

you’re working on and you say weeds, you’ll find out how quick 

you’re standing there by yourself, because nobody understands this 

battle we have with noxious weeds and invasive species in our 

country. That is something, we found out how to control them. We 

have a lady in Big Timber, Montana that can solve your problem 

for you if you have a really big problem. But now getting those 

folks at the table to act and to sign off on that is another story. 

But it offers no chemicals. It’s as natural as day following night 

and it’s grazing. Pure and simple, it’s grazing. That’s what controls 

weeds—sheep eat weeds and they take those numbers down. 

GRAZING PERMIT BACKLOG

While we’re talking about that, we’ve got a real problem in the 

backlog of expiring grazing permits that need to be renewed. Yet, 

you cut that back this time. Congress put a schedule in place for 

renewal—the permits of the 1995 Rescission Act. So your budget 

justifications says you’re only getting done 50 percent of the work 

that you need to do each year to comply with that schedule and the 

schedule requires those allotments to be done by 2010. That doesn’t 

seem very far off right now, as we sit here and talk about it. 

Now you’ve reduced the program by $8.5 million and the number 

of grazing allotments processed declined by 34 percent, from 484 

allotments this year to 321 next year. Now why is it a good idea 

when we still have 3,200 permits that need to be processed? 
22 

It makes no sense to me and my question is, how many allotment 

decisions have been made using the categorical exclusion? I would 

say, you know we get to feeling kind of like—and I know most of 

you hunt birds and you take bird dogs and everything like that, 

you know—we’re feeling kind of like that bird dog up here, that we 

find the bird, we flush the bird, and the shooter never hits it. We 

don’t get anything to retrieve and pretty soon, after four or five 

times of that, we get kind of tired of hunting for you and fighting 

for you out there to give you the tools to complete your work. 

So there was a cap, I think around 900 in that particular piece 

of language on categorical exclusions. So I would ask you, how 

many allotment decisions have you made using this authority so 

far. How many have you used? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Let me just take a second to give you a little bit 

of background. We got the authority, which very helpful to use the 

categorical exclusions about a year and a half ago. Then of course, 

it took us a little bit of time, not too much, to get the directives 

out. 

Then we got into an issue called the Earth Island Institute lawsuit on categorical exclusions. That held us off until about last fall 

and we moved forward with using categorical exclusions. I think 

we’ve completed 44 allotments at this point using the categorical 

exclusions. We expected to do another 100 this year and it’s going 

to continue to be a tool that will work. 

We exceeded our targets in terms of range allotments that were 

completed in 2005. I believe we’ll meet or exceed our targets this 

year. I would expect and hope that we would be able to exceed the 

number that is shown for the budget justification for fiscal year 

2007. We’ll be very close to meeting our expected number of allotments that use categorical exclusions and have them completed by 

the timeframe. 

So we’re still committed to achieving that objective and that target. 

Senator BURNS. You’ve cut back your resource here; what effect 

will that have? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Obviously when we have less dollars, we do less 

work. Having said that, though, I think I mentioned a couple of 

things in my opening comments about some improved efficiencies 

that we’ll get more of the dollars to the ground by reducing our indirect costs by centralizing our business processes. Some of those 

things will save us a considerable amount of money over the next 

few years and what we’re after is getting more of the dollars out 

on the ground getting the work done. 

So I believe that that is one of the ways we’ll be able to achieve 

and exceed some of these targets. 

GRAZING AND NOXIOUS WEEDS

Senator BURNS. This is the dilemma we find ourselves in, in this 

respect, then it is a concern that Senator Dorgan had about leafy 

spurge. We’ve got both spurge and nap. Some private forest and 

private lands are paying this person that has got a lot of sheep. 

They are paying them a buck a head a month to graze it off when 

the livestock people use to pay for the permits to use that resource 

of grazing. 
23 

Now it seems to me that we could solve two problems here. By 

accelerating these grazing permits and deal with our invasive and 

weeds and get it done. These are dollars that—they’re not very 

many dollars involved, but it has more impact on the health of the 

forest and our range lands than anything we could do. 

It’s just out there and very simple. Why we can’t get that done, 

is absolutely beyond me. I know why we’re not getting it done, because we just don’t have a lot of folks that go down deep in the 

Forest Service that really believe this to happen. They may have 

to do some work. They may have to stake out some boundaries. 

GRAZING PERMITS

But I really believe that this business of denying those grazing 

permits, actually denies us a most essential tool to the health of 

the land and the forests. I really believe that, because I can show 

you maps, that when we have grazing in forest land, we had less 

fires. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to respond to that because there are no situations where a permit has expired that we 

haven’t reissued the permit. The issue here is getting all of our 

grazing allotments reissued under NEPA. In the meantime, we’re 

still grazing. We have used contracts for sheep and goats in places 

in the past, to work specifically on things like leafy spurge, because 

that is effective. 

With cattle, it’s not. It doesn’t do the same thing. From time to 

time, we pay people to graze on the national forest to actually reduce the amount of leafy spurge. 

We’re also using the biological controls like a flea beetle to help 

with both leafy spurge as well as spot knapweed. 

Senator BURNS. Most of that was developed over at Sidney, Montana. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Some of it was and it works fairly well in many 

places. We’re not reducing any grazing based upon the schedule 

that we had for reissuing these allotments. 

The issue would be that if we don’t complete it by the end of the 

timeframe, we start having problems then. I think that is 2010. We 

expect to meet that date. We expect to have all of these reissued 

by that time. In the meantime, if one ends, then we will reissue 

it anyway. We have that authority that we were given by Congress. 

Senator BURNS. Okay. I just need some dedication and I’d like 

to see some folks down there doing those things. I don’t want their 

shirt tale to hit their backside. I want them to get after it. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would like to add that our folks in the field are 

committed to getting this done. There is no lack of desire on their 

part and they are out on the ground, trying to get the job done. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS LAND SALES PROPOSAL

Senator BURNS. Let’s talk about the sales of these acres. Now I’ll 

tell you what the attitude of the folks in Montana are taking, that 

you’re going to sell about 13,948 acres eligible for the sale in Montana, when 75 percent of the receipts go to schools in California, 

Oregon, and Washington. 
24 

I’m not going to sell my ranch and then send the money over 

there. How do I justify that when I’m driving down the road next 

week? 

Mr. REY. Well, the 2000 legislation was a piece of national legislation and in establishing the guaranteed payment, it mirrored 

what were the historic timber sale receipts in different States. 

Our proposal to reauthorize it is a national piece of legislation, 

although we did include in response to commentary from a number 

of members, a requirement that we maximize regional equity to the 

extent possible. I do think that when we get into the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools legislation, one of the things we 

would like to work with the committees of jurisdiction on is the 

question of whether the 2000 formula is still the right distribution 

of funds. 

Today, as I said in my testimony, some counties have made the 

transition better than others and it may be that we should be readjusting the formula to reflect that. I dare say, there are some counties in States that get the majority share of the money under the 

2000 legislation that have done a pretty good job of making that 

transition. There are also counties and States that got a lesser 

share in 2000—based upon the historic receipts level—that haven’t 

made the transition. 

Senator BURNS. Well I agree with that, but I find a hard time 

coming up with an answer when you’re doing things like this. 

Senator Allard, welcome to the committee this morning. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be 

here, as always. I have a prepared statement and I wonder if I 

might make that? 

Senator BURNS. Without objection, it shall be made a part of the 

record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Thank you, Chairman Burns, for holding this important hearing. Colorado’s abundance of forests make this a very significant hearing to me. 

Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I thank you for your appearance before 

the subcommittee today, it is good to see both of you again. The role the Forest 

Service plays in managing our public lands is of particular interest to the people 

of Colorado. 

I hope the committee will indulge me as I am about to brag about my home state 

for a moment. I think that I am one of the luckiest people in Washington, DC. Not 

only do I get to serve the people of Colorado, but I am fortunate enough to have 

incredibly beautiful and unique lands in my home state. Colorado is home to 13 National Forests. This is more than almost any other state. These forests provide 

countless scenic vistas, unequaled hunting, fishing, and camping opportunities, and 

the nation’s most popular skiing. In fact not only does the nation’s most visited ski 

resort lie in Colorado, but 3 of the top 5 most visited ski areas call Colorado home. 

But the importance of Colorado’s forests goes far beyond recreational opportunities. Our National Forests are a cornerstone of Colorado’s economy. Hunting and 

fishing alone contribute over one billion dollars to Colorado’s economy every year, 

with much of this money going to rural communities. 

This and other forest related industries pump billions of dollars into Colorado’s 

economy and employ one of the states largest segments of the workforce. 

But perhaps the most important thing is that Colorado’s forests also contain 4 

major watersheds, the Arkansas, Upper Colorado, Rio Grande and Missouri (or 

South Platte), that supply water to 19 western states. Colorado can truly be called 

the Headwaters State. With the obvious exception of Hawaii it is the only state 

where all of the rivers flow out of the state’s borders. 
25 

Now I have to turn to the bad news. Areas of the state continue to suffer from 

drought conditions, and the potential for catastrophic fires is very high again this 

year. To compound this problem Colorado currently has 1.5 million acres that are 

suffering from the effects of beetle kill. 

Timber sales are thought by many resource managers to be the single most effective tool available to the Forest Service to mitigate against—or treat during—episodes like bark beetle epidemics. But the Forest Service doesn’t seem to be getting 

enough money to the national forests in Colorado to combat the problem. We’ve got 

a sawmill in Montrose that’s running at half capacity and another one just across 

the State line in Saratoga, Wyoming, that’s closed because they don’t have enough 

timber. 

That said, I support the proposed increase in the forest products line item and 

applaud the emphasis on forest plan implementation. I will have a question regarding this matter when we get to that portion of this hearing. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman 

NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

Senator ALLARD. I have a question regarding the President’s budget. There’s a $30 million increase in forest products line item 

and the entire $30 million increase plus an additional $11 million 

of forest products funding would go to the Pacific Northwest as increased funding for the Northwest Forest Plan. 

My question is this: Will the increased funding for the Northwest 

Forest Plan be at the expense of dealing with the bark beetle problem in Colorado, or is there room in this proposed budget to get 

more timber sale money to the national forests in Colorado to address the bark beetle problem? 

I’m sure you’re aware that we have a very serious problem in 

Colorado with bark beetle and we’re losing our entire forests in 

some cases. I’m wondering if you would respond to that? 

Mr. REY. Sure. I’ll start and the Chief can add anything he 

wants to. The 2007 budget proposal suggests slight increases for 

both the forest management account, timber sale account, and the 

hazardous fuels account in all Forest Service regions. 

By far, the largest increase is in the Pacific Northwest to fully 

fund the Northwest Forest Plan and we think that’s justified. Over 

the last 10 years, by far the sharpest decrease in timber sales levels has been in the Pacific Northwest. The Northwest Forest Plan 

was itself an 80 percent reduction of what were historic levels 

there. So simply meeting the Northwest Forest Plan means we’re 

only going to hit about 20 percent of what the historic level was. 

That increase that we’re proposing in 2007 will not come at the 

expense of any other region. We are proposing for the implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act yet another record request—that being the third in a 

row—for a total funding for those purposes. 

If Congress looks favorably on that request and if the Federal 

land managing agencies—Forest Service and the Department of the 

Interior—meet the targets that we’ve agreed to in fiscal year 2006 

using money you’ve already given us, as well as using the money 

that we requested in fiscal year 2007, by the end of 2007 we will 

have treated Federal acreage equivalent to the land mass of the 

State of Ohio. 

BARK BEETLES

Senator ALLARD. Well I’m wondering if perhaps, maybe you won’t 

be available—you and Mr. Bosworth both wouldn’t be available— 
26 

to come by my office. I would like to visit with you a little bit about 

our bark beetle problem in Colorado, if you would. I also have a 

letter I would like to give to you and to Mr. Bosworth when we 

leave for the vote, if that’s okay. 

[NOTE.—Senator Allard asked Chief Bosworth for a meeting 

about the bark beetle problem in Colorado. Forest Service representatives met with members of Senator Allard’s staff on March 

30, 2006, and discussed the problem.] 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Rey, also I have a question in regard to the $11 million increase in hazardous fuels funding in the budget. I 

strongly support spending money pro-actively in hazardous fuel 

projects. It will help reduce the risk of forest fires also, and the associated risk to watersheds, communities, and residents when we 

get the fires. 

I understand some acres treated aren’t the highest priority acres. 

From your reviews of the hazardous fuel program, is there room to 

improve what is being done on the ground, and how are you working towards that objective? 

Mr. REY. There’s always room for improvement. But substantial 

improvement has already occurred. What drives the priority selection for acres today are primarily two things. 

One, the development of the community-based fire plans that 

several hundred communities in the West have developed to identify the acres that create the greatest risk to the well-being of those 

communities. That was a planning system that was incorporated in 

the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and has been widely embraced 

by communities throughout the country. So to the extent that acres 

are identified in those plans, they come to the top of the list. 

Second, we are developing some fire behavior and spread models 

that are now beginning to determine the patterns of treatments we 

use, so that we have the greatest potential to control wildfire 

spread, treating the most effective number or the most cost effective number of acres in a particular watershed or airshed possible. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I just wonder how successful the Forest 

Service has been at integrating these multiple budget line items. 

For example, the hazardous fuel, the forest health, and timber 

sales funding, and to individual projects in getting more bang for 

your buck. 

Mr. REY. I think we’ve been pretty successful in doing that. The 

proof in the pudding will be in this fire season and in subsequent 

fire seasons as we are able to demonstrate to you in a real time, 

on-the-ground basis, that wildfires that ignite were brought under 

control, as a consequence of burning into areas that were treated. 

Already this spring, a fire called the February fire—actually this 

winter, since February is part of winter—the February fire, as it 

was named in Arizona, was controlled because it burned into some 

treated areas that were treated as a consequence of the Healthy 

Forests Initiative. 

RECREATION FUNDING

Senator ALLARD. When I look at what’s happening in the various 

regions and whatnot, I have a concern about Forest Service Region 
27 

2 where Colorado is located. It’s my understanding—and correct me 

if I’m wrong—that the national forests have more visitors there 

than in any other region. 

Fully about 32.5 million people visited there last year, for example. Now that’s a good thing because obviously, we want people to 

enjoy our forests and the great resources that are in Region 2. 

While we look at that figure, it’s confusing that it doesn’t receive 

the highest recreation funding. In fact, it gets less funding per visitor than any other region. I wonder if you can explain why this 

is the case in Region 2? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. The way we allocate the recreation dollars varies 

depending upon the kind of recreation that would be occurring on 

the national forest. For example, if you count skier days the same 

way you would count, say a campground, there would be a difference in terms of the cost of accomplishing that, or administering 

a wilderness area, from the recreational standpoint. When it’s a 

small wilderness close to a high population area, that is much more 

expensive to do than, say, a very large wilderness area that is a 

long ways away from a population area. So what we do is we look 

at the different kinds of recreation that occurs and the cost of doing 

that and we allocate those dollars to the regions based upon that 

approach. I’d be happy to sit down with you or your staff and have 

some folks go over the process that we use for that allocation. 

We’re always continuing to make adjustments to try to make sure 

that we get the dollars to high priority areas. 

Senator ALLARD. I would very much like to have that. I’ll take 

you up on that after with my staff, because I really would like to 

see how that is working so I can have a better understanding of 

it. 

[NOTE.—Senator Allard accepted Chief Bosworth’s offer to have 

a meeting concerning the recreation funding allocation process. 

Forest Service representatives met with members of Senator 

Allard’s staff on March 30, 2006, and discussed the issue.] 

Mr. REY. I would just say in very simple terms, overnight use 

costs more to manage than day use and a lot of the Region 2 use 

is day use off the Rocky Mountain front by people coming from Colorado or from the Denver metropolitan area and coming into the 

forest for a day either to picnic, hike, ski, or to do other day-use 

things and then going back home that night. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I’m not familiar with how much 

time you’re giving us. 

Senator BURNS. You’re done. 

Senator ALLARD. I had a feeling that perhaps maybe my time 

was expiring so I’ll quit cooking. 

Senator BURNS. I’ll tell you one thing, when the chairman of the 

full committee comes in, we’re all done. 

Senator ALLARD. You’ve got a good point. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have other questions, I would 

just like to submit them in writing. 

Senator BURNS. For the information of our members here, we 

have I think, three stacked votes which we’re going to have—everybody is trying to get out of here tonight—so we’re going to have a 

lot of votes, and so our hearing may be shortened a little bit by 

this. 
28 

So Senator Cochran, we welcome you to the subcommittee this 

morning. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to join you and other members of this subcommittee in welcoming Secretary Rey and Chief Bosworth to this 

hearing, reviewing the budget request for the management of our 

forest resources and the other activities and challenges that face 

the Department. 

I’m very pleased to also commend you for your timely and energetic devotion to duty in the aftermath of Hurricanes Rita and 

Katrina, which struck the gulf coast region of our country and did 

such a tremendous amount of damage to forest resources, both on 

private lands as well as public lands and the effort you’re making 

to help recover, and rebuild, and restore health to the forest in this 

region. I deeply appreciate it and it’s going to be a continuing effort 

and we’ll try to provide the resources we have available to us 

through the appropriations process to ensure that you have what 

you need to do the job. 

Other than that, we know we’re confronted with some wildfire 

challenges because of debris and difficulties that stem from these 

disasters. We recognize that we have an obligation to try to make 

available additional funds for that purpose, too. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I don’t have any other questions. I know our time is limited because of this series of votes that’s occurring. I appreciate the chairman giving me an opportunity to come in and welcome you and I 

would ask that the rest of my statement be printed in the record. 

Senator BURNS. Without objection, it will be. Does that include 

all the scribblings, too? 

Senator COCHRAN. Just like I wrote it, that’s good. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Mr. Chairman I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary Mark Rey and 

Chief Dale Bosworth to the committee this morning. We appreciate very much for 

their hard work over the past five years to ensure that our National Forest system 

is maintained in a manner that allows for the appropriate use our nation’s forest 

resources and protects the health of our forests. 

I also want to commend you an your staff for the effort you have made throughout 

the Gulf Coast region following the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to clear debris and 

establish emergency staging areas for the delivering of assistance in the form of 

shelter, food, and water to thousands of Gulf Coast residents who lost their homes. 

In recent years the Forest Service has had to deal with natural disasters throughout 

the nation, especially in regions that had large wildfires. This experience in emergency preparedness and assistance was evident with the quick and effective response of the forest service on the Gulf Coast. 

The hurricane Katrina also caused widespread damage to private as well as federal timber lands in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. Current estimates put 

the value of timber lost at over $1 billion. Much of this timber was located on private lands and these landowners have suffered a significant financial loss. The Forest Service and private landowners should work in a collaborative manner to ensure 

reforestation and restoration so this industry will be able to contribute throughout 

the South as one of our most important economic assets. 

In recent weeks we have seen a significant outbreak in forest wildfires due to the 

drought and the large fuel load that remains on the ground. I encourage the Forest 
29 

Service to allocate the needed resources to help combat these fire outbreaks. Many 

of these forest lands are located next homes and schools in rural communities. 

These communities will need your help because much of their emergency response 

and firefighting equipment was destroyed by the Hurricanes. 

Another issue important to the Southeastern region of the United States is the 

research and treatment of insects and disease within our forests. In Mississippi, 

over 69 percent of the forestland is privately owned, and much of this land borders 

public forestlands. It is very important for the Forest Service continue the research 

and development of new management and treatment methods to better protect federal lands. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. 

Senator BURNS. We will start voting here at around 10:30 and 

there are four stacked votes and so, it would be very tough for us. 

Everybody said they’re are going to be a 10- and 15-minute vote, 

but don’t count on that. 

FOREST PLANNING

But in the area, Chief, you know you joined us in Missoula, Montana at a very constructive hearing about forest planning and this 

type thing. As you know, we’ve got five forest plans covering 11 

million acres in Montana, and that’s being revised now. We received a lot of comments on that. Most of it during the hearing was 

concerned about public access and motorized use being further limited in our forest in Montana. Especially, in other words, consolidating and bringing down in concentrated areas which I think basically, does more damage to our forests, and the riparian areas, and 

the other erosion issues, than it does when we spread it out across 

the whole forest. 

Can you bring me up to date on the progress of those forest plans 

out there, right now? We were suppose to be updated late last fall 

and then we moved that back in the February area, and we haven’t 

heard a lot from out there and gotten any kind of report. 

Can you give us a progress report on where we are and how 

we’re progressing? It has to do with maintenance cuts, and Montana road closures, in our national forests, all of these issues come 

down to the forest planning idea. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well we’re continuing work on the forest plans 

in Montana, as we discussed once before. The BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest is proceeding using our old planning 

rule. We have three forests in western Montana—the Flathead, the 

Lolo, and the Bitterroot—that are using the new planning rule that 

we just completed. 

We expect those three forests to be coming out with their proposal here in the next few months. They are working very closely 

with the public. In fact, one of the things that I think the new 

planning rule does, is it enhances the ability of the public to work 

together with the Forest Service in developing the forest plans. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

I would like to say a little bit about the off-highway vehicle use, 

because that’s important to the people in Montana. We are implementing our new off-highway vehicle rule, and that requires that 

people remain on designated roads and trails or areas that have 

been designated. So in a collaborative way, we’re working with the 
30 

public to designate which of those roads and trails and I think that 

is working fairly well. 

It’s always difficult to agree on any individual trail. Our purpose 

is to provide better access and sustainable access to the national 

forest. We don’t want to end up with so much damage that the next 

generation of people can’t be out there on the forest and enjoy it. 

We want to have a way that people can get out on these trails and 

on trails that have been designed for motorized vehicle use and get 

to the country that they want to get to. 

Most of the people, including organizations like the Blue Ribbon 

Coalition, support the notion that we have in our rule that would 

require designation of individual roads and trails or areas. We’ll 

complete that designation in about 3.5 years. 

Senator BURNS. That’s a good idea, but then you know we’ve got 

to have the confidence that once we make the decisions on those 

areas that we don’t close roads. Now, I’m getting complaints now 

from the State of Montana. 

Now there are certain times of the year when you close a road 

for a specific purpose and for a specific time. I’m getting complaints 

that they never open the road again. They just don’t do it. So, I 

think we’ve got to work our way through some of those problems 

and then when we look at our maintenance, as far as the roads are 

concerned, that the ones that we’re going to use we’ve got to cut 

back there and we want to try to maintain as safe a trail and a 

road as we possibly can for that specific traffic. 

So that’s the things we’re running into. When I talk to people 

who use the forest lands for snowmobiling, and hiking, and biking, 

and all of that kind of recreation. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would like to follow up a little bit on these 

roads where a gate’s been closed and not reopened when it’s a seasonal closure, because maybe I could work with your staff and find 

more specifically where that might be occurring. It’s certainly our 

intention, that when we have a seasonal closure that’s supposed to 

be closed on a certain day then opened on a following date that 

that is what we do. 

Now, from time to time, I’m sure that there’s a situation where 

our folks haven’t gotten out there on that day—a week late or 

something like that, but I don’t want to see places where we’re not 

opening those gates. 

Senator BURNS. We know there could be extenuating circumstances. Mother Nature’s a little fickle every now and again 

too, you know. We have to make a judgement call sometimes. But 

those complaints, we hear about that a lot. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I’ll be happy to get some more specifics on that. 

Because again as I say, it is our intention that we open those on 

the days that we say we’ll open them. 

[NOTE.—Chief Bosworth agreed to discuss the issue of road closures with Senator Burns. Forest Service legislative affairs personnel have contacted Senator Burns’ office to set up the meeting 

and are awaiting a date to discuss the issue.] 

EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE LAWSUIT

Senator BURNS. The Earth Island thing on categorical exclusions, 

I see in your budget justification that this case delayed or cancelled 
31 

723 fuel reduction projects, affecting over a million acres. Bring us 

up to date on the status of the litigation, and are you planning to 

appeal it if we get—— 

Mr. REY. The litigation is under appeal now. The District Court 

decision is under appeal before the 9th Circuit. Given the average 

turnaround time for a 9th Circuit decision, I’m not optimistic that 

we’ll get any kind of a response during this upcoming operating 

season. 

Senator BURNS. Is there anything you can do in light of that appeal? Can you do some things that would facilitate moving some of 

those projects forward? 

Mr. REY. We will move some of those projects forward, but those 

that garner objections will be delayed by the normal appeals process. 

BARK BEETLE DAMAGE IN MONTANA

Senator BURNS. I would say, I really feel like the most dangerous 

thing, Mr. Secretary, is this bark beetle, not only in Colorado. I 

would just invite anybody to drive over Homestead Pass, between 

Whitehall and Butte, and then look south and just absolutely cry, 

and then go into the Yak and just absolutely sit down and cry that 

we cannot, some way or another, deal with these stressed trees and 

thinning the things—the management things that’s going to take 

to care of that particular problem. 

I have some more questions to ask of you. 

Do you have anything to add, Senator Allard, you want to talk 

about right now, or are you going to do it in private conversations? 

Senator ALLARD. I have some more questions if you need me to 

fill time. 

WILDLAND FIRE PROGRAM

Senator BURNS. We don’t need anymore fill time here. I’m going 

to ask you some other questions, but I’ll do it and your response 

can be to the committee and be made a part of the committee 

record. Wildland fire outlook this year? Any forecasts? 

Mr. REY. The forecast this year, is this will probably be a more 

difficult season than the last two. Particularly in the Southwest. 

Senator BURNS. I know our snow pack in Montana has never 

been better, it’s really good this year. Fire readiness capability, I 

think we want to talk about that and I think we also want to iron 

out this difference between State and volunteer fire assistance that 

you’ve got in your budget this year, and take a look at that. The 

outlook is good. 

But those are the areas where I think I had my primary concerns 

and I’ll do that. We’ll sit down. When you go by his office, we’ll 

schedule my office. We don’t want you to work a half of a day. 

[NOTE.—Senator Burns asked Chief Bosworth to have a meeting 

to discuss several issues related to the Wildland Fire Management 

program. Forest Service legislative affairs personnel have contacted 

Senator Burns’ office to set up the meeting and are awaiting a date 

to discuss the issues.] 

Senator BURNS. Senator Allard? 

Senator ALLARD. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would like to 

voice many of the same concerns that the chairman is voicing. 
32 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

In the Rocky Mountain Region there are a lot of things that have 

happened that commonly effect, I think both Montana and Colorado. The question I have that I would like to ask here is, how 

much does the U.S. Forest Service anticipate the travel management, that is the designating of routes and areas for motor vehicle 

use to cost to fully implement nationwide. Specifically, what budgets within the U.S. Forest Service will funds be allocated in order 

to implement the travel management designated routes and areas 

for motor vehicle use. Do you happen to have that information? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. In terms of the kinds of dollars we would use 

normally, you would think that recreation would be an area that 

would be funding part of that work. There are also a number of 

other functional areas that benefit from doing a better job of managing off highway vehicle use. 

For example, water quality can be improved if we’re doing a better job of keeping machines out of streams. Wildlife habitat can be 

improved if we’re more careful about which trails and roads we 

allow motorized vehicles. 

So we expect that a number of different budget line items will 

contribute to the planning and to the implementation of managing 

off highway vehicles. 

As far as the total cost per forest, I could get you the best information if you give me a little bit of time to do that. 

Senator ALLARD. That would be helpful I think, particularly in 

my State. We’d be interested in knowing how that breaks out. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I’d be happy to do that. 

Senator ALLARD. Very good. 

[The information follows:] 

COST OF TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING

The Forest Service has estimated that nationally we will spend between $15 and 

$35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning. These costs only include travel planning costs associated with identifying a system of designated roads, 

trails, and areas. Costs on each national forest will depend not only on the local environment and local use, but on each unit’s history of travel planning. Some national forests have recently completed comprehensive travel plans, while others are 

just beginning. These figures represent an average cost of $600,000 to $1.5 million 

per national forest to complete a travel plan from start to finish. On most national 

forests, travel planning will require a substantial effort, including environmental 

analysis and documentation prepared in an open, collaborative process. Although 

specific costs for travel management plans for each of the national forests in Colorado is not available, they are expected to be in the range stated above. 

Since travel planning serves multiple purposes, funding may be derived from a 

variety of Forest Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served 

at the local level. Among the principal programs and appropriations associated with 

travel planning are: Roads; Trails; Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness; Wildlife 

and Fisheries Habitat Management; and Vegetation and Watershed Management. 

Senator BURNS. One personal thing, are we still working on that 

little thing with Mack White? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We’re still working on that with Mack White. 

The Regional Forester has been in negotiations. 

Senator BURNS. Will you tell him—be like Larry the Cable Guy— 

git er done and don’t ask for any icing on the cake. We’re just dealing with the cake right now. But I appreciate that and your efforts 

there. 
33 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

We have received statements from Senator Larry Craig and the 

Society of American Foresters that will be made part of the hearing 

record. 

[The statements follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

The President’s budget reflects our nation’s clear priorities for this year: win the 

war on terror, reduce budget deficits by reining in spending, create jobs and grow 

the economy, and boost America’s energy independence. 

In short, this budget is ‘‘leaner and meaner.’’ And in the end, I’m hopeful it will 

translate into a more efficient government. 

I’ve been very vocal about my support for the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Act, but I want to reiterate my thanks to the President for including funding 

for this important program in his budget request. However, I do have significant 

preliminary concerns about the offsets proposed by the President, and I look forward 

to receiving additional details and working with the administration. 

Since the last Forest Service budget hearing, I have some new questions I’m hoping to have answered regarding the agency’s new travel management rule. Recreation is an important quality of life issue for my constituents and I want to assure 

them that access will be maintained to our national forest lands. Additionally, it is 

important to note that the Forest Service is not in the business of closing roads for 

the purpose of saving money. 

Idaho’s Parks and Recreation Department has provided an exceptional amount of 

assistance to our federal land agencies doing trail maintenance and construction. 

We have recreational groups who have shown interest in an ‘‘adopt a trail’’ program 

to help the Forest Service do trail clearing and maintenance. I would like to have 

it on record that Idahoans are doing their part, from our State agencies to public 

land users, and I do not want those efforts to be overlooked. 

Overall, I am pleased with the distribution of funds to the various accounts. I feel 

we need to continue to focus on fire preparedness and suppression; however, with 

a decrease in rehabilitation and restoration, I am curious about the President’s proposal to continue to manage our public lands in a sustainable way after the fires 

come—and the fires will come. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS

The Society of American Foresters (SAF), representing over 15,000 forest managers, researchers, and educators, supports sound management and stewardship of 

the nation’s 749 million acres of forestland. We offer the following suggestions to 

facilitate improved stewardship and management of the nation’s forests through 

funding for forestry programs within the U.S. Forest Service and the Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 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 provide further detail upon request. 

Today, the nation’s forest face serious threats—threats that will affect the provision of clean water and air, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, forest products, and scenic beauty. Congress is faced with serious budget challenges and funding is extremely limited. In recognition of this, we’ve limited our funding recommendations to three priority areas even though there are many important forestry programs within USDA and USDOI. The priority areas are: 

—Forest Research and Inventory 

—Forest Health on both public and private forestlands 

—Family forestland Management 

FOREST RESEARCH AND INVENTORY

The key to good stewardship and sustainable, long-term management of the nation’s forests is sound scientific information. Forestry professionals must have the 

latest information on the state of forests, as provided by the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis program, and have access to new techniques and new research that will 

ensure they can continue to be good stewards in the constantly changing forest environment. We are deeply concerned with continuous declines in forest research capacity in the public and private sectors. Since the mid-80’s, forestry research capacity 

in the U.S. Forest Service has declined by 50 percent and unfortunately, the private 
34 

sector and universities are facing similar downsizing. At the same time, federal investment in other research, including USDA’s National Research Initiative which 

does not adequately provide for forestry research, has increased. 

This decline in forestry research is contrary to the critical importance of the nation’s forests in global trade and in ensuring national health and welfare. We 

strongly urge sustained long-term funding for forestry research and inventory, including full funding for the Forest Inventory and Analysis program, to ensure the 

United States retains its capacity to manage and improve forests and the associated 

values and benefits. 

FOREST HEALTH

Across the country, over 190 million acres of federal forests and millions of acres 

of non federal forests, suffer from severe forest health issues and are threatened by 

catastrophic wildfires due to lack of management, insect and disease epidemics, climatic conditions, historical fire suppression practices, and other causes. Insect and 

disease problems include invasive species like the emerald ash borer, gypsy moth, 

and asian longhorned beetle; other insects like southern pine beetle and mountain 

pine beetle; and diseases like sudden oak death and white pine blister rust. To address these threats, we strongly urge increases above fiscal year 2006 levels for forest health management and sustained funding for wildfire management accounts in 

both the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

Biomass Utilization 

The President’s budget proposes $5 million within the hazardous fuels line item 

to support biomass utilization grants. Biomass utilization offers a mechanism to address costly forest health issues and recover economic value from small diameter 

and unmerchantable wood. In addition to these forest benefits, biomass utilization 

can help reduce the nation’s reliance on foreign oil imports and increase the use of 

renewable energy sources, a goal emphasized by the President and supported by the 

passage of the 2005 Energy Bill. We urge you to fund biomass utilization within the 

hazardous fuels program at $10 million, to help foster utilization and development 

of markets for this material and assist in achieving forest health U.S. energy security goals. 

Wildfire Suppression Funding 

We greatly appreciate the Appropriations Committee’s work to address the funding problems that have plagued wildfire suppression accounts in the Forest Service 

and Department of the Interior. Since steps were taken by your Committee and the 

Budget Committees to provide $500 million in emergency suppression funding, the 

agencies have not had to borrow from other accounts and disrupt the work of other 

important federal forestry programs. We urge you to continue to monitor this issue 

and provide additional emergency funding when necessary. In addition, we urge you 

to continue to monitor the Forest Service and Department of the Interior’s cost containment efforts, to ensure progress is being made in this area. 

Hazardous Fuels 

We strongly support the President’s proposal to increase the U.S. Forest Service’s 

funding for hazardous fuels reduction. We encourage the use of these funds in areas 

where Community Wildfire Protection Plans have recommended treatments. We are 

concerned with the $10 million decrease in hazardous fuels reduction funding for 

the Department of the Interior. This decrease would result in an estimated 32,000 

acre reduction in fuel treatments, 17,000 acres in the Bureau of Land Management 

alone. Ultimately, the undesirable consequences will be increased risk of catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks. We urge you to fund DOI’s hazardous fuels program at fiscal year 2006 enacted levels.. 

FAMILY FORESTLAND MANAGEMENT

With the future of 48 percent of the nation’s forests in the hands of over 10 million family or non-industrial landowners, it is critical that this land remain forested. 

Family forestland owners are faced with severe challenges today, when owning 

forestland is often uneconomical and development pressures are fierce. A significant 

turnover in ownership of family forests is expected to occur over the next decade, 

creating a great deal of uncertainty as a new, younger generation decides what to 

do with their forests. Family forests supply approximately 60 percent of the nation’s 

wood products. However only 3 percent percent of landowners have a written management plan and only 22 percent have sought professional advice prior to harvesting timber. These lands must be well managed with advice from professionals 

to avoid losses in productivity which make them susceptible to conversion to non-
35 

forest uses. To keep these lands forested, we must ensure that family forestland 

owners have access to professional advice and that these forests remain under 

sound management and stewardship. There are a variety of federal forest programs 

that assist in accomplishing this goal. The Forest Stewardship Program and Forest 

Legacy Program are critical to maintaining and improving private family forests. 

We urge you to increase funding above fiscal year 2006 levels for these programs 

as shown below. 

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

[In millions of dollars] 

Discretionary appropriations 

Fiscal year— 

2006 

enacted 

2007 proposed budget 2007 SAF recommendations 

Forest and Rangeland Research 1 ......................................................................... 219.6 208.5 220.0 

Forest Inventory and Analysis Total 2 .................................................................... 64.0 59.3 73.4 

State and Private Forestry: 

Forest Health Management—Federal ........................................................... 53.4 49.8 56.0 

Forest Health Management—Cooperative .................................................... 46.9 34.5 49.0 

State Fire Assistance .................................................................................... 32.9 27.0 32.9 

Volunteer Fire Assistance ............................................................................. 5.9 5.9 5.9 

Forest Stewardship Program ......................................................................... 34.2 33.9 37.0 

Forest Legacy Program ................................................................................. 56.5 61.5 61.5 

Urban and Community Forestry .................................................................... 28.5 26.8 28.5 

International Forestry .................................................................................... 6.9 4.9 7.0 

National Forest System: 

Land Management Planning ......................................................................... 58.2 55.6 58.2 

Inventory and Monitoring .............................................................................. 167.7 154.1 154.1 

Forest Products ............................................................................................. 280.2 310.1 310.1 

Wildland Fire Management: 

Preparedness ................................................................................................. 666.1 655.9 655.9 

Fire Operations .............................................................................................. 690.2 746.2 746.2 

Hazardous Fuels ............................................................................................ 281.8 291.8 3 291.8 

Rehabilitation and Restoration ..................................................................... 6.2 2.0 7.0 

Fire Research and Development ................................................................... 22.9 20.1 22.9 

Joint Fire Sciences Program ......................................................................... 7.9 4.0 8.0 

Forest Health Management—Federal ........................................................... 14.8 6.8 15.0 

Forest Health Management—Cooperative .................................................... 9.9 4.6 10.0 

State Fire Assistance .................................................................................... 45.8 29.1 45.8 

Volunteer Fire Assistance ............................................................................. 7.8 7.8 7.8 

1 Totals do not include FIA funds which are broken out in the next line. 

2 Includes funding under State and Private Forestry and Research and Development. 

3 Funding would include $10 million for biomass utilization, see above narrative. 

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

[In millions of dollars] 

Program 

Fiscal year— 

2006 

enacted 

2007 

proposed 

2007 SAF recommendation 

Wildland Fire Management: 

Preparedness ................................................................................................. 268.8 274.8 274.8 

Suppression ................................................................................................... 230.7 257.0 257.0

Hazardous Fuels ............................................................................................ 208.1 199.8 208.1 

State and Local Fire Assistance ................................................................... 9.9 .................... 10.0 

Joint Fire Science .......................................................................................... 5.9 5.9 6.0 

Public Domain Forest Management .............................................................. 10.4 10.5 10.5 

OR and CA Grant Lands Total ...................................................................... 108.6 112.4 112.4 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BURNS. Thank you this morning for your appearance before this committee. There will be other questions from other committee members. If you would respond to them and to the com-
36 

mittee, we’d surely appreciate that. The record will be left open for 

a couple of weeks if you want to make further comments. 

[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

Question. In an overall Forest Service budget that is cut by over $100 million, the agency proposes an increase of roughly $71 million in appropriated dollars to fully 

implement the Northwest Forest Plan that was created under the Clinton administration. 

The Committee is sympathetic to the communities that lost timber jobs in the 

Northwest, but in a budget that is so full of major cuts to core national programs, 

isn’t this an awfully large increase for one region of the country? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President’s commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the 

war on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum 

of our economic recovery. This has required difficult decisions to be made. Forest 

health is a priority for the administration and the Forest Service is committed to 

addressing the issue across the Nation. In this context, the administration is committed to fully funding the Northwest Forest Plan. The additional funding for the 

Northwest Forest Plan will allow the agency to offer 800 MMBF of timber volume, 

improve over 3,900 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat and 120 miles of fisheries 

habitat, treat hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface and municipal watersheds, and address reforestation needs of recent large forest fires. 

Question. What is the impact on other Regions of the Forest Service? 

Since the overall budget is cut, will other Regions receive less to pay for this proposal? 

Answer. The agency is committed to funding all regions at similar levels to fiscal 

year 2006 through a combination of Hazardous Fuels and Forest Products funding. 

Forest health is a priority for the administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the issue across the Nation. 

Question. The timber sales program in this part of the country is especially controversial and many sales are challenged in court. Are we getting the best bang for 

the buck by putting so many additional dollars here, or are there other places where 

these funds could be spent and get more timber sales accomplished? 

Answer. The administration is committed to fully funding the Northwest Forest 

Plan. Cost efficiency is not the only consideration in allocating the Forest Products 

line item. For example, increasing timber sales increases the amount of receipts 

shared with the States and reduces outlays from the Treasury for payments authorized for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Forest Products line item is an important source of funding in meeting resource needs, 

addressing forest health and community protection issues, contributing to local 

economies and maintaining local industry infrastructure. The allocation of the Forest Products line item takes into consideration these resource and community concerns and the allocation of other line items. Forest health is a priority for the administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the issue across the 

Nation. 

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. Your budget justification says that you’re only getting done 50 percent of the work that you need to do each year to comply with the 

schedule. The schedule requires all allotments to be completed by 2010. 

The agency’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal reduces the grazing program by 

$8.5 million and the number of grazing allotments processed declines by 34 percent—from 484 allotments this year to 321 next year. Why is that a good idea when 

we still have over 3,200 allotments needing to be processed? 

Answer. In 1996, the Forest Service established a 15-year schedule for completing 

NEPA on all allotments where it was not current, in compliance with the Rescissions Act of 1995. It was an ambitious schedule that the agency had wanted to expeditiously complete. Due to a number of issues, such as appeals and lawsuits, the 

agency has not been able to maintain pace with the 1996 schedule. At this point, 

the agency has completed nearly 54 percent of the NEPA needs. In 2005, Congress 

authorized the Forest Service to use Categorical Exclusions on 900 allotments, to 

expedite the NEPA work. This new authority will speed the progress towards 

achieving the agency’s obligations as set forth in the allotment schedule. 
37 

Question. In the fiscal year 2005 Interior appropriations bill, the committee provided additional funds to address the backlog of allotments and also provided a Categorical Exclusion from NEPA for grazing allotments that met certain conditions. 

There was a cap of 900 allotments on this authority. 

How many allotment decisions have been made using this authority so far? 

Answer. The Forest Service has used this authority for 44 allotments since its initiation. The agency anticipates using this authority to complete another 100–200 by 

the end of fiscal year 2006. 

Question. Is this authority helping to speed up the process? 

Answer. Yes, this authority has helped speed up the process. On those allotments 

where we have not proposed changes to the management and the conditions are either meeting or moving towards what is described in our land management plans, 

it reduces the amount of time needed to go through the analysis and decision making process to get a decision. 

Question. Does this cap need to be raised so you can get more allotments processed that meet the standard for use of this authority? 

Answer. No, not at this time. Forest Service staff is assessing what the agency 

can do in using the CE authority in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. Based 

upon preliminary information, it is highly unlikely that we will need to have the 

cap raised. 

Question. The administration has proposed extending the Secure Rural Schools 

Act—the last payment will be made under the act in December 2006—by selling 

roughly 310,000 acres of National Forest System lands to generate $800 million in 

revenue. In Montana, 13,948 acres are eligible for sale. The administration’s proposal would gradually phase out payments over a 5 year period. 

Doesn’t the agency think it’s unwise to sell our National Forest System lands to 

fund a program that deserves funding on its own? 

Answer. The original Secure Rural Schools (SRS) legislation was designed to be 

a transitional measure to allow States and counties to readjust their priorities and 

programs so that they are no longer dependent on a higher level of funding from 

national forest receipts. Currently there are counties at different stages of making 

this transition. Consistent with this situation and need, the administration is proposing to provide a funding source for the next 5 years to enable a longer period 

for States and counties to make the transition before the program is phased out as 

originally contemplated. 

Conveyance of a limited number of National Forest System acres will offset payments for the Secure Rural Schools program if reauthorized. This focused approach 

will provide an adequate revenue source to support Secure Rural Schools. Baselines 

of both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget 

reflect the end of this program, so in order to provide the necessary offset to the 

Treasury to extend this program, any proposal to extend it would have to provide 

a suitable offset that would ‘‘score’’ by either reducing direct spending from the 

Treasury or by providing a new source of receipts to the Treasury. The proposal was 

sent to both the Senate and the House on March 22, 2006 for consideration by the 

Congress. 

Question. Since over 75 percent of the money under the Secure Rural Schools Act 

goes to Oregon, California, and Washington, why would people in other States want 

to sell off their public lands when most of the proceeds wouldn’t even stay in their 

States? 

Answer. The Budget underscores the President’s commitment to States and counties impacted by the ongoing loss of receipts associated with lower timber harvests 

on Federal lands—not only in the Pacific Northwest but throughout the United 

States. Counties throughout the United States have received payments under the 

current County Payments Act and would continue to do so in the Budget’s legislative proposal, so it is reasonable to identify parcels nationally that could be eligible 

for sale. Regardless of location, sales will be limited to those parcels identified as 

suitable for conveyance, because they are isolated or inefficient to manage, in existing national forest plans which were subject to public review and comment. These 

do not include parcels of high environmental value such as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or habitat for threatened or endangered species. 

The initial list of potentially eligible parcels for conveyance under the proposed 

authority is approximately 300,000 acres. The actual number of acres will not be 

known until specific properties are identified, appraised, and conveyed and parcels 

have gone through the public review process outlined in the Federal Register. Based 

upon average land values, it should require the sale of approximately 200,000 acres 

to provide $800 million in receipts that the proposal identified to fund the Secure 

Rural Schools program for an additional five years. 
38 

Question. Given budget constraints that the Congress has to deal with, future acquisitions of public land will have to rely more on land exchanges rather than 

through appropriated dollars from the Federal Government. Wouldn’t getting rid of 

many of these isolated parcels take away a key bargaining chip for doing future 

land exchanges? 

Answer. The tracts identified as potentially eligible for sale could also be considered for exchange. However, many field units forego land exchange opportunities 

unless they expect to achieve significant gains in resource quality and protection. 

Selling many of the types of parcels identified can provide for a lower cost method 

of achieving the benefits associated with the disposal of isolated tracts, in particular, 

a reduction of boundary survey and maintenance costs and expenses related to encroachment resolution. There will still be many opportunities for land exchanges involving other National Forest System lands and, coupled with land purchases and 

donations, will still allow for the acquisition of high priority tracts within the National Forest System. 

Question. According to the agency’s proposed budget, the Forest Service has a 

backlog of deferred maintenance of over $8 billion. But your budget proposes to cut 

the overall Capital Improvement and Maintenance accounts by 12 percent. The 

Roads account alone is cut by over $39 million which is a 17.8 percent cut. 

Why is the agency cutting this account when the backlog of deferred maintenance 

needs is so high? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects the President’s commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the 

war on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum 

of our economic recovery. This has required difficult decisions to be made. In this 

context, even though the amount of funds provided for deferred maintenance is not 

large, they provide a meaningful and direct benefit to the agency’s priority activity 

of reducing deferred maintenance, particularly critical health and safety related deferred maintenance needs. The Budget also reflects funding generated through the 

use of authorities provided by the Congress to assess the costs of facilities maintenance and the sale of certain administrative sites. This will permit the agency to 

reduce its maintenance backlog by 25 percent by 2010. The funds are slowing the 

rate of increase in deferred maintenance. 

Question. How are you planning to address this enormous backlog of deferred 

maintenance? 

Answer. The Forest Service is modernizing and realigning infrastructure to match 

its mission, organizational structure changes, and funding expectations.. To aid in 

the realignment and to minimize our backlog of deferred maintenance, the agency 

is using some important new tools: 

(1) The agency is using the Facilities Realignment and Enhancement Act authorities to dispose of unneeded buildings, and using the proceeds to reduce deferred 

maintenance or construct new buildings that meet current needs. The agency has 

planned $100 million in sales over the next 2 years. 

(2) The agency is using the cost pool methodology to give forests an incentive to 

reduce unneeded facilities. 

(3) We are working with States to improve our trails program through grants of 

funds provided by SAFETEA–LU’s recreation trails program. 

(4) The November 9, 2005, Travel Management Rule provides a process to identify 

the minimum road system required considering the availability of resources for 

maintenance and administration of roads and trails proposed to be designated for 

motor vehicle use. The analysis will guide the optimum use of available funding, so 

that the highest priority roads and trails will be sustained or in some cases, improved. In some cases, roads and trails may be operated at a lower, less costly level. 

For example, many passenger vehicle roads will be converted to high clearance vehicle roads. 

Question. What are the impacts to recreational users and the firefighting program 

if we don’t have the money we need to maintain the roads and provide access to 

our national forests? 

Answer. Each national forest conducts ongoing travel management analysis to 

guide the optimum use of allocated funding, so that the highest priority roads and 

trails will be sustained or improved. Recreation and fire suppression access needs 

are important components in determining the optimum transportation system to 

sustain with anticipated funding. Collectively, road operational standards will continue to decrease, and the overall consequences to the transportation system can be 

minimized through advanced planning and appropriate use of available funding. 

Question. A Federal District court in the Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck case 

held that the Forest Service had to provide notice, comment, and appeal on projects 
39 

implemented through the use of categorical exclusions. This judicially created requirement regarding CEs applies to no other agency in the Federal Government. 

The agency’s budget justification indicates that this case delayed or canceled 723 

fuels reduction projects affecting over 1 million acres. What is the status of this litigation? 

Answer. On September 4, 2005 the Government appealed the July 2, 2005, decision from the Eastern District of California to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Question. Are you planning to appeal? 

Answer. On September 4, 2005 the Government appealed the July 2, 2005 decision from the Eastern District of California to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The case is fully briefed and awaiting oral argument before the Circuit. Recently, 

a second court held that a categorically excluded decision must be subjected to notice, comment, and appeal. See Wilderness Society v. Rey, CV 03–119 DMW (D. 

Mont. Decided April 24, 2006). The deadline for filing an appeal in that case is June 

23, 2006. 

Question. Is there anything you can do administratively to address this situation 

or is a legislative fix needed so that the Forest Service is treated like every other 

agency when it comes to the use of categorical exclusions? 

Answer. Sixteen cases have been filed challenging the Forest Service’s promulgation or implementation of the 2003 regulations issued under the Appeal Reform Act. 

The Government is actively defending all pending cases and has appealed the Earth 

Island ruling. 

Question. The committee is concerned about the large cut ($28.9 million which is 

equal to 23 percent) that is proposed in your budget for the Forest Health program. 

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. While the President’s Budget for forest health activities, funded in the 

Forest Health Management budget lines and the National Fire Plan (Wildland Fire 

Management appropriation), reflects a decrease from the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level, it is an increase of $11.9 million over last year’s President’s Budget. Approximately 628,000 fewer acres will be treated than the currently planned treatments 

in fiscal year 2006. 

Question. How many acres nationally need treatment for insects and disease? 

Answer. The latest revision of the National Insect and Disease Risk Map estimates that 56.6 million of the 748.7 million acres of forest land in the continental 

United States and Alaska is at risk from insects and diseases. Most of this hazard 

can be attributed to 44 indigenous and 14 non-native (exotic) forest pest species already established in the coterminous United States. Many of these lands at risk will 

not be treated because of ownership, value, or designation such as wilderness. 

Question. Congress recently passed Healthy Forests legislation. If we’re going to 

have a healthy forests program, doesn’t that mean we need to put adequate funds 

into the agency’s forest health programs rather than cut them? 

Answer. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) provides the land management agencies with needed authorities that will expedite treatments and thereby 

permits the Forest Service to be more efficient. The fiscal year 2007 Budget reflects 

the President’s commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our economic recovery. This has required 

difficult decisions to be made. In this context, while the President’s Budget for forest 

health activities, funded in the Forest Health Management budget lines and the National Fire Plan (Wildland Fire Management appropriation), reflects a decrease from 

the fiscal year 2006 Enacted level, it is an increase of $12.1 million over last year’s 

President’s Budget, and the Budget reflects the enhanced efficiencies provided by 

HFRA. The President’s Budget recognizes the importance of maintaining forest 

health technical assistance to Federal and nonfederal land managers and maintaining forest health monitoring activities and meeting the highest priority pest suppression needs on Federal lands, while relying on nonfederal partners to continue 

to share more of the cost of pest suppression on State and private lands. Further, 

the Budget reflects significant increases elsewhere for other activities that improve 

the health and vitality of national forests. For example, funding for Forest Products 

increases by $30 million (∂11 percent) and Vegetation and Watershed Management 

increases by $6 million (∂3 percent). President Bush is allocating $610 million in 

the 2007 budget to continue implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. The budget proposal, more than a 

$12 million increase over 2006, takes an integrated approach to reducing hazardous 

fuels and restoring forest and rangeland health. Along with more than $301 million 
40 

provided to the Department of the Interior, the 2007 budget provides a total of nearly $913 million to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

Question. The State fire assistance program is very important in providing grants 

for equipment and giving technical assistance to rural fire departments. The fiscal 

year 2007 budget request proposes to reduce this program by $22.7 million. This is 

a 25 percent reduction. To put this in more practical terms, this will reduce the 

number of communities receiving grants and technical assistance by over 5,300. 

Is this a wise cut when frequently it’s the local firefighting forces that are first 

on the scene of a wildfire? 

Answer. The Forest Service supports efforts to improve firefighting readiness, and 

recognizes the primacy of State and local governments in providing these essential 

services to their citizens. In additional to Forest Service financial assistance, the 

Forest Service will continue to work with local communities and the State foresters 

with an emphasis on community wildfire protection planning and coordination on 

FEMA hazard mitigation plans, hazardous fuels treatments in the critical wildlandurban interface, and building fire preparedness at the State and local level remain 

priorities. The implications of reduced levels of funding in State Fire Assistance will 

vary from State to State. Generally, depending on the capability of each State, there 

may be less overall funding for preparedness at the State and local level to provide 

initial attack and extended attack assistance to Federal firefighting resources on 

Federal fires. Depending on the funding capabilities of the States and local communities, hazardous fuel treatments on the State and private portions of the wildlandurban interface may be reduced over prior years. Some of that reduction may be offset by proposed increases in hazardous fuel accomplishments on national forest 

acres in the wildland-urban interface. 

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 the budget for fiscal year 2007, you have reduced 

the program by over $10 million but your budget claims that you will still be able 

to suppress 99 percent of fires during initial attack- that is, before they get over 

300 acres. 

With the rising costs of fuel and aviation assets, can the agency assure the committee that even with a $10 million cut in preparedness that you can maintain readiness in terms of the number of firefighters and engines at current levels? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service will maintain a level of readiness, 

including firefighters, comparable to that attained in fiscal year 2005 and planned 

for fiscal year 2006. The agency will achieve efficiencies through program leadership 

and a reduction in agency-wide overhead. 

Question. A number of fires have been in the news already this year in Texas, 

Arizona, and Colorado to name a few. Many places in the Southwest, like Arizona 

and New Mexico are really suffering from lack of precipitation. 

How severe do you expect this fire season to be based on what you know now? 

Answer. 

NATIONAL WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK, NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER, 

PREDICTIVE SERVICES GROUP, ISSUED: APRIL 12, 2006 

WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK—APRIL THROUGH AUGUST, 2006

Fire potential is expected to be significantly higher than normal over portions of 

the West, Alaska, Great Plains, Gulf Coast and the East due to the following factors: 

—Above average rain and snow in northern and central portions of the West will 

temper fire potential in the forests. Conversely, a dry winter in the Southwest 

and Alaska has increased the risk of wildfires this spring and summer. In addition, the Southwest and Great Basin have abundant carryover fine fuels from 

the wet 2004/2005 winter. This will elevate fire potential due to increased fuel 

loading and a continuous fuel bed for rapid fire spread. Long-term drought and 

associated bug-killed vegetation continue to elevate fire potential in portions of 

the West. 

—Very dry conditions in the Southern Plains, Southeast and Eastern States will 

keep fire potential high until summer thunderstorms provide ample rainfall to 

diminish the fire threat. 

—Alaska is expected to have another above normal fire season with the main 

areas for concern in the Southwest, western Kenai Peninsula and around the 

Delta Junction area southeast of Fairbanks. 
41 

Question. How much money does the agency have available in its fire suppression 

accounts for firefighting this year? 

Answer. The Forest Service did not find it necessary to use the emergency reserves in 2005 and carried over a suppression balance of $501 million to fiscal year 

2006. Along with the fiscal year 2006 suppression appropriation of $698 million, the 

agency has an approximately total of $1.2 billion available for fiscal year 2006. 

Question. Would the agency expect that you may have to borrow against other 

non-fire accounts that caused so much disruption to agency programs a few years 

ago? 

Answer. For fiscal year 2006, the agency retained about $500 million in fiscal year 

2005 unobligated Wildland Fire Management funds. Those funds, in addition to the 

fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $690 million provide a little less than $1.2 billion 

for fire suppression. Fire suppression costs have only exceeded $1.2 billion once in 

the last 10 years, therefore the funding should be sufficient to fund this year’s fire 

suppression needs. 

Question. The Chief has identified unmanaged recreation as one of the four major 

threats to our national forests. The subcommittee is hearing from the public in Montana that many local managers are locking gates on roads for seasonal closures but 

are not opening them back up when the closure expires. This is encouraging illegal 

use as folks are driving around closed gates that should be open. 

Has the agency heard anything about this problem? 

Answer. We are not aware of the problem as described. While we recommend that 

road closure issues be addressed at the local level, we are concerned about the problem as stated and request more specific information you can provide. 

Periodically, there are good reasons to extend a closure for safety or to protect resource values. Two common examples are unstable road surfaces during spring 

rains or late break-up and blocked access due to late snowpack in the high country. 

In such cases, the public needs to be notified in advance of extending the closure. 

Question. Is this something that the agency can look into and make sure that 

when seasonal closures expire that these roads are re-opened? 

Answer. As stated in the answer to question 25, there are cases where seasonal 

closures must be extended for public safety and resource protection reasons. In such 

cases, we expect that the public be notified in advance of the extension. If you have 

any more specific information on the situation described, we will be better able to 

pinpoint problems and develop a prompt solution. 
42 

Question. There is a tremendous problem in Montana with bark beetle infestations. Recent figures indicate that since 1999 in Region 1, bark beetle infested acres 

have increased from 400,000 acres to more than 1.7 million acres. This has caused 

enormous forest health problems and greatly increased fire danger. 

With this kind of massive epidemic of bark beetle infestations can you explain the 

rationale for cutting the money devoted to bark beetle management in half—from 

$32 million to $16 million? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget includes $14 million in the For- est Health Management budget lines for the control of western bark beetles ($7 million) and the southern pine beetle ($7 million). Although funding for western bark 

beetle suppression projects in Western States, including Montana, is 28 percent less 

than the enacted budget for fiscal year 2006, it is more than 50 percent higher than 

the fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget. At the proposed funding level, management 

projects for western bark beetles will be conducted on 33,500 acres of Federal and 

cooperative lands across the West. Efforts to mitigate beetle-caused mortality will 

include using environmentally sensitive strategies such as pheromones and preventive thinning of stands to reduce risk before an outbreak occurs. Further, the Budget reflects significant increases elsewhere for other activities that improve the 

health and vitality of national forests. For example, funding for Forest Products increases by $30 million (∂11 percent) and Vegetation and Watershed Management increases by $6 million (∂3 percent). President Bush is allocating $610 million in 

the 2007 budget to continue implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce hazardous fuels and restore forest health. The budget proposal, more than a 

$12 million increase over 2006, takes an integrated approach to reducing hazardous 

fuels and restoring forest and rangeland health. Along with more than $301 million 

provided to the Department of the Interior, the 2007 budget provides a total of nearly $913 million to implement the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

Question. What will be the impact in other States with similar bark beetle problems? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget includes $7 million in the Forest 

Health Management budget lines for the control of western bark beetles and another $7 million for southern pine beetle. Although this funding level is 47 percent 

less than the enacted budget for fiscal year 2006, it is 75 percent higher than the 

fiscal year 2006 President’s Budget. At the proposed funding level, management 

projects for bark beetles will be conducted on approximately 105,000 acres of Federal and Cooperative lands. Efforts to mitigate beetle-caused mortality will include 

using environmentally sensitive strategies such as pheromones and preventive 

thinning of stands to reduce risk before an outbreak occurs. 

Question. Chief you were kind enough to join me in Montana for a field hearing 

back in December regarding forest planning in Region 1. As you know, we’ve got 

5 forest plans covering over 11 million acres in Montana that are being revised. 

We received a lot of comments from folks during that hearing that were concerned 

about public access and motorized use being further limited on the forests in Montana. Can you tell us how you are taking these concerns of citizens into account in 

drafting these new plans? 

Answer. The five land management plans (LMPs) currently being revised in Montana are on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Lolo, Flathead, and Kootenai National Forests (NFs). 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF’s comment period on its draft plan and environmental impact statement (EIS) ended on October 31, 2005. The Forest is analyzing 

those comments and preparing a final plan and EIS. The Forest continues to work 

with all interest groups, including both summer and winter recreation groups to address their concerns. The final plan will identify areas where motorized use is emphasized and areas where motorized use is not appropriate. As a result of public 

comment throughout the plan revision process, the Forest has identified several 

areas where motorized trails could be connected to form loops and facilities could 

be constructed to accommodate motorized use. The Ecosystem Research Group 

(ERG) has provided the Forest with a ‘‘collaborative alternative’’ to consider when 

preparing the final plan. The Forest continues to work with ERG to determine how 

best to consider that alternative in the final plan. 

The planning teams on the Bitterroot, Lolo, Flathead, and Kootenai NFs are in 

the final stages of developing proposed LMPs. These proposed LMPs will be released 

for a 90-day comment period. Public input from a series of public and collaborative 

meetings is incorporated into the draft LMPs. These draft LMPs will be released 

for a 90-day comment period. 

As a result of this extensive public input, the Bitterroot, Flathead, and Lolo NFs 

have added motorized loop routes as a component of desired conditions in their 

LMPs. The Bitterroot and Lolo NFs identified backcountry areas (labeled ‘‘Manage-
43 

ment Area 2.2’’ within the LMP) as generally suitable for limited motorized use. 

These LMPs also identify desired conditions for motorized and non-motorized activities. The public will be able to comment on these proposed LMPs during the 90- 

day comment period. The Forests intend to convene a series of public meetings during this comment period to explain the proposed LMPs. 

The Kootenai NF has developed several management areas to address comments 

associated with travel management. The Forest will continue working with user 

groups to identify areas best suited for motorized use. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

Question. The 2004 fire season was the worst Alaska has ever seen. Alaska had 

703 fires and over 6.6 million acres burned. Alaska’s 2005 fire season was almost 

as destructive. 624 fires and close to 5 million acres burned. Though these numbers 

are staggering, the Forest Service’s fiscal year 2007 budget calls for sharp reductions in Alaska’s allocation for programs that play a key role in implementation of 

the National Fire Plan and other programs focused on fire prevention and hazard 

mitigation. More specifically, Alaska’s fiscal year 2007 allocation for State & Private 

Forestry funds is a 17 percent reduction from 2006. Alaska’s fiscal year 2007 allocation for Wildland Fire Management funds is decreased by 47 percent from 2006, including a 76.5 percent reduction in State Fire Assistance Program funding. 

Given the number and acreage of fires in Alaska each fire season, how does the 

Forest Service justify such a drastic reduction in funds for fire management purposes? Do you feel the Forest Service budget has adequate resources for this upcoming fire season? 

Answer. Fiscal year 2006 funding provides the Forest Service with adequate resources for this upcoming fire season. The fiscal year 2007 budget reflects the President’s commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and 

sustaining the momentum of our economic recovery. The fiscal year 2007 budget 

aligns with the national priorities. The USDA and the DOI worked together closely 

to ensure the National Fire Plan programs would be funded at a level that would 

allow both departments to meet their planned readiness level. 

Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget for the Forest Service includes a proposal 

to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act by selling 200,000 acres of National Forest System land to offset the act’s $800 million 

cost. Sales receipts would go to States impacted by lower timber sales on Federal 

lands and payments would decrease and phase-out over 5 years. Justification for the 

proposal is that sale of national forest land and resulting development of the land 

would increase State and local tax base and reduce the need for Federal funds. The 

proposal has also been justified on grounds that regular receipt-sharing payments 

are sufficient to meet community needs. Secure Rural Schools Act payments are 

vital to communities in Southeast Alaska where the Tongass National Forest covers 

over 90 percent of the land and timber sale volume continues to be unstable and 

very low. 

How does the Forest Service justify reducing and eventually phasing out Secure 

Rural Schools Act payments to States such as Alaska where very little or no national forest land acreage is available for sale and regular receipt-sharing payments 

are low? 

Answer. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 

2000 addresses the decline in revenue from timber harvest in recent years received 

on Federal land, that have historically been shared with counties under the 25 percent Act of 1908. The purpose of the act is to stabilize payments to counties to help 

support roads and schools, provide projects that enhance forest ecosystem health 

and provide employment opportunities, and improve cooperative relationships 

among Federal land management agencies and those who use and care about the 

lands the agencies manage. 

For each year 2001–2006, the law allows States to receive a payment from the 

Federal Government based on the State’s average of its top 3 years of payments 

from national forest and BLM receipts from Federal lands from the period of 1986– 

1999. 

If the Secure Rural Schools existing legislation is not reauthorized, barring any 

other changes in authorizations, the States will continue to receive their share of 

25 percent fund payments under the 1908 act. Funds are distributed to eligible 

States that received a 25-percent payment during the eligibility period based on an 

amount equal to the average of the three highest 25-percent payments and safety 

net payments made to that eligible State for the period between 1986–1999. 
44 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Question. My first question is in regard to the new travel management rule. Does 

the Forest Service have an estimated number of miles identified for road and trail 

closers? 

Answer. The travel management rule itself does not open or close any road, trail, 

or area. Instead, the rule establishes national guidance for making designation decisions at the local level. Each national forest or grassland will assess its current 

travel management direction, involve the public, and determine whether changes 

are needed. Designations will be made with public involvement; coordination with 

Federal, State, county, tribal, and local governmental entities; and appropriate environmental analysis and documentation. The miles of road or trail that will be added 

to the forest transportation system or be closed will depend on the results of planning at the local level over the next 4 years. 

Question. Additionally, with the new rule, how does the Forest Service plan on 

funding such a large task with declining budgets? Answer. The Forest Service estimates that it will spend between $15 and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning. These obligations will occur 

within existing and available budget authority, so no new funding is necessary. 

Travel planning serves multiple purposes, and funding may be derived from a variety of Forest Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at 

the local level. Among the principal budget line items associated with travel planning are Roads, Trails, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness, Wildlife and Fisheries 

Habitat Management, and Vegetation and Watershed Management. 

Question. Along with that and new wilderness proposal areas, does the Forest 

Service agree that those agency-designated areas should remain accessible by both 

motorized and non-motorized recreationists? 

Answer. In accordance with agency policy, a roadless area being evaluated and 

ultimately recommended for wilderness or wilderness study is not available for any 

use or activity that may reduce the area’s wilderness potential. Activities currently 

permitted may continue, pending designation, if the activities do not compromise 

wilderness values of the roadless area. This direction gives the local line officer discretion in evaluating such activities and determining whether or not to allow them 

to continue. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Question. As I understand it, the President’s Budget includes a $30 million in- crease in the forest products line item, but that entire $30 million increase plus an 

additional $11 million of forest products funding would go to the Pacific Northwest 

as increased funding for the Northwest Forest Plan. 

My question is this—will the increased funding for the Northwest Forest Plan be 

at the expense of dealing with the bark beetle problems in Colorado or is there room 

in this proposed budget to get more timber sale money to the national forests in 

Colorado to address the bark beetle problems? 

Answer. The agency is committed to funding all regions at similar levels to fiscal 

year 2006 through a combination of Hazardous Fuels and Forest Products funding. 

Forest health is a priority for the administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the issue across the Nation. The agency determines where Forest Products program funding should be allocated to best support forest management programs, while using Hazardous Fuels funding to address the highest priority fuels reduction needs. 

Question. The proposed Forest Service budget includes an $11 million increase in 

Hazardous Fuels funding. I strongly support spending money proactively on hazardous fuels projects if it will reduce the risk of forest fires and the associated risks 

to watersheds, communities, and residents. However, I’m concerned that some of the 

acres treated aren’t the highest priority acres. 

From your reviews of the hazardous fuels program, is there room to improve 

what’s being done on-the-ground, and how are you working toward that objective? 

Answer. Each year our national fuels treatment program priorities are developed 

in cooperation with the Department of the Interior and transmitted to regions, forests, and districts. That guidance shapes prioritization decisions at the individual 

national forests and ranger districts, where fuels treatments are evaluated on a sitespecific basis. In addition, other resource treatments for wildlife habitat improvement, watershed, vegetation management, and recreation are also being designed to 

address fuels treatment and vegetation management needs. Combining objectives 

can help address both fuel reduction and condition class improvement goals. The 

timing and placement of these treatments on the landscape are evaluated with our 
45 

partners at other Federal agencies and at the State and local level. These partnerships are very well established and successful in some areas, and are still being 

formed in other locations. 

We are also improving the prioritization process and performance measures to 

focus on the right acres, at the right time, and in the right place. Wildfires do not 

recognize property boundaries or agency administration. For hazardous fuels treatments to be most effective, they must be designed to change the behavior of a wildfire. To fully protect communities and firefighters, private landowners in the 

wildland-urban interface must also take responsibility for reduction of hazardous 

fuels on their lands and around their homes and structures. The National Fuels 

funds allocation and prioritization methodology evaluates Regional fuels treatment 

needs using measures of efficiency, effectiveness, consequences, restoration opportunities and wildfire risk. These measures are evaluated and ranked by an interdisciplinary team with results presented geospatially to guide the National Headquarters Office allocation of hazardous fuels funding to the Regions. 

Question. In addition, how successful has the Forest Service been at integrating 

multiple budget line items, for instance hazardous fuels, forest health, and timber 

sales funding, into individual projects and getting ‘‘more bang for your buck?’’ 

Answer. Multiple budget line items are being effectively used to address forest 

health, watershed health, and community protection issues, while also contributing 

to local economies and maintaining local industry infrastructure. The Forest Service 

collaborates with other Federal agencies, as well as State, local, and tribal partners 

and the general public in the creation of Community Wildfire Protection Plans, to 

prioritize treatments of hazardous fuels at the wildland-urban interface. The Forest 

Service will treat more than 1.5 million acres within the wildland-urban interface 

during fiscal year 2007. The allocation of various budget line items, such as Forest 

Products, Vegetation and Watershed Management, Forest Health, and Hazardous 

Fuels take into consideration these resource and community concerns. Forest health 

continues to be a priority for the administration, and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the issue across the Nation. 

Question. Colorado alone has 800,000 acres of NEPA ready land that could be 

treated if funding were available. How effective a use of limited Forest Service dollars is it to fully fund the Pacific Northwest Forest Plan when that area of the country has the highest rate of lawsuits and therefore dollars spent often don’t result 

in implementation? 

It seems to me that a more worthwhile use of funding would be to re-apportion 

a fair amount of funding to Colorado to reduce the fire danger this year rather than 

send it to an uncertain fate in the Pacific Northwest. 

Answer. The administration is committed to fully funding the Northwest Forest 

Plan. Cost efficiency is not the only consideration in allocating the Forest Products 

line item. For example, increasing timber sales increases the amount of receipts 

shared with the States and reduces outlays from the Treasury for payments authorized for the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The Forest Products line item is an important source of funding in meeting resource needs, 

addressing forest health and community protection issues, contributing to local 

economies, and maintaining local industry infrastructure. The allocation of the Forest Products line item takes into consideration these resource and community concerns and the allocation of other line items. Forest health is a priority for the administration and the Forest Service is committed to addressing the issue across the 

Nation. 

The additional funding for the Northwest Forest Plan will allow the agency to 

offer 800 MMBF of timber volume, improve over 3,900 acres of terrestrial wildlife 

habitat and 120 miles of fisheries habitat, treat hazardous fuels in the wildlandurban interface and municipal watersheds, and address reforestation needs of recent 

large forest fires. The USDA Forest Service strongly supports the timber sale program on the Colorado national forests, and the agency is committed to allocating 

a combination of Forest Products and Hazardous Fuels funding to each region that 

is not less than the fiscal year 2006 allocation. This is necessary to ensure that critical vegetation management program continuity is maintained. The Forest Service 

determines within each region where the Forest Products funding should be allocated to best support forest management programs, while using Hazardous Fuels 

funding to address the highest priority fuel reduction needs. 

Question. Can you provide me with the percentage and dollar amounts of the total 

funding that was appropriated for the purposes of Fire Preparedness and Fire Suppression that actually ‘‘reach the ground?’’ By ‘‘reach the ground,’’ I mean the 

amount that is actually used at the lowest level to fund temporary hires, permanent 

positions, purchase equipment, let contracts, etc to deal with the upcoming fire season. 
46 

Please provide nation-wide information, as well as numbers specifically relating 

to my home State of Colorado. 

Answer. Fire Preparedness.—The Forest Service has $666 million of Appropriated 

Fire Preparedness funds for fiscal year 2006. Fifty five percent or $369 million will 

be available to fund firefighting capability and operations including temporary hires, 

permanent positions, purchase equipment, dispatchers, and contracting resources. 

Within the State of Colorado, the Forest Service will spend approximately fifty 

percent or $13 million on Preparedness capability and operations. 

Fire Suppression.—The Forest Service has $690 million of Appropriated Fire Suppression funds for fiscal year 2006. Seventy percent, or $481 million, are available 

to fund temporary hires, permanent positions, purchase equipment, contracts, etc. 

for the upcoming fire season. The funds are available on an as-needed basis. 

Through April 30, 2006, the Forest Service has expended approximately $2.6 million 

in Colorado. 

Question. Forest Service Region 2, where Colorado is located, has more visitors 

to its national forests than any other region. Fully 32.5 million people visited there 

last year. This is a good thing because we want people to come, to get out, and to 

enjoy the great resources that are our forests. What is confusing though is that 

while the number of forest visitors is the highest the recreation funding it receives 

is not. In fact when you look at recreation funding, Region 2 gets less funding per 

visitor than any other region. Could you explain to me why this is the case? 

Answer. The Forest Service continues to direct available resources towards meeting long-term strategic goals and providing increased support to programs that advance sustainable resource management, which includes providing outdoor recreational opportunities. Available recreation and trails program resources continue 

to be focused on efforts that maximize program delivery, emphasize delivery of services to the public, and strengthen partnerships which are vital to accomplishing 

stewardship work on the ground. The Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) has taken 

several steps to reduce costs and improve the value of services to the taxpayer, including implementing the recreation sites facility master planning process, pursuing 

grants and matching funds, and actively engaging our partners in the management 

of the national forests. Given overall budgetary constraints, Region 2 will be working with other regions to similarly improve efficiencies. 

Question. I’m interested in ways the Forest Service can reduce costs of management, and thereby be more efficient with the funds that we in Congress appropriate. 

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act contained a pre-decisional objection process 

and a streamlined judicial review process. How well are those working from the perspective of allowing the Forest Service to more effectively address or resolve conflicts, and how well are those working from the perspective of reducing costs? 

Answer. The project level pre-decisional objection process used for hazardous fuels 

reduction projects authorized under the provisions of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 encourages upfront participation by the public while preserving the 

opportunity to challenge a project and influence a decision before it is made. A predecisional process serves the public by encouraging efforts to resolve differences collaboratively, before a decision document is signed, rather than by addressing issues 

after a decision is made. Furthermore, better resource decisions with fewer legal 

challenges could result if interested citizens and organizations work with the agency 

to resolve concerns before a decision is made. The Forest Service is beginning to 

monitor planning and implementation of Healthy Forests Restoration Act projects 

along with all other projects through its new Planning, Appeals, and Litigation System (PALS) database. Fiscal year 2005 was the first full year of implementation for 

the planning portion of this tracking system. As data for fiscal year 2005 are still 

being reviewed, no statistical conclusions concerning efficiency may yet be made. 

The appeals and litigation portions of this tracking system are still being developed. 

Question. How much does the USFS anticipate the Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use to cost to fully implement nationwide? Specifically, from what budgets within the USFS will funds be allocated in 

order to implement the Travel Management: Designated Routes and Areas for Motor 

Vehicle Use? 

Answer. The Forest Service estimates that it will spend between $15 and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning. These obligations will occur 

within existing and available budget authority, so no new funding is necessary. 

Travel planning serves multiple purposes, and funding may be derived from a variety of Forest Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at 

the local level. Among the principal budget line items associated with travel planning are Roads, Trails, Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness, Wildlife and Fisheries 

Habitat Management, and Vegetation and Watershed Management. 
47 

Question. Currently, how many individual forests and/or forest districts functionally meet the requirements of the Travel Management: Designated Routes and 

Areas for Motor Vehicle Use and will have to only take minor actions (for example 

provide OHV travel maps) to be in full compliance? 

Answer. The following units, comprising approximately 42 million acres, or 22 

percent of the National Forest System, report that they already manage motor vehicles on a designated routes basis. These units will require relatively less in the way 

of new planning and decision-making to implement the travel management rule 

than those forests that are open to unregulated cross-country motor vehicle use. 

Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) 

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest—Sulphur and Canyon Lakes Ranger Districts 

and Pawnee National Grassland; Grand Mesa National Forest; Uncompahgre National Forest; Routt National Forest; and Shoshone National Forest. 

Southwestern Region (Region 3) 

Coronado National Forest; Lincoln National Forest; Prescott National Forest; and 

Tonto National Forest—Cave Creek, Globe, Mesa, and Tonto Basin Ranger Districts. 

Intermountain Region (Region 4) 

Boise National Forest—Lowman and Cascade Ranger Districts; Bridger-Teton National Forest—Pinedale Ranger District; Caribou National Forest; Manti-La Sal National Forest—Ferron, Monticello, Price, and Sanpete Ranger Districts; HumboldtToiyabe National Forest—Carson Ranger District and Spring Mountains; National 

Recreation Area; Sawtooth National Forest—Sawtooth National Recreation Area; 

Uinta National Forest; and Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 

Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) 

Los Padres National Forest; Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit; Sequoia National Forest—Tule River, Hot Springs, and Hume Lake Ranger Districts; and 

Stanislaus National Forest—Summit Ranger District. 

Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) 

Umatilla National Forest—North Fork John Day, Pomeroy, and Walla Walla 

Ranger Districts. 

Southern Region (Region 8) 

Caribbean National Forest; Cherokee National Forest; Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests; Daniel Boone National Forest; Francis Marion & Sumter National 

Forests; National Forests in Alabama; National Forests in North Carolina; OzarkSt. Francis National Forests; George Washington and Jefferson National Forests; 

Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area; Caddo National Grassland; Lyndon B. Johnson National Grassland; Sam Houston National Forest; and Delta National Forest. 

Eastern Region (Region 9) 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests; Finger Lakes National Forest; Hiawatha 

National Forest; Hoosier National Forest; Mark Twain National Forest; Midewin 

National Tallgrass Prairie; Monongahela National Forest; Shawnee National Forest; 

Wayne National Forest; and White Mountain National Forest. 

Alaska Region (Region 10) 

Chugach National Forest. 

Question. We have several mills in western Colorado that manufacture aspen paneling and aspen excelsior. They depend on the national forests for aspen timber 

sales. We have a lot of aspen on the national forests in western Colorado, and it’s 

important to manage our aspen stands. For some reason the Forest Service hasn’t 

been selling as many aspen timber sales the last couple years. These small family 

owned businesses are on the edge of not surviving. I don’t think the Forest Service 

can afford to lose any more of the forest products companies that help you manage 

the national forests. These companies are important to western Colorado and they’re 

important to me. Can you tell me if there is sufficient funding in the proposed fiscal 

year 2007 budget to fund aspen timber sales in Colorado? 

Answer. There is sufficient funding for the aspen program. There are three mills 

that primarily use aspen—Delta Timber in Delta, CO; Western Excelsior in Mancos, 

CO; and Aspen Wall Wood in Dolores, CO. Most of the commercial aspen the agency 

sells comes from the San Juan, White River, and Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and 

Gunnison National Forests. 

The aspen sold in Region 2 over the last few years has been 2.6 MMBF in fiscal 

year 2005, 0.7 MMBF in fiscal year 2004, and 4.8 MMBF in fiscal year 2003. From 
48 

those forests, we plan to offer approximately 10 MMBF in fiscal year 2006. For fiscal years 2007–2010, our planned offer will vary from 5 to 9 MMBF per year, but 

could increase further to respond to the aspen mortality now occurring primarily on 

the San Juan National Forest. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Question. In fiscal year 2006, I continued $350,000 to fund leafy spurge activities 

on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. 

What activities were funded? Which organizations received funding? 

Answer. The Dakota Prairie National Grassland is currently working on agreements with the organizations listed below to receive earmark funding for leafy 

spurge control, including herbicide treatment, release of biological control agents 

and mapping of infestations. The agreements are based on the available earmarked 

funds. The Dakota Prairie Grassland spends additional program dollars to inventory 

infestations, monitor prior treatments and conduct environmental analysis for additional treatments, but these funds are not reflected in the agreements or distributed 

to these organizations. 

Billings County; Golden Valley County; Grand River Grazing Association; Little 

Missouri Grazing Association; McKenzie County Grazing Association; Ransom County; Richland County; Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association; and Slope County. 

Question. What is the total number of acres that were treated in fiscal year 2006? 

Answer. Although the field work has not been completed, we expect accomplishments to exceed 15,000 acres in fiscal year 2006. The Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association alone is planning to conduct herbicide treatments on 13,000 acres and 

graze goats on an additional 2,000 acres. 

Question. Your budget justification doesn’t specify any set amount for leafy spurge 

control on the grasslands. I want to make sure this work is continued. 

How much funding in the President’s Budget is available in total for leafy spurge 

eradication on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget, relative to the fiscal year 2006 

enacted budget, increases the Manage Noxious Weed and Invasive Plants activity 

by $1,276,000 (6 percent) and increases targeted outputs by 34,902 acres (43 percent). This increased program emphasis will provide additional funds for high priority treatments; however, unit-specific allocations have not been determined at this 

time. 

Question. Does your budget continue my $350,000 earmark for cooperative work 

with grazing associations and county weed boards? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget does not include the earmark 

provided in fiscal year 2006. However, the unit will continue to work with the grazing associations and county weed boards to identify high priority treatment areas 

and to implement treatments through cost-effective cooperative agreements. The 

planned completion of a noxious weed treatment environmental analysis in fiscal 

year 2006 will also increase the unit’s flexibility to implement efficient treatment 

options, including continuation of existing partnerships. 

Question. GAO has now ruled twice that the Forest Service improperly awarded 

a $100 million contract for its National Recreation Reservation System and directed 

the agency to recompete the contract. This is after the agency attempted to initially 

sole-source the contract. The Forest Service has indicated that it will not abide by 

GAO’s second determination, despite the fact that the Comptroller General again 

found significant errors in the contracting process and told the agency to recompete 

the contract. 

How often in the past 10 fiscal years has the U.S. Forest Service sought to have 

the Secretary of Agriculture grant a waiver under the Competition in Contracting 

Act to sole-source a contract? Please provide details on any such occurrences. 

Answer. The Forest Service competitively sources contracts whenever possible, 

using the Secretary’s waiver under the Competition in Contracting Act to enable a 

sole-source acquisition only once in the last 10 fiscal years, and that was in connection with the intent to amend the existing national recreation reservation system 

contract with Reserve America in 2003 to provide for the addition of the National 

Park Service recreation sites to be incorporated into that contract. On June 24, 

2003, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman approved the determination, in accordance 

with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302–7, that it was in the public interest to 

modify, on a noncompetitive basis, the Reserve America, Inc. contract to integrate 

a portion of the Department of the Interior recreation reservation requirements with 

those of the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This action was taken to implement direction from the OMB Director in 2002 to the De-
49 

partment Secretaries of USDA and DOI and the Director of the USACE to consolidate various recreation reservation systems into one system. The National Park 

Service units incorporated into the Reserve America contract under this action were 

those which were not covered under an existing DOI contract, and in anticipation 

of the award of an integrated national recreation reservation system contract in 

2005. This action was challenged in the U.S. Court of Claims and was upheld. 

Question. How often in the past 10 fiscal years has the U.S. Forest Service failed 

to abide by a procurement recommendation by the GAO? Please provide details of 

any such occurrence. 

Answer. The current determination not to follow the recommendation of GAO concerning the protest of the award of the integrated national recreation reservation 

system contract is the only instance where the Forest Service has decided not to follow the recommendation of the GAO. 

Question. Mr. Rey indicated that he thought it was ‘‘not uncommon’’ for other 

agencies not to follow GAO’s recommendations on procurement cases. Please provide 

a list of any instances where other agencies have overridden GAO’s recommendation 

on procurement cases in the last 10 fiscal years? 

Answer. The Forest Service does not possess specific information regarding instances where other agencies have declined to follow GAO recommendations. However, it is known that there are other cases where Federal agencies have declined 

to follow GAO recommendations. Specific information on these cases would need to 

be obtained from the GAO. 

Question. Has the USDA Inspector General examined the NRRS contracting dispute? If not, why not? 

Answer. To our knowledge, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has 

not reviewed, or has not otherwise been involved in review of the source selection 

process or litigation concerning award of the national recreation reservation system 

contract. The dispute and adjudication venues in the Federal acquisition process are 

well defined, and those venues do not include the OIG. No whistleblower complaint, 

allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. or other allegation which may trigger an OIG 

investigation, has taken place. OIG determines which audits and reviews it conducts 

independently of the Forest Service, and we respectfully defer to them any questions 

regarding their work. 

Question. Your budget says the agency will have to spend $52 million to cover the 

costs of pay inflation in the fiscal year 2007 budget. That doesn’t even include funding for non-pay inflation for things like rent and utilities. 

What is the total amount of unfunded fixed costs that will absorb in fiscal year 

2007? 

Answer. Forest Service costs for the 2.3 percent pay increase would be about $52 

million. In addition, non-pay costs assuming a 2.3 percent inflation factor would be 

about $41 million—for a total of $93 million. 

Question. What is the total amount of fixed costs that you estimate that the Forest Service has been forced to absorb over the past five years? 

Answer. The cost of pay raises between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2007 (inclusive) total $392 million. Non-pay inflation is estimated to be about $273 million. 

In order to address these costs, the Forest Service is currently conducting organizational efficiency studies and will have specific recommendations in the fiscal year 

2008 President’s Budget. 

Question. Your budget claims $39 million in saving from ‘‘program efficiencies’’ 

from business restructuring and other reforms. 

How are you tracking savings to make sure they are true ‘‘efficiencies’’ and not 

cuts to programs? 

Answer. Performance Work Statements (PWS) for A–76 competitions are crafted 

to ensure the full program is included within the scope. Actual performance is measured against the PWS requirements. 

Cost reductions for the business process re-engineering efforts are tracked in the 

financial system against a baseline of costs included in the respective business case. 

The business cases outlined how the programs would be structured and implemented under a revised structure. Each program area has service-level agreements 

to help ensure the quantity and quality of service meets needs outlined by the agency. 

Question. Your budget contains a 30 percent cut in State fire assistance. States 

like North Dakota depend heavily on Federal resources to help them train and 

equip their fire fighters—fire fighters that are often first responders to thousands 

of fires each year on Federal land. 

How do you expect State and local governments make up the difference of these 

cuts? 
50 

Answer. The Forest Service supports efforts to improve firefighting readiness, and 

recognizes the primacy of State and local governments in providing these essential 

services to their citizens. In additional to Forest Service financial assistance, the 

Forest Service will continue to work with local communities and the State foresters 

with an emphasis on community wildfire protection planning and coordination on 

FEMA hazard mitigation plans. Hazardous fuels treatments in the critical wildlandurban interface and building fire preparedness at the State and local level remain 

priorities. 

Question. Since State and local firefighters are often the first responders to Federal lands, are we shortchanging our own readiness? 

Answer. The implications of reduced levels of funding in State Fire Assistance will 

vary from State to State. Generally, depending on the capability of each State, there 

may be less overall funding for preparedness at the State and local level to provide 

initial attack and extended attack assistance to Federal firefighting resources on 

Federal fires. Depending on the funding capabilities of the States and local communities, hazardous fuel treatments on the State and private portions of the wildlandurban interface may be reduced from prior years. Some of that reduction may be 

offset by proposed increases in hazardous fuel accomplishments on national forest 

acres in the wildland-urban interface. 

Question. Though you list improving forest health as one of your top activities, 

your budget cuts total Forest Health grants by 23 percent. The budget includes a 

$7 million cut to programs that combat gypsy moth infestation. You also have cuts 

to your gypsy moth research program. 

Why did you target the gypsy moth program for cuts? How many fewer acres will 

be treated with under this budget proposal, as compared to fiscal year 2006? 

Answer. When gypsy moths first move into an area, there are often significant 

impacts on both tree mortality and nuisance to humans. After many years, forests 

recover and introduced predators, parasites, and disease reduce gypsy moth population growth. The President’s Budget redirects resources from insect suppression 

projects in the generally infested areas that have had gypsy moth for many years 

to projects for slowing the spread of the gypsy moth in the highest priority areas 

along the leading edge of the advancing infestation, as well as the eradication of 

new infestations outside the generally infested area. The President’s budget also focuses resources on the detection and eradication of new invasive species such as the 

Sirex woodwasp, emerald ash borer, and others which pose serious threats to the 

Nation’s rural and urban forests. Approximately 340,000 acres are planned for treatment to suppress, eradicate, and slow the spread of the gypsy moth in fiscal year 

2007 compared to approximately 700,000 in fiscal year 2006. 

Question. The Forest Service and Interior Department should be working together 

on an interagency approach to fight fires. But, it appears that no one is talking to 

each other when you plan your budgets. For example, you increase funding for fuels 

treatments by $10 million, while DOI’s is cut by the same amount; your volunteer 

fire assistance is flat, while they zero out their Rural fire program. 

Why are the Forest Service and DOI fire budgets inconsistent? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2007 budget reflects the President’s commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the 

war on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum 

of our economic recovery. The fiscal year 2007 budget aligns with the national priorities and recognizes differences in statutory authority provided to the agencies by 

the Congress. The USDA and the DOI worked together closely to ensure the National Fire Plan programs would be funded at a level that would allow both departments to meet their planned readiness level. 

Question. The Interior bill limits the agency’s spending on ‘‘competitive sourcing 

and related activities.’’ For fiscal year 2006, you have a $3 million limit. In fiscal 

year 2005, it was $2 million. You are also required to report to Congress on ‘‘incremental costs’’ that you are spending on these programs. As far as I know, Congress 

have not received a report that details your competitive sourcing costs for fiscal year 

2005 as called for in the law, and we have no idea what you plan to spend in fiscal 

year 2006. 

How much did your agency spend on its competitive sourcing and related activities in fiscal year 2005? What amount do you plan to spend in fiscal year 2006? 

Answer. The Competitive Sourcing Program Office (CSPO) operational expenses 

for fiscal year 2005 were $1.2 million; key activities were post-study reviews of the 

process and decisions of the Forest Service A–76 competitions of Region 5 privatization of fleet maintenance and road maintenance. Feasibility study follow-up analysis 

and review of decisions are management activities similar to those required for oversight of any Forest Service program of work. In fiscal year 2005, the communica-
51 

tions program feasibility study was performed and there were no A–76 competitive 

sourcing studies initiated or implemented. 

As defined in Public Law 109–54, in fiscal year 2006, the total CSPO budget is $1,615,863 which includes $1,042,976 allocated for contractor support; the CSPO is 

funded at $572,887. As feasibility studies are completed, additional funding may be 

added to implement the recommendations. Total funds expended in the program in 

fiscal year 2006 will not exceed the $3 million cap. 

Question. How is the agency sure you are complying with the $3 million spending 

limitation for fiscal year 2006? How are you tracking expenses? 

Answer. In order to comply with congressional direction and to better manage the 

USDA Forest Service Competitive Sourcing Program, the Competitive Sourcing Program Office instituted tracking by activity of all resources expended by its contractor support, including A–76 competitions, feasibility studies, and the FAIR Act 

Inventory. As there were no new A–76 competitions in fiscal year 2005 and that the 

costs to monitor post competition activity for the purposes of OMB Circular No. A– 

76, the USDA Forest Service tracking of expenditures was compliant with Congressional direction in its intent and effectiveness. 

Question. You list a number of ‘‘feasibility studies’’ underway or planned in your 

budget justification, but you don’t say how much these are costing. 

How much are you spending in feasibility studies in fiscal year 2006? How much 

do you propose to spend in fiscal year 2007? 

Answer. Although the process for the USDA feasibility studies has been prescribed by the USDA OCFO, every function and organization is different, and therefore predicting a total cost with any reliability would not be possible. As the USDA 

Forest Service moves forward, all costs will be developed and captured in a proposed 

action plan subject to leadership approval. It is estimated that from $400,000 to 

$700,000 will be spent on feasibility studies during fiscal year 2006. Spending in 

fiscal year 2007 will depend on the outcome of the fiscal year 2006 studies. 

Question. Are you counting the costs of these studies toward the annual spending 

cap? 

Answer. As stewards of America’s national forests and grasslands, it is essential 

for the Forest Service to regularly assess organizational effectiveness to ensure that 

finite resources are optimally applied to performance of the agency mission. Feasibility studies are a management tool specifically designed to objectively, comprehensively, and transparently identify opportunities for improvement in agency programs 

that could be achieved in a variety of ways. Forest Service feasibility studies are 

completed to determine if competitive source competitions should be carried out and 

are guided by specific agency contractors. Feasibility study contractor costs are 

tracked by the Competitive Sourcing Program Office and are counted under the congressionally mandated funding cap. 

Question. You claim $20 million in savings in fiscal year 2005 from your competitive sourcing activities. 

How are you tracking costs to make sure you can back those savings up? 

Answer. Contracting officers overseeing the various contracts are tracking the 

contractual costs of activities which have been outsourced to the private sector. This 

information is clearly tracked in the Integrated Acquisition System. Private sector 

contract costs are tracked through the routine contractor billing payment process as 

would occur with any private sector contract. The Competitive Sourcing Activities 

Savings and Performance Update (Section 647 Report) shows total accrued savings. 

This report is completed by comparing the actual performance costs with the projected costs of in-house performance. 

For Letters of Obligation (LOO) that went to Government Most Efficient Organizations (MEOs), the MEOs (pursuant to agency policy and the terms of the LOO) 

are required to report actual costs on a quarterly basis. Specific job codes are used 

to capture these costs as per agency policy. To date, the Forest Service only has one 

MEO, the Information Solutions Organization (ISO). 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HERB KOHL

Question. The products that come off our Nation’s forest are key to the economy 

of Wisconsin. My State is one of the leader’s in forest and paper products. I am concerned that the administration is not taking the forest products industry seriously 

by failing to adequately fund research into improving paper and wood products technology. Since the mid-1990s the funding for the Forest Products Lab (FPL) in Madison has failed to keep pace with inflation, and it has not risen with increased budgets for forest research. The research conducted at FPL is key to maintaining our 

international competitiveness in paper and construction materials. The administra-
52 

tion’s decision to fund the FPL at $19.365 million this year indicates that the Forest 

Service does not value the thousands of jobs in my State that depend on a vibrant 

and technologically advanced forest products industry. 

Why has the funding for the Forest Products Lab failed to keep pace with the 

growth in the Forest Research account? 

Answer. Growing needs in fire, watershed, and invasive species research emerged 

as agency priorities during the 1990s, and as a result, forest products utilization research did not grow as rapidly. Since fiscal year 2005, Forest Inventory and Analysis has received the highest priority for funding, leaving non-FIA research flat to 

declining in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, the future for research at the Forest Products Laboratory is bright. The FPL has refocused its program on the key 

areas critical to paper and wood related products with significant potential spin-off 

benefits for air, water, and fire technology development as well. Research into 

nanotechnology, advanced structures, advanced composites, bio-refining and small 

diameter tree utilization positions the FPL well for re-emergence as the world’s premier forest-based materials science facility. The President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget 

provides an appropriate balance between Federal wood utilization research and that 

of the private sector. 

Question. Is it the administration’s long-term vision that timber be harvested in 

the United States but processed elsewhere as the domestic industry becomes outdated? 

Answer. The administration supports sustainable forest management and use, as 

well as the need to improve the U.S. forest products industry through balanced public and private sector investments in research, new technologically advanced equipment, and up-to-date product processing facilities. The Forest Products Laboratory 

in Madison, WI, with funds provided by Congress, is continuing to provide important new technology to make the U.S. forest products industry globally competitive. 

Question. Why has the administration continued to underfund research into improved paper technology and safer, stronger, and more durable building materials? 

Answer. Paper and building materials technology has not been a high priority for 

Federal research in recent years. While these areas of research are considered important enough to continue to fund them in times of decreasing Federal discretionary funding, other research programs, such as Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

and fire and invasive species research have received focused increases. 

Question. Can we expect this funding trend to reverse itself before more Wisconsin jobs are lost? 

Answer. While Federal research investments can provide important long-term 

contributions to the national economy, market forces that are well beyond the control of the Forest Service will have a much greater impact on the level of private 

sector employment in any given State than a given year’s modest increase or decrease of Forest Service research funding. Phase I of the $45 million FPL modernization initiative is in the fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget. In addition, the 

FPL is building strong partnerships with industry in the development of alternative 

fuels that will help our Nation reduce its dependency on oil imports. These partnerships will certainly help build support internally and externally for the FPL. 

Question. How does the Forest Service intend to fund the implementation of the 

new Designated Routes and Areas off-highway vehicle rule? 

Answer. On November 9, 2005, the Department of Agriculture published a final 

travel management rule (36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295) governing the use 

of motor vehicles on National Forest System lands. The Forest Service believes that 

this rule represents a critical step in addressing unmanaged recreation, which is one 

of the four key threats to national forests and grasslands. 

The travel management rule requires each national forest to designate those 

roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year. Decisions about which roads, trails, and areas should be designated will be made at the local level, with public participation and coordination 

with State, county, and tribal governments. The agency intends to complete route 

designation within the next 4 years. On most national forests, travel planning will 

require a substantial effort, including environmental analysis and documentation 

prepared in an open, collaborative process. 

Travel management is a key agency priority, and the Forest Service will prioritize 

its work and accomplish travel planning within the funds available. Travel management serves multiple purposes, and funding may be used from a variety of Forest 

Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at the local level. 

Question. Clearly the President’s budget recommendation would severely decrease 

funding for the relevant Trails and Recreation budgets. What other sources of funding have been made available for the planning and implementation of this rule? 
53 

Answer. The Forest Service estimates that it will spend between $15 and $35 million per year over the next 4 years on travel planning. These obligations will occur 

within existing and available budget authority, so no new funding is necessary. 

Travel planning serves multiple purposes, and funding may be derived from a variety of Forest Service appropriations depending on the primary purposes served at 

the local level. Among the principal budget line items associated with travel planning are Roads; Trails; Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness; Wildlife and Fisheries 

Habitat Management; and Vegetation and Watershed Management. 

Question. I am also concerned about the Forest Service’s effort to competitively 

source some of the jobs in the Service. I am concerned that the Service does not 

adequately track whether competitively sourcing jobs really saves the taxpayers 

money in the long run. 

How does the Forest Service track whether it saves money by competitively 

sourcing jobs? 

Answer. Contracting officers overseeing the various contracts are tracking the 

contractual costs of activities which have been outsourced to the private sector. This 

information is clearly tracked in the Integrated Acquisition System. Private sector 

contract costs are tracked through the routine contractor billing payment process as 

would occur with any private sector contract. The Competitive Sourcing Activities 

Savings and Performance Update (Section 647 Report) shows total accrued savings. 

This report is completed by comparing the actual performance costs with the projected costs of in-house performance. 

Question. Does the Service has a mechanism to allow government employees to 

compete for privately sourced jobs in the future, or is competitive sourcing a one 

way street? 

Answer. If a recompetition occurs for previous competed services under A–76 guidance and the recompetition is under A–76 guidance, then the agency could form a 

Most Efficient Organization (MEO) to compete, but this has not happened in the 

Forest Service to date. 

Question. How does the Service decide which jobs to compete, and how do you ensure that decisions that are inherently governmental are always made by government employees? 

Answer. At the USDA Forest Service, feasibility studies are used to determine 

what, if any, functional areas are likely to produce a significant performance or financial return on investment if submitted to further management analysis. The outcomes of such studies recommend whether or not to pursue a Business Process Reinvention (BPR), OMB Circular No. A–76 competition, some other business process 

improvement technique, or maintain the current status. The USDA Forest Service 

experience has shown that comprehensive feasibility studies offer the opportunity 

to identify holistic business units and the relationships they have with the entire 

organization. By looking at those commercial activities not yet examined in a collective fashion rather than piece by piece, the USDA Forest Service hopes to identify 

the best opportunities for improvement after all factors and impacts are considered. 

The feasibility studies, therefore, will take place over the period of the next several 

years, reviewing multiple program areas. 

Inherently governmental job activities that can only be performed by government 

employees are not competed under OMB Circular A–76. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BURNS. The subcommittee will stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, March 30, in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building. At that time we will hear testimony from 

the Honorable Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary, Department of the 

Interior. 

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., Thursday, March 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, 

March 30.] 

(55) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Senator Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Burns, Allard, and Dorgan. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

OPENING STATEMENT OF LYNN SCARLETT, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

THOMAS WEIMER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT 

AND BUDGET 

PAM HAZE, CO-DIRECTOR, BUDGET OFFICE 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We will call the committee to order; Senator Dorgan may or may not show up. Depending upon what he figures the 

landscape is. I appreciate him and everything. I want to open up 

this morning, because in the Billings Gazette there’s a story, and 

when I talk about public lands and why they’re very important to 

us in Montana, and how they’re handled and how they’re managed, 

and all of this thing, one has to remember that the government 

would like to take credit for improved range conditions. But there 

was an organization that was started just after World War II, that 

was funded by the ranchers that had done most of the improvements on ground like BLM. It was called the Society for Range 

Management. Some of us will probably remember that organization 

and the work they did, conservation districts, and this type of 

thing, and they were primarily responsible for putting water in 

areas, where they had no water before, and improvements of the 

range and then they also established at that time range management studies at our Land grant colleges across the country. Anyway this morning there was a lady that had just passed away, in 

Garfield County. Garfield County is a huge county but it only has 

900 hearty residents up there, in fact they only have one high 
56 

school. That used to be a boarding school years ago, when you took 

your high school students to school on Monday morning you didn’t 

see them until after the football game was over on Friday night. 

Now some folks would think that was a pretty good deal, but nonetheless when you live on ranches, you know you’ve got to have 

some help around, but they couldn’t run buses because the county’s 

so large and of course and very sparsely populated. 

But there was a lady who died she was 94 years old, in Garfield 

County, and I remember her and her mother, and even her father. 

Years ago they ranched out north of Sands Springs in the Missouri 

Breaks. When you were at the Pense Ranch you were outdoors. I 

mean it was just outside. When Mr. Pense died, he had a stroke, 

and was bedridden for 3 years. Their house had a dirt floor, they 

wet it down every morning, and swept it every morning, and in 

that huge kitchen was a big heat stove that sat on rocks, and a 

cooking range, and that was their heat. People say, well my gosh 

how cold in the winter it would get there, and I said well you 

know, basically it was warmer in that particular room, than in any 

room in any house you ever seen, because no cold air could get 

under it. Like if you had a floor and you had cold air under it, why 

your floor would get cold. I can remember those days as a kid on 

the farm. But basically it was very cozy and toasty, but I remember 

these two women, and how after Roy died how they carried on on 

that ranch. This is a pioneer family that is slowly slipping into our 

past, and they reach way back into the years where there was no 

electricity, there was no such thing as running water, or anything. 

They were really people of the land, and hearty people in a very 

very hard country as far as the elements were concerned. I don’t 

think anybody has any appreciation; I used to do a lot of business 

with them when I was in Billings Livestock Commission Company, 

and Mrs. Pense would call you up, and she had lost her hearing, 

the mother had, and she used to call up and she used to just yell 

into the telephone, and we’re sending you a load of cattle, when I 

at Billings Livestock Commission Company, now they couldn’t ride 

horses, and they had no way, and they hired no one. So what they 

would do, what cattle they had on the ranch they would lure them 

into traps with feed, and then they’d close the gate, and call up a 

man that was in the trucking business in Jordan, Montana, and 

he’d come out, so whatever walked off of that truck was what you 

got. It was just anything and everything. 

But I just wanted to make note of that, and that it be in the 

record, because I was saddened by her passing. But 94 is a long 

life, and especially under the conditions that those folks live in, up 

on the Missouri River, that runs across the northern part of the 

State, into the Missouri Breaks, what we call the Missouri Breaks. 

You’ll remember there was a movie with Marlon Brando that come 

out years ago with that name, the Missouri Breaks, it was a horse 

story. It was horses—they used to bring a lot of horses out from 

Canada, across through the Missouri Breaks on their way to Mile 

City, because Mile City, Fort Keogh there was a remount station 

for the Army. 

So the history of that country is very interesting, but I’m sad to 

see that Little Rosie has passed on, and slipped into the past and 
57 

so it’s a passing of an era that we have to live with in Montana. 

It’s kind of the history of our State. 

Thank you for coming this morning, subcommittee. We’re to discuss the Interior’s fiscal year 2007 budget. 

I’d like to welcome our three witnesses: Lynn Scarlett, Deputy 

Secretary of the Interior, nice to have you with us this morning; 

Thomas Weimer, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and 

Budget; and of course Pam Haze Co-Director of the Budget Office. 

So we welcome you here this morning. 

The request for the Department totals about $10.5 billion—$9.6 

billion of which is under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, this 

amounts to about a 1.8 percent decrease compared to the fiscal 

year 2006. Of course there are some of us on the committee that 

have a little bit of a problem with that, but I think we can work 

through it and still stay with what the President wants to do. It 

all boils down to priorities, where we spend our money, where we 

don’t spend our money. 

In the context of the broader budget situation and our emphasis 

on defense and homeland security this reduction may not sound so 

dramatic but as we get into the details, it’s obvious we’re going to 

have some issues with the Department’s budget as we go forward. 

For example, after years of ramping up the PILT program to get 

closer to its authorized level, this budget proposes to slash it by 

$35 million—from $233 million back to $198 million. That would 

be the lowest level of funding for this program since fiscal year 

2000. As a former county commissioner myself, I can tell you that 

is going in the wrong direction. 

There are a number of other reductions that concern me. The 

Construction accounts of the Park Service and Fish and Wildlife 

Service have been cut by $85 million and $26 million, respectively. 

Funding for Indian school construction has been cut by $49 million. 

In the Wildland Fire budget, the fuels reduction program is proposed to be cut by $8.3 million and the rural fire assistance program that gives grants and technical assistance to local firefighting 

departments is reduced by $10 million. I think that is short-sighted, and I’ll tell you why these local departments are frequently the 

first ones to arrive at a fire and they often put them out before 

they turn into disasters that can cost tens of millions of dollars. I’m 

happy to see that some important programs in the budget are proposed to receive significant increases. 

For example, $26.5 million in the Bureau of Land Management 

and $11.3 million in the Minerals Management Service—both for 

the purpose of enhancing domestic oil and natural gas production, 

on and offshore. I know that the BLM has had an enormous increase in the number of Applications for Permits to Drill (APD’s) 

over the last few years so I think it’s wise that you’ve added money 

to address this workload. By processing more APD’s we not only 

provide more oil and gas to the marketplace but also provide more 

royalties to the States and the Federal Treasury. I think a lot of 

folks don’t realize how important of a money maker minerals management is. In fact it’s about the only one in the Federal Government that does make money. So the investment there is welcomed 

and I think it’s important. 
58 

Other important program increases include $25.4 million for Indian land consolidation to reduce the growing fractionation of Indian interests in lands. If we don’t begin to get control of this dramatic increase, the Federal Government will continue to struggle 

in meeting its trust responsibilities to the Indian community. 

Finally, the fire suppression budget is proposed to receive an increase of $26.3 million. While I believe it is wise to budget for the 

10-year average for fire suppression costs as the Department has 

done, I’d like to see this number start to come down as we do more 

fuels reduction projects to reduce fire danger. I’d also like to hear 

what administrative measures you have put in place, or plan to put 

in place, to reduce our skyrocketing firefighting costs. I get the feeling every now and again that that’s a cottage industry, that just— 

that is just skyrocketing out of control. 

Before I conclude my remarks, I’d like to thank the folks at the 

Department of the Interior who are helping us deal with a serious 

problem we have with wolf predation in Eastern Montana. Wolves 

have recently killed or wounded dozens of sheep in McCone and 

Garfield Counties. We just can’t afford that. I mean when you lose 

40 or 50 head of sheep you know, one wolf, I think there’s got to 

be two, but I’m guessing, that’s purely speculation, why we think 

we’ve got a big problem. In other words, ranching business is tough 

enough without taking a loss like that. 

I sent a letter to the Secretary asking for help in dealing with 

this problem. The Department clarified that State wildlife officials 

and affected ranchers had the authority to shoot those predators 

that are preying on livestock. I appreciate how quickly the Department responded to my request and how well your people have 

worked with State and local officials, as well as the ranching community, to address this issue. I really appreciate that. 

We have a busy committee schedule this morning, so I’ll stop 

here and simply say thank you all for appearing here today. I look 

forward to hearing your testimony and discussing the Department’s 

2007 budget with you. Ms. Scarlett, thank you very much and 

we’re looking forward to your testimony. Oh I’m sorry. Senator Allard, you’re pretty stealthy this morning. 

Senator ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I snuck in while you had your 

back turned. 

Senator BURNS. That’s the way it always happens. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Senator ALLARD. I just have a brief comment or two, first of all 

I want to thank you for holding the hearing today, Mr. Chairman. 

I am also pleased to have a chance to discuss the budget for the 

Department of the Interior, and even though she’s not with us here 

today, I would also like to recognize Secretary Gale Norton, and 

her efforts at the Department and under her guidance, the Department has made many strides forward. I think she has done an exceptional job in handling an agency that’s very important to Colorado and the Nation. Specifically I want to thank her for the work 

that she and the rest of the administration has done to protect 

State water rights and to foster an atmosphere of cooperation and 

impressive mandates. 
59 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I think that we’re all aware that this is going to be another 

tough budget year Mr. Chairman, and that’s why hearings such as 

this are so important. So I look forward to working with you and 

the rest of the committee again this year, Mr. Chairman, to see 

that worthy projects and programs continue to be funded in a responsible manner. Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Thank you, Chairman Burns, for holding this important hearing. Colorado’s abundance of forests make this a very significant hearing to me. 

Undersecretary Rey and Chief Bosworth, I thank you for your appearance before 

the subcommittee today, it is good to see both of you again. The role the Forest 

Service plays in managing our public lands is of particular interest to the people 

of Colorado. 

I hope the committee will indulge me as I am about to brag about my home State 

for a moment. I think that I am one of the luckiest people in Washington D.C. Not 

only do I get to serve the people of Colorado, but I am fortunate enough to have 

incredibly beautiful and unique lands in my home State. Colorado is home to 13 National Forests. This is more than almost any other State. These forests provide 

countless scenic vistas, unequaled hunting, fishing, and camping opportunities, and 

the Nation’s most popular skiing. In fact not only does the nation’s most visited ski 

resort lie in Colorado, but 3 of the top 5 most visited ski areas call Colorado home. 

But the importance of Colorado’s forests goes far beyond recreational opportunities. Our National Forests are a cornerstone of Colorado’s economy. Hunting and 

fishing alone contribute over $1 billion to Colorado’s economy every year, with much 

of this money going to rural communities. This and other forest related industries 

pump billions of dollars into Colorado’s economy and employ one of the states largest segments of the workforce. 

But perhaps the most important thing is that Colorado’s forests also contain 4 

major watersheds, the Arkansas, Upper Colorado, Rio Grande and Missouri (or 

South Platte), that supply water to 19 western states. Colorado can truly be called 

the Headwaters State. With the obvious exception of Hawaii it is the only State 

where all of the rivers flow out of the State’s borders. 

Now I have to turn to the bad news. Areas of the State continue to suffer from 

drought conditions, and the potential for catastrophic fires is very high again this 

year. 

To compound this problem Colorado currently has 1.5 million acres that are suffering from the effects of beetle kill. 

Timber sales are thought by many resource managers to be the single most effective tool available to the Forest Service to mitigate against—or treat during—episodes like bark beetle epidemics. But the Forest Service doesn’t seem to be getting 

enough money to the national forests in Colorado to combat the problem. We’ve got 

a sawmill in Montrose that’s running at half capacity and another one just across 

the State line in Saratoga, Wyoming, that’s closed because they don’t have enough 

timber. 

That said, I support the proposed increase in the forest products line item and 

applaud the emphasis on forest plan implementation. I will have a question regarding this matter when we get to that portion of this hearing. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Now we’ll hear from Ms. Scarlett though, thank 

you very much for coming this morning we look forward to your 

testimony. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN SCARLETT

Ms. SCARLETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to present the President’s 2007 

budget for the Interior Department. I thank you for accepting my 

testimony on behalf of Secretary Gale Norton, tomorrow will be her 

last day at the Interior Department. I would also like to acknowl-
60 

edge her outstanding leadership and service to the American public 

and this Nation. As we look forward to the confirmation of our next 

Secretary of the Interior, I want you to know that I will do my best 

in the interim to guide the Department, fulfill its responsibilities 

and work with the Congress to serve the public. 

I have with me today, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget Tom Weimer, and also Pam Haze our Deputy 

Budget Director, who will be taking the place of John Trezise who 

announced he will be retiring after 35 years with the Department. 

Mr. Chairman, Interior’s responsibilities are vast and varied. We 

face challenges that come with the obligation to provide energy, 

recreation opportunities, water, stewardship of this Nation’s unique 

natural, cultural and historic places. We face the complexities of 

Indian Trust Management and the fulfillment of our Indian Trust 

Responsibilities. 

Our budget request for programs funded in the Interior Appro- priations Act is $9.6 billion. This is $191 million or 1.9 percent 

below the 2006 enacted level. Amidst this set of complex and extensive responsibilities we set several key goals in our budget. First, 

recognizing the importance of fiscal prudence, we are striving to restrain budget spending to help halve the deficit by 2009 as President Bush has pledged. Within these constraints we propose to fund $126 million for 

fixed cost increases which covers 70 percent of anticipated 2007 

pay raises. Second we seek to implement Energy Policy act provisions and help meet the energy needs of the nation. Our budget includes $68 million for energy programs—that is a $44 million increase over 2006. 

ENERGY

As you are aware we have seen a doubling of natural gas spot 

prices since 2004, resulting for farmers in a 100 percent increase 

in their fertilizer costs. One of the best opportunities in the near 

term to augment domestic natural gas supplies is on Bureau of 

Land Management lands. Basins in five western States contain an 

estimated 139 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—enough to heat 55 

million homes for almost 30 years. A $9 million increase for the 

Bureau of Land Management, coupled with improved management 

will enable the Bureau of Land Management to improve inspection 

and monitoring and process a record 12,000 applications for permits to drill, that is more than double the number received in 2003. 

COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION

Mr. Chairman, the Interior Department also holds significant 

conservation responsibilities; we propose to maintain a strong conservation commitment through cooperative conservation, placing 

partnerships and citizen stewardship at the center of our efforts. 

Our 2007 budget includes $322 million for Cooperative Conservation programs. That is an increase of $10 million over 2006. We believe these grant programs are not simply nice to do, they are essential if we are to fulfill our endangered species act responsibilities and achieve the Nation’s conservation goals. 

Over 80 percent of species reside on non Federal lands. Water 

flows across public and private lands, invasive weeds know no ju-
61 

risdictional boundaries. These grants make a big difference, our 

Private Stewardship and Landowner Incentive grants have funded 

some 900 projects with 1,500 partners. We propose to fund these 

two programs at $34 million. In addition to joining with citizen 

stewards to protect wildlife and habitat, Interior is steward of our 

Nation’s historic and cultural legacy. The 2007 budget includes $32 

million for locally focused historic preservation and heritage tourism. We propose combining the Preserve America program, Save 

America’s Treasures and the Heritage Partnership program under 

a unifying theme. 

INDIAN TRUST MANAGEMENT

A third priority is to improve Indian Trust Management and fulfill our trust responsibilities to Indian Country. From 2001 to 2006, 

Interior will have invested $3.4 billion to manage, reform, and improve Indian Trust programs. This investment is making a difference. We re-engineered trust business practices, and in addition, 

are generating the first comprehensive rewrite of regulations in at 

least 30 years. 

The 2007 budget will invest an additional $537 million in trust 

programs. That is a net program increase of $30 million over the 

2006 appropriation. This request includes an increase to reduce the 

backlog in probate cases, and it also increases our ability to make 

improvements in the cadastral survey of Indian lands. The budget 

includes an increase of $25 million in the Indian Land Consolidation program bringing the total of that program to $60 million. 

We are targeting that program to our most highly fractionated 

tracts at 10 specific locations. We also are continuing to improve 

our work on historical trust accounting. We have ample evidence 

that most monies collected for individual Indians were distributed 

in the correct amounts to the correct recipients. 

The budget requests $56 million for Historical Accounting—that 

is the same as was appropriated in 2006. The ability of a Tribe to 

contract or compact for Bureau of Indian Affairs operated programs 

is a key factor in strengthening Indian self-determination. Tribes 

indicate that lack of full funding for administrative and management costs is a deterrent to contracting. 

To address this concern the 2007 budget includes a $19 million 

increase to fully fund indirect contract support costs. 

HAZARDS

One additional priority merits special attention. Recognizing the 

many challenges presented by natural hazards, we propose to enhance hazards information, relevance, and dissemination. More 

Americans are now at risk of experiencing severe impacts of natural hazards than at any other time in our Nation’s history. The 

budget for USGS includes a multi-hazards pilot initiative funded 

by a $2 million increase and a $4 million redirection through workforce restructuring. 
62 

LANDSAT 8

The 2007 budget also includes a $16 million increase to complete 

the design and start work on development on the ground system 

for a new earth observing satellite, Landsat 8. 

As I conclude, let me underscore that fulfilling our responsibilities is not simply about more dollars, it is about better management. 

MANAGEMENT

Management remains a major focus with significant progress. In 

the realm of information technology for example, despite some reports in the media, we have made major progress. We hired an outside entity to rate us and the results of that report were that our 

security was adequate. We are however continuing to work with 

our Inspector General to focus on additional priority areas of concern that he has identified. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan and other members of this subcommittee I look forward to working with you and would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. Are you the only one 

that’s going to make statements this morning? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LYNN SCARLETT

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget 

for the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight our priorities and key goals. 

Through its multi-faceted mission and geographically dispersed services, Interior 

maintains and improves the Nation’s natural and cultural resources, economic vitality, and community well being. Interior’s 70,000 employees and 200,000 volunteers 

live and work in the communities, large and small, that they serve. They deliver 

programs through partnerships and cooperative relationships that engage and include States, Tribes, local communities, citizens, groups, and businesses. 

The challenges of the Interior Department cut a broad swathe, with their breadth 

indicative of the complexity and extent of Interior’s mission. They are also indicative 

of Interior’s presence at 2,400 locations from which we manage one in every five 

acres of the United States. 

We face the complexity of working with seven states to manage Colorado River 

waters. We encounter the inevitable challenges of providing recreation opportunities, access to energy resources, and preservation of the Nation’s unique natural, 

cultural and historic resources. We work with 561 Indian tribes. We respond to 

emergencies such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, applying the expertise of our incident command teams coordinated out of the National Interagency Fire Center. We 

face the challenges that come from transitioning away from costly, duplicative financial and business management systems that include over 107 real property data 

bases, 16 financial systems, and 27 acquisition systems. 

Facing these challenges requires more integrated management and an integrated 

strategic plan. The plan defines four mission categories-resource protection, resource 

use, recreation, and serving communities. Partnerships, management excellence, 

and science provide the foundations for achieving our four mission goals and serving 

the public well. 

Using the strategic plan as a road map, the Department met or exceeded goals 

for 69 percent of its annual performance measures in 2005. Since 2001, the Department has: 

—Completed nearly 6,000 national park facility improvements and maintained 

high park visitor satisfaction rates, according to surveys; 
63 

—Helped meet the Nation’s energy needs by nearly doubling annual energy permit processing on Federal lands; 

—Advanced cooperative conservation through Private Stewardship and Landowner Incentive grants that have funded 943 projects with 1,466 partners; 

—Protected habitat on 8.8 million acres managed through partnerships; and 

—Improved forest health on 5.6 million acres of Interior-managed lands through 

the Healthy Forests Initiative, a 108 percent increase over the previous five 

years. 

We crafted our 2007 budget through a broad analysis of base programs, consideration of cost and performance information, financial information, staffing, and the 

budgetary benefits of more effective and efficient utilization of resources. These efforts shaped the budget by highlighting the effect of resource allocation decisions on 

strategic goals and identifying opportunities to realign priorities and improve efficiency. 

The 2007 budget seeks to maintain performance across the Department’s strategic 

plan goals and improve performance in areas that are high-priority Administration 

initiatives, within the context of the President’s commitment to reduce the deficit 

by more than half by 2009. The 2007 budget incorporates Program Assessment Rating Tool reviews and program evaluations that assess whether programs are wellmanaged and have clear goals. 

Although the details of the respective missions of Interior’s bureaus and offices 

differ, the central focus is the same. A focus on excellent performance requires mission clarity, good metrics, and management excellence. Management excellence requires a focused approach to maintaining and enhancing program results, making 

wise management choices, routinely examining the effectiveness and efficiency of 

programs, finding effective means to coordinate and leverage resources, and continuously introducing and evaluating process and technology improvements. 

The 2007 budget reflects the Department’s commitment to these management 

strategies and management excellence. 

BUDGET OVERVIEW

The 2007 budget request for current appropriations is $10.5 billion. Permanent 

funding that becomes available as a result of existing legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an additional $5.6 billion, for a total 2007 Interior 

budget of $16.1 billion. 

The 2007 current appropriations request is a decrease of $392.2 million, or 3.6 

percent below the 2006 funding level. If emergency hurricane supplemental funding 

is not counted, the 2007 request is a decrease of $321.9 million or 2.9 percent below 

the 2006 level. 

For programs funded by this Subcommittee, the 2007 request includes $9.6 billion, a decrease of $190.9 million, or 1.9 percent from the 2006 level, excluding the 

emergency hurricane supplemental. 

Receipts collected by the Department in 2007 are projected to be $17 billion, an 

increase of $99.4 million over 2006. That amount is $6.5 billion more than Interior’s 

current appropriations request and nearly $1 billion more than the total 2007 Interior budget. 

2005 HURRICANES

In addition to the funds requested in the budget, on February 16, 2006, the President sent the Congress a supplemental funding request for hurricane recovery. The 

supplemental includes $216 million for Interior agencies. With these funds, Interior’s agencies will conduct clean-up and debris removal and repair and reconstruction of facilities at park units, refuges, and USGS science facilities. The request includes funds to repair levees, dikes, and water control structures that provide wildlife habitat and support flood control for New Orleans. These actions will allow us 

to open roads, bridges, and trails to the public, repair visitor centers and exhibits, 

and reconstruct water control structures to host migratory bird populations and 

other wildlife. The supplemental also includes funding for MMS to restore its operations in New Orleans. 

MAINTAINING CORE PROGRAMS

The Department manages over 500 million acres and some 40,000 facilities at 

2,400 operating 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. 
64 

In order to deliver these services, the 2007 budget includes funding for pay and 

health benefits, other nondiscretionary cost increases for workers, 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 performance across strategic goals, improve performance in 

priority areas, and effectively serve the public. The budget includes $125.9 million for nondiscretionary, fixed cost increases. Of this total, two-thirds, or $82.5 million, will cover 70 percent of anticipated 2007 pay 

raises. The budget assumes a January 2007 pay increase of 2.2 percent. 

In addition to paying for nondiscretionary fixed costs, the budget includes focused 

investments for tools to enable the department’s employees to do their jobs more efficiently and generate long-term cost savings, including implementation of standardized systems and streamlined business practices. One of these investments is the 

Financial and Business Management System. The 2007 budget includes $22.2 million to continue deployment of this integrated financial and business management 

system that will facilitate the retirement of duplicative, outdated legacy systems. 

PROGRAMMATIC HIGHLIGHTS

The 2007 budget maintains and improves performance across the Department’s 

strategic goals to achieve healthy lands and water, thriving communities, and dynamic economies throughout the Nation. Key goals for 2007 include: 

—Enhancing America’s energy supplies through responsible energy development 

and continued implementation of the Energy Policy Act; 

—Building on successful partnerships across the country and expanding opportunities for conservation that leverage Federal investments; 

—Continuing to advance trust reform; 

—Coordinating existing efforts under a unified program that focuses on high-priority historic and cultural protection under the Preserve America umbrella; 

—Preventing crises and conflicts over water in the West through Water 2025; 

—Continuing to reduce risks to communities and the environment from wildland 

fires; and 

—Providing scientific information to advance knowledge of our surroundings. 

As part of the President’s effort to reduce the budget deficit by half over five 

years, the 2007 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 priorities and earmarks enacted in 2006. For example, the 2007 budget reduces funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Grant 

program. These grants support State and local parks that have alternative sources 

of funding through State revenues and bonds. In addition, a PART review found the 

current program could not adequately measure performance or demonstrate clear 

results. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

The Department’s energy programs play a critical role in providing access to domestic oil, gas, and other energy resources. To enhance domestic production, the 

2007 budget proposes an increase of $43.2 million to implement the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 and continue progress on the President’s National Energy Policy. In 

total, the budget includes $467.5 million for the Department’s energy programs. 

APD Processing—In 2003, under Energy Policy and Conservation Act requirements, the Department issued a report identifying five basins in Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico as containing the largest onshore reserves 

of natural gas in the country and the second largest domestic resource base after 

the Outer Continental Shelf. These onshore basins contain an estimated 139 trillion 

cubic feet of natural gas, enough to heat 55 million homes for almost 30 years. 

These resources offer the best opportunity to augment domestic energy supplies in 

the short term-an important step to moderating the doubling we have seen in natural gas spot prices since 2005. Those price increases have resulted in 100 percent 

increases for farmer’s fertilizer costs; over 20 percent increases in transportation 

costs for some schools; and have deterred investment by some high-paying manufacturers in the United States. 

Before any leasing for oil and gas production can occur on the public lands in 

these areas, the Bureau of Land Management must have a land-use plan in place. 

Beginning in 2001, with the support of Congress, BLM initiated the largest effort 

in its history to revise or amend all of its 162 resource management plans. Within 

areas designated in plans as appropriate for mineral development, BLM has made 
65 

a concerted effort to bring additional oil and gas supplies to market. In 2002, 2.1 

Tcf were produced from Federal, non-Indian lands. In 2003 and 2004, 2.2 Tcf and 

3.1 Tcf, respectively, were produced from these lands. 

The BLM is experiencing a steady increase in the demand for drilling permits. 

In 2000, BLM received 3,977 applications for permits to drill. In 2005, BLM received 

8,351 APDs. The bureau estimates that in 2006, it will receive in excess of 9,300 

permit applications, more than double the number processed five years ago. To address this demand, BLM has taken steps to ensure that drilling permit applications 

are processed promptly, while at the same time ensuring that environmental protections are fully addressed. These measures, along with increased funding, have allowed BLM to make significant progress in acting on permit applications. In 2005, 

BLM processed 7,736 applications, nearly 4,000 more than it was able to process 

in 2000. 

Section 365 of the Energy Policy Act established a pilot program at seven BLM 

field offices that currently handle 70 percent of the drilling permit application workload. The pilot program is testing new management strategies designed to further 

improve the efficiency of processing permit applications. The Energy Policy Act provides enhanced funding for the pilot offices from oil and gas rental receipts. During 

2006, with more efficient processes and authorities and funding provided through 

Section 365, BLM anticipates processing over 10,000 permits. 

The efforts of BLM have achieved significant results. Almost 4,700 new onshore 

wells were started in 2005. This level of activity is 56 percent higher than in 2002. For 2007, the budget proposes an increase of $9.2 million to focus on the oil and 

gas workload in BLM’s non-pilot offices, which are also experiencing a sharp and 

sustained increase in the demand for APDs. This increase will provide $4.3 million 

for drilling permit processing and $2.8 million for inspection and enforcement activities. It will also provide $2.1 million for monitoring activities. The budget also includes $471,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service to increase consultation work with 

the non-pilot offices. 

With the funding proposed for 2007, we expect that BLM pilot and non-pilot offices will collectively be capable of processing nearly 12,000 APDs and conducting 

over 26,000 inspections in 2007. 

The budget assumes continuation through 2007 of the enhanced funding for pilot 

offices from oil and gas receipts to facilitate a smooth transition to funding from 

drilling permit processing fees, effective September 30, 2007. Legislation to be proposed by the Administration will allow a rulemaking to phase in full cost recovery 

for APDs, beginning with a fee amount that will generate an estimated $20 million 

in 2008, fully replacing the amount provided by the Energy Policy Act. 

Alaska North Slope—The most promising area for significant long-term oil discoveries and dramatic gains in domestic production in the United States is the Alaska 

North Slope. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates a 95 percent probability that at 

least 5.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable undiscovered oil are in the ANWR 

coastal plain and five percent probability of at least 16 billion barrels. USGS estimates the mean or expected value is 10.36 billion barrels of technically recoverable 

undiscovered oil. At $55 a barrel, more than 90 percent of the assessed technically 

recoverable resource estimate is thought to be economically viable. At peak production, ANWR could produce about one billion barrels of oil a day, about 20 percent 

of our domestic daily production and more oil than any State, including Texas and 

Louisiana. 

The 2007 budget assumes the Congress will enact legislation in 2006 to open 

ANWR to energy exploration and development with a first lease sale held in 2008 

and a second in 2010. The budget estimates that these two lease sales will generate 

a combined $8.0 billion bonus revenues, including $7.0 billion from the 2008 lease 

sale. 

The 2007 budget includes an increase of $12.4 million for BLM energy management activities on the Alaska North Slope. The additional funds will support the 

required environmental analyses and other preparatory work in advance of a first 

ANWR lease sale in 2008. The requested increase will also support BLM’s leasing, 

inspection, and monitoring program in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and 

BLM’s participation in the North Slope Science Initiative authorized by the Energy 

Policy Act. In addition, a significant share of the $12.4 million increase will be used 

by BLM to respond to the environmental threat posed by abandoned legacy wells 

and related infrastructure on the North Slope. 

Outer Continental Shelf Development—Deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico 

currently account for 17 percent of domestic oil and six percent of domestic gas production. However, over the next decade, oil production in the Gulf is expected to increase by 43 percent and natural gas by 13 percent. The increase will come from 

deepwater and greater depths below the ocean floor. The 2007 budget includes an 
66 

increase of $2.1 million for OCS development, to allow MMS to keep pace with the 

surge in exploration and development in the deepwater areas of the Gulf and $1.5 

million for OCS environmental impact statements on future lease sales. 

New Innovations in Energy Development—The 2007 budget includes an increase 

of $6.5 million for MMS’s new responsibilities under the Energy Policy Act for offshore renewable energy development. MMS will establish a comprehensive program 

for regulatory oversight of new and innovative renewable energy projects on the 

OCS, including four alternative energy projects for which permit applications were 

previously under review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Oil shale resources represent an abundant energy source that could contribute 

significantly to the Nation’s domestic energy supply. Oil shale underlying a total 

area of 16,000 square miles in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming represents the largest 

known concentration of oil shale in the world. This area may contain in place the 

equivalent of 1.2 to 2 trillion barrels of oil, several times the proven oil reserves of 

Saudi Arabia. The budget proposes a $3.3 million increase, for a total program of 

$4.3 million, to enable BLM to accelerate implementation of an oil shale development program leading to a commercial leasing program by the end of 2008, in compliance with section 369 of the Energy Policy Act. This request is accompanied by 

$500,000 budgeted for USGS to determine the size, quality, and quantity of oil shale 

deposits in the United States. 

Gas hydrates, found in some of the world’s most remote regions such as the Arctic 

and deepwater oceans, could dramatically alter the global balance of world energy 

supply. The estimated volume of natural gas occurring in hydrate form is immense, 

possibly exceeding the combined value of all other fossil fuels. 

The 2007 budget includes a $1.9 million package of increases for gas hydrate research and development by MMS, BLM, and USGS. This will fund a coordinated 

effort in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Slope of Alaska to accelerate research, 

resource modeling, assessment, and characterization of hydrates as a commercially 

viable source of energy. 

PARTNERSHIPS IN CONSERVATION

The 2007 budget proposes $2.6 billion for resource protection activities that improve the health of natural landscapes, sustain biological communities, and protect 

cultural and heritage resources. Key initiatives in resource protection include: 

Cooperative Conservation Programs—At field locations throughout the country, 

bureau employees and volunteers are learning by doing, working side-by-side with 

neighbors, and tapping into best practices from others working on similar issues. 

By working with local communities, Interior employees benefit from local knowledge, ideas, and assistance to achieve conservation results that can transcend jurisdictional boundaries. At the national level, conservation partnerships leverage resources, broaden our knowledge base, and help coordinate actions to achieve strategic goals. These grants are a central conduit for implementing the Department’s 

ESA responsibilities, since over 80 percent of endangered and threatened species are 

found on non-federal lands. 

Under the broad framework of Executive Order 13352, the Chairman of the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality convened a White House Conference on 

Cooperative Conservation. The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, 

and Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency co-hosted the event. On August 29–31, 2005, representatives from the public and private sectors convened in 

St. Louis, Missouri to discuss the advancement of this cooperative conservation vision. The conference emphasized the need to create a culture of responsibility to enhance opportunities for citizen stewards to work together. To improve its partnering 

efforts in cooperative conservation, the Department is developing and utilizing government tools that inspire and complement citizen stewardship and environmental 

entrepreneurship. 

From 2002 through 2006, Interior’s conservation partnership programs have provided $2.1 billion. These programs leverage Federal funding, typically providing a 

non-Federal match of 50 percent or more. The 2007 budget includes $322.3 million 

to support continued partnership success through a suite of grant and technical assistance programs. 

The FWS administers natural resource grants to governmental, public, and private organizations, groups, and individuals that focus on at-risk species and their 

habitats. The Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship programs are funded 

at a total of $33.8 million, an increase of $4.9 million from 2006. Through these programs, Interior employees work with States, Tribes, communities, and landowners 

to provide incentives to conserve sensitive habitats, while maintaining the fabric of 
67 

the local communities and continuing traditional land management practices such 

as farming and ranching. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the Cooperative Endangered 

Species Conservation Fund, and State and Tribal Wildlife grants program are funded at a total of $196.3 million, an increase of $9.4 million over 2006. This includes 

a $7.2 million increase for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, which contains $5 million for a new competitive component of the program. 

Challenge cost share programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 

Service, and the Bureau of Land Management are funded at $20.3 million. These 

cost share programs give the land management agencies opportunities to work together and with adjacent communities, landowners, and other citizens to achieve 

common conservation goals. The 2007 proposal represents an increase of $1.6 million. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service budget also includes $11.8 million, an increase of 

$1.0 million, for joint ventures. The increase will result in a 1.1 million acre increase in the number of acres of landscapes and watersheds managed through partnerships and networked lands. The budget includes $13.0 million for the Coastal 

program, providing an increase of $604,000 for general program activities to address 

the growing demand for habitat conservation activities for FWS trust species. In 

2007, coastal program activities will also expand to address the decline of aquatic 

habitat in areas such as the Gulf Coast, affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

Sustaining Biological Communities—The Department’s 2007 budget request includes $60.0 million for invasive species and continues the government-wide, performance-based crosscut budget effort that began in 2004. The budget provides an 

increase of $994,000 for work in three priority geo-regional areas: South Florida, the 

Northern Great Plains, and the Rio Grande River Basin. The 2007 budget will focus 

on invasive species that present significant threats to ecosystem health, including 

lygodium, leafy spurge, and tamarisk. 

National Fish Habitat Initiative—The Fish and Wildlife Service has brought together States, Tribes, and others to develop a coordinated plan to implement a geographically-focused, partnership effort to protect, restore, and enhance aquatic habitats and reverse the decline of fish and aquatic species. The 2007 budget includes 

$3.0 million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative, an increase of $2.0 million. 

This effort is modeled on the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Joint 

Ventures and will harness the energies and expertise of existing partnerships to improve aquatic habitat health. 

Klamath River Basin—The 2007 budget includes $63.4 million for Klamath Basin 

restoration activities, a $7.8 million increase over 2006. Through the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife program, FWS will restore stream channel and riparian habitat 

in the Upper Klamath Basin partnering with local landowners, conservation organizations, and other Federal entities to improve habitat for species such as bull trout 

and restore lakeshore wetlands for Lost River and shortnose suckers. 

In 2007, through its Partners program, FWS will begin a new $2.0 million Lower 

Klamath Basin initiative. Funding will be used to provide fish passage on tributaries; fencing for riparian areas along streams; assessment and monitoring of disease, particularly in juvenile fish; and restoration of stream channels from former 

mining excavations. The 2007 budget also includes $3.5 million to acquire and restore agricultural lands adjacent to Upper Klamath Lake to provide quality habitat 

for larval and juvenile suckers and a host of native waterbirds, improve water quality for the lake and downstream anadromous fish, and increase water storage in the 

lake. 

INDIAN PROGRAMS

Trust Responsibilities—The budget provides $536.0 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. 

The 2007 budget continues funding for efforts initiated in 2002 to re-engineer 

trust business processes. The comprehensive changes underway are intended to 

bring about dramatic improvements in the management of fiduciary trust assets 

and better meet the needs of individual Indians and Tribes. A comprehensive and 

systematic plan known as the Fiduciary Trust Model is guiding reform efforts, including reorganization of Interior’s fiduciary trust offices to improve service delivery 

and enhance accountability of trust operations. Working in partnership with beneficiaries to implement the FTM, Interior has implemented changes in operations 

and staffing at agencies and many other changes to ensure fulfillment of fiduciary 
68 

trust goals and objectives. Implementation of integrated systems to support the 

FTM was completed at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Anadarko and Concho agencies 

in Oklahoma. These agencies now use the re-engineered trust processes and interfaced systems; trust data have been reconciled and validated, and numerous backlog 

cleanup projects have been completed. 

The greatest challenge facing successful fiduciary trust management is the fractionation, or continuing subdivision, of individual Indian interests in the land held 

in trust by the Federal government. Because individual Indian trust lands are subject to a permanent restriction against alienation, they are primarily transferred 

through inheritance. With each successive generation, individual interests in the 

land become further subdivided among heirs, each of whom holds a smaller and 

smaller interest in the land. The ownership of many disparate, small interests generates significant management costs, benefits no one in Indian Country and creates 

an administrative burden that drains resources away from other Indian programs. 

The Department currently administers and manages more than 3.2 million undivided interests in these lands owned by 223,245 individual Indian owners. In many 

cases, the cost to account for and probate highly fractionated tracts far exceeds either the revenue or the value of the underlying property. Interior has demonstrated 

success over the past several years acquiring these highly fractionated interests 

through the Indian Land Consolidation Program. Through December 31, 2005, the 

Department has acquired 202,775 fractional interests in individual Indian allotted 

lands, 100 percent ownership in 166 tracts with over 1,142 owners, and 100 percent 

ownership of interests held by 5,253 individuals. The 2007 budget includes $59.5 million, an increase of $25.4 million, to acquire additional selected highly fractioned individual Indian land interests. The $59.5 million will fund an acquisition program of about 80,000 additional fractionated interests. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the program, the Department is 

transitioning to a new long-term strategy for acquisition of individual Indian interests. The strategy will use a tiered process to select which interests to acquire. As 

of March 2005, there are 2,173 highly fractionated tracts owned by 98,905 individuals. A focus on these tracts will begin in 2006 and target 1,557 of these tracts. Other trust increases include $6.5 million that would streamline and strengthen efforts to provide cadastral surveys for Indian land transactions, $3.0 million to continue efforts to address the backlog of unresolved probate cases, and $2.0 million 

to provide for BIA technical assistance and grants to Tribes for Indian energy resource development. The 2007 budget funds historical trust accounting at $59.4 million, including $39.0 million for Individual Indian Money accounting and $17.4 million for tribal 

accounting. 

Strengthening Indian Self-Determination—A key factor in strengthening Indian 

self-determination and fostering strong and stable tribal governments is the Tribes’ 

ability to contract or compact for BIA operated programs. The Indian Self-Determination Act requires BIA to provide tribal contractors with contract support costs, 

which include payment of indirect costs, as determined through negotiation between 

tribal representatives and Interior’s National Business Center. Contract support 

funds pay a wide range of administrative and management costs, including finance, 

personnel, maintenance, insurance, utilities, audits, communications, and vehicle 

costs. Full funding of contract support costs encourages tribal contracting and promotes progress in achieving Indian self-determination. The 2007 budget proposes a 

$19.0 million increase for BIA to fully fund indirect costs for contracting Tribes, a 

total funding level of $151.6 million. 

Improving Indian Education—Rigorous educational programs help ensure a viable 

and prosperous future for tribal communities. Providing Indian students with a 

quality education prepares American Indian children to compete in a dynamic economy. The BIA school system accommodates almost 48,000 Indian children in 184 elementary and secondary schools and dormitories, includes two schools of higher education, and administers operating grants for 24 tribal colleges. The BIA school system has experienced significant change in recent years with implementation of the 

No Child Left Behind Act. The Act established an Adequate Yearly Progress accountability system that measures student proficiency in math, reading, and language arts. BIA is accountable for helping schools achieve AYP targets and achieving AYP in all BIA funded schools is a top objective of the BIA. Student performance 

at BIA schools, while improving, remains lower than national averages and in the 

school year 2004–2005, 30 percent of BIA schools met the AYP measure. 

Working with Tribes, BIA developed a Program Improvement and Accountability 

Plan to improve the effectiveness of the education services provided in the Bureau 

school system. The Plan identifies six major objectives such as achieving AYP and 

the tasks to achieve the objectives, including hiring, training, and retaining highly 
69 

qualified staff. The 2007 budget includes an increase of $2.5 million to realign education offices and meet the staffing requirements identified in the Plan. 

The Indian education program also includes a new initiative to address the needs 

of juveniles detained in BIA funded detention centers, a segment of youth that has 

been underserved in the educational system. The request of $630,000 will be used 

to provide education services to students temporarily detained in the 20 BIA funded 

juvenile detention centers. 

From 2001 through 2006, BIA received $1.6 billion for the Indian education program to replace 37 schools and undertake major facility improvement and repair 

projects at 45 schools. The funding has resulted in significant improvements, increasing the number of schools in good condition. In 2001, 35 percent of the BIA 

schools were in good or fair condition. After completion of work funded through 

2007, approximately 65 percent of the schools will be in good or fair condition. To 

continue improvement of facility conditions at BIA schools, the budget includes 

$157.4 million for education construction. In order to focus on the 27 school replacement projects funded in previous years that are in the design phase or under construction, the education construction budget reflects a reduction of $49.3 million 

from 2006. 

Johnson-O’Malley—The budget proposes to eliminate the $16.4 million JohnsonO’Malley grant program. These grants, identified in the Tribal Priority Allocations 

of some Tribes, are distributed by the Tribes to address Indian student needs in 

local public schools. The grants duplicate similar funding made available by other 

Federal and State assistance programs. The Department of Education, for example, 

provided $115.9 million in 2006 to public schools on or near Indian reservations. In 

addition, JOM grants do not address a focused goal for academic achievement, and 

lack a means to measure and report on its impact to student performance. Eliminating JOM grants allows BIA to strengthen its commitment to the BIA school system and avoid redundant Federal programs. 

Law Enforcement—Indian Country comprises 56 million acres of land and 1.6 million people. Indian Country has less than two law enforcement officers per thousand 

people served, as compared to more than four officers per thousand people in comparable rural communities. One of the largest challenges facing the BIA law enforcement program is violent crime. The violent crime rate in Indian Country is 

twice the national average. The 2007 budget proposes an increase of $1.8 million 

for law enforcement in Indian Country. An additional $2.7 million is requested to 

staff newly constructed tribal detention centers that will be operational in 2007. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The 2007 budget supports the leading role of the National Park Service in the 

preservation of nationally significant natural and historical resources. Through complementary historic preservation programs, NPS helps to protect heritage resources 

through initiatives to inventory, manage, and preserve artifacts and monuments 

and encourages community efforts to preserve local and regional cultural landscapes. The BLM is also a caretaker of significant cultural resources, managing 

what is perhaps the largest and most diverse collection of cultural properties in 

North America. 

American Heritage and Preservation Partnership—Through its Preserve America 

initiative, the Administration is encouraging community efforts to preserve our cultural and natural heritage. The goals of the initiative include a greater shared 

knowledge about the Nation’s past, strengthened regional identities and local pride, 

increased local participation in preserving the country’s cultural and natural heritage assets, and support for the economic vitality of our communities. 

The 2007 budget request for NPS includes $32.2 million for locally focused historic 

preservation and heritage tourism programs, as part of the Preserve America initiative. This budget presents a more seamless approach to these programs by combining Preserve America grants, Save America’s Treasures, and the Heritage Partnership program, and operating these programs under a unifying theme. 

Preserve America grants help States and communities preserve their historic resources by incorporating them into their local economies. The 2007 budget includes 

$10.0 million, an increase of $5.1 million above the 2006 level, for grants to help 

communities develop resource management strategies and business practices for 

continued preservation of heritage assets. 

NPS Asset Management—The NPS is responsible for maintaining over 7,500 facilities for more than 273 million visitors annually. Over previous decades, a backlog 

of maintenance accumulated in the parks. Starting with the 2002 budget, the Administration has invested $4.7 billion and undertaken nearly 6,000 facility improvements within the parks, resulting in improved roads and trails, rehabilitated visitor 
70 

centers, more accessible campgrounds, stabilized historic structures, and visitor satisfaction rates that are high. 

Ensuring the state of disrepair experienced in the past does not recur requires 

an asset management plan that addresses all phases of an asset’s lifecycle and encompasses the total cost of ownership for each asset. Effective facility management 

requires a comprehensive inventory of needs, assessment, and a facility condition 

assessment survey process, which provides the necessary information for determining resources that are necessary to maintain facilities and infrastructure in acceptable condition. At the end of 2005, NPS had performed comprehensive condition 

assessments on 57 percent of its asset inventory and is on track to meet its goal 

of completing the first cycle of assessments by the end of 2006. The 2007 budget 

continues to support implementation of the NPS asset management program. Total 

construction and maintenance funding is $622.8 million, a decrease of $80.6 million 

from 2006, but still above the funding levels during any prior Administration. This 

reflects a return to sustainable funding levels after the completion last year of a 

five-year surge in funding. The budget request focuses on protecting and maintaining existing assets rather than funding new construction projects. 

Cultural Resource Protection—Thousands upon thousands of cultural properties 

have been reported in surveys of BLM public lands, including cliff dwellings, mines, 

ground figures, rock art renderings, military outposts and homesteads, and others. 

These resources represent the tangible remains of at least 13,000 years of human 

adaptation to the lands, and span the spectrum of human experiences since people 

first set foot on the North American continent. Many of these valuable and irreplaceable properties and artifacts are threatened by unauthorized use, theft, and 

vandalism. The 2007 budget proposes a $3.0 million initiative to improve the protection, preservation, access to, and interpretation of these cultural resources to enhance their economic, scientific, cultural, and educational value to all Americans. 

RESOURCE USE

The Department’s strategic goal for Resource Use includes programs that manage 

natural resources to promote responsible use and sustain a dynamic economy. Included in the $1.5 billion supporting this goal are programs focused on enhancing 

the Nation’s energy security and availability, increasing timber production and improving forest health, and maximizing water availability through improved delivery 

and efficiency of water use. In addition to the energy initiatives discussed above, 

the following are the areas of emphasis in the 2007 budget. 

Increasing Timber Products—Working in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service, Interior manages timber tracts on public lands and follows the goals of the 

Northwest Forest Plan and forest management plans. The 2007 BLM budget will 

generate increased timber production with a $3.0 million increase in the Oregon and 

California Forest Management program that supports the commitments of the settlement agreement in the lawsuit American Forest Resource Council v. Clarke. The 

additional funding will focus on implementing the Northwest Forest Plan under 

commitments of the settlement agreement, which directs BLM to produce the allowable sale quantity of 203 million board feet and an additional 100 MMBF through 

the thinning of late- succession reserves. The increase will allow BLM to ramp up 

to meet the commitment level of 303 MMBF by 2009. It will result in an additional 

20 MMBF of timber offered in 2008 and 2009, which are projected to generate $6.5 

million in additional timber receipts. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes—The 2007 budget proposes $198.0 million for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program. PILT payments are made to local governments in 

counties, townships, and other jurisdictions where certain Federal land is located 

within their boundaries based on the concept that local governments incur costs related to maintaining infrastructure on Federal lands but are unable to collect taxes 

on these lands. The budget funds $197.6 million for PILT payments and $400,000 

for program administration. Although this is $34.5 million below the 2006 record 

high level, it is comparable to historical funding levels. 

WILDLAND FIRE

The Department’s 2007 budget for the Wildland Fire Management program continues implementation of the National Fire Plan and the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative. Interior’s fire bureaus, working collaboratively with the Forest Service, will continue meeting the Department’s Strategic Plan goal of reducing risks to 

communities and the environment from wildland fire. Since adoption of the National 

Fire Plan, significant investments in preparedness resources have strengthened initial attack capability and combined with improvements in management and operation, have led to improved firefighting capability. The Department’s success rate 
71 

for containing wildfires at initial attack was 92 percent in 2000. Interior anticipates 

that it will maintain at least a 95 percent success rate in 2007. The Department 

has also made substantial progress in addressing the threat posed by heavy fuels 

buildup and over the last five years, 2001–2005, has treated nearly 5.6 million 

acres. By contrast in the five years preceding the National Fire Plan, Interior treated few than 2.7 million acres. The management and effectiveness of the hazardous 

fuels reduction program have also improved. Treatments in the wildland-urban 

interface have grown from 22 percent of acres in 2001 to nearly 44 percent in 2006. 

In 2007, Interior will maintain its high success rate for containing wildfires at initial attack through more effective and efficient use of preparedness and suppression 

resources. The Department will also continue to strategically implement hazardous 

fuels reduction projects to reduce risks to communities and improve forest and 

rangeland health. The 2007 budget proposes $769.6 million for the Wildland Fire 

management program. This includes an increase of $26.3 million for fire suppression 

operations, to reflect the ten-year average cost of fire suppression. 

Rural Fire Assistance—The 2007 budget for Wildland Fire continues partnerships 

with local fire departments. Interior fire agencies will continue efforts begun in 2006 

to use $1.9 million in preparedness funding to provide training and personal equipment to local firefighters to help build a ready-reserve of local firefighters that can 

support initial and extended attack on large forest and thereby improve the effectiveness of Federal cooperation with local firefighting agencies. The $9.9 million 

rural fire assistance program is proposed for elimination as a separate funding 

source because the types of equipment and basic training needs it provides will be 

met through the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Homeland Security. 

SCIENCE PRIORITIES

Science forms the foundation of Interior’s land management decisions and 

strengthens the ability of land managers to address a range of issues. The U.S. Geological Survey serves as the Department’s primary source of scientific research, 

earth and biological sciences data, and geospatial information. The 2007 budget includes $944.8 million for USGS science related initiatives to protect lives and resources and provide scientific leadership through improved hazards detection and 

warning, improved energy research, streamgaging, and participation in the Landsat 

Data Continuity Mission. 

Multi-Hazards Pilot—The USGS is responsible for the assessment, monitoring, 

and prediction of geologic hazards. The 2007 budget proposes a multi-hazards initiative aimed at merging information about different hazards into integrated products 

to support land-use planning, hazards mitigation, and emergency response. The 

pilot will be funded by a redirection of base resources and, in addition, the budget 

calls for an increase of $2.2 million to enhance these resources. 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission—Landsat satellites collect data about the 

Earth’s land surfaces for use in wildland fire management, detecting and monitoring 

invasive plant species in remote regions, assessing water volume in snow pack and 

large western aquifers, assessing the stewardship of Federal grazing lands, monitoring the land-use and land change in remote regions, global crop monitoring, and 

global mapping. USGS and NASA are partnering to build a new landsat satellite 

set to launch in 2010. The budget requests an increase of $16.0 million for USGS 

to finish designing and begin building a ground system to acquire, process, archive, 

and distribute data from the new satellite. 

Streamgages—The USGS operates and maintains approximately 7,000 

streamgages that provide long-term, accurate, and objective streamflow and water 

quality information that meets the needs of many diverse users. The 2007 budget 

includes an increase of $2.3 million to allow USGS to continue operations at high 

priority Federal interest sites as well as increase the number of streamgages reporting real-time data on the Internet. 

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 2007 budget. This concludes my overview of the 2007 

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. Okay, well we’ll get into the—Senator Dorgan 

has joined us, or anything you would like to add to this? 
72 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman I’m sorry I was delayed. But Ms. 

Secretary, thank you and welcome. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

Senator BURNS. We’ll get underway. As I alluded in my opening 

statement Madam Secretary, that I’m concerned about the PILT request, in other words we’re down a little bit from—all the way from 

$233 million, down to $195 million, something like that. That’s a 

$40 million cut back. I want to know what your rationale is to cut 

this program. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, thank you very much. We certainly appreciate your concerns about PILT; we understand how important 

it is to local counties to have these revenues. 

I would like to underscore that the decision in this direction was 

difficult as have been our other cuts. In part it was made with an 

understanding that we do have some $4 billion in other kinds of 

payments that go to counties through sharing of other revenues 

generated from resource management. In addition I would like to 

underscore that while this is a reduction it still leaves the level of 

funding at significantly above where they were in the 1990s and 

at this difficult time we determined that the revenue sharing coupled with this level of funding would be appropriate. 

Senator BURNS. Well, we’re going to have a little argument about 

that. But I take I guess, I go back to my days as a County Commissioner, it takes as many services, and whenever you compare what 

we’re paying to the country, payment in lieu of taxes, is 14 cents. 

When the private land owner is paying up around 6 bits, 75 cents 

an acre we’ve not caught up with what the private land owner 

pays. 

FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Not even near it. So we’ll have a little argument about this. Now, 

the growing costs and delays associated with implementing your 

Financial and Business Management System, the Department is 

requesting $22 million for this system in 2007 and recently you removed the contractor that was doing the work because of implementation problems. 

Can you tell us, bring us up to date, the status of the project, 

and I’ve got a follow up question after that, or maybe a lot of questions with regard to that. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, thank you Senator. Let me remind the subcommittee of the reasons why we are moving forward and think it’s 

imperative to do so, on this project. We inherited over 100 different 

property systems, 15 financial management systems, and some 20 

other asset management systems. They are antiquated, they no 

longer receive vendor support, and they don’t speak to each other 

so we have to do manual entries. We have Bureau of Reclamation 

people with 30 passwords to get into systems. They enter one bit 

of data close, enter the same bit of data in a different system. That 

is not workable and that lies behind our attempt to integrate this 

system. 

We have made significant progress, but we did have problems 

with the vendor. We have let a new contract with IBM to be the 

integrator. I am pleased to say that we were able to make this 
73 

choice, and separate from the previous contractor, because we have 

a very good contract management system in place. 

Rather than waiting 5 years down the road and well into the 

project we were able to identify the problems very early on, see 

that they were having difficulties in achieving the milestones that 

were set, and that caused us to steer in a different direction. We 

do have another contractor onboard. It is a fixed cost contract from 

this point forward, and I want to note that we have, along the way, 

made significant progress. We do have the grants portion already 

up and running, the financial portions for our Office of Surface 

Mining and MMS will be up and running in the fall. Then we have 

sequenced after that the other systems. Yes, we had a little hitch 

in the get along, but we think we are managing the program well 

and we think it is essential. 

Senator BURNS. Well I would hope so. The years I spent chairing 

communications up in Commerce, and by the way we’re marking 

up this morning. Anyway and how we fight for technology neutrality, interoperability, and to set the policies and everybody it 

seems like in the private sector does not experience the problems 

we have in Government. I’ve always said that every little jurisdiction in our Department that’s out on the ground has a tendency to 

set up their own little fiefdom and think they know more about IT 

than anybody else. We’ve got to get over that some way or other. 

This system has got to be one system, it’s got to be integrated, and 

it’s got to be able to talk to each other. I know we threw a lot of 

money away, especially over in the BIA on that system. We just 

don’t want to go down that road anymore. 

I just think it’s a crime that we don’t have somebody within the 

Department that doesn’t recognize that. Because if you look at all 

the bad money we’re throwing after good, we could fully fund PILT 

up to the authorized level. Very easily get that done and until we 

get some kind of a system down there. I’ve got some other questions, and I know we have a mark going on in Commerce, and I 

want to hold him down here as—there’s a couple of issues I don’t 

want him voting against up there. But no, Senator Dorgan thanks 

for coming this morning. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me 

just ask a number of questions. I understand that you’ve inherited 

this, although you’ve been a significant part of the agency. But 

you’ve inherited this role and undoubtedly the agency itself has inherited from the White House and the Office of Management and 

Budget a set of priorities that you are bound and determined to 

come up here and support as hard as it might be in some areas. 

INDIAN EDUCATION

But let me just—first obviously the zeroing out once again of 

funding for the United Tribes Technical College. That’s an Indian 

College that benefits Senator Burns, Senator Domenici and myself, 

our constituents. It’s by all accounts an outstanding college, and 

yet every single year, the administration zeros it out and we right 

the funding back in and it really makes no sense to me, I won’t ask 

you why because I’ve asked the Secretary when she was here, why. 

I heard the answer but didn’t understand the answer. So, but I expect once again we will add that funding, and I regret that you all 
74 

don’t think that a college worthy of that funding. Replacement 

school construction, I’m going to focus just a little bit on the Indian 

accounts, because I think when you take a look at the BIA, funding 

cuts here I’m troubled by them, because we really are short of 

funding. I had the GAO do an evaluation of the condition of BIA 

schools and frankly the schools are not in good condition. 

I was in a school BIA school a week ago today in Fort Yates, 

North Dakota. I mean we all go to these schools and understand 

the backlog and the need for construction and rehabilitation funding. I understand that the response by the agency is, reduce funding for replacement of these schools, reduce funding by $37 million, 

a 43 percent cut. The reason is they’re focusing on building schools 

that have already been funded. But I mean you know the fact is 

the agency can do more than one thing at a time. I think it’s really 

serious mistake to not continue to upgrade and fund the schools 

when young Indian children go through those classroom doors they 

are our charge and we really need to give them the kind of opportunities that all other children in this country have. So, let me 

mention one other thing and then ask you to respond. The Johnson 

O’Malley education grants, these are the grants, that among other 

things, help pay for tutoring, for after school programs, and I have 

visited with all of the tribes in North Dakota and many tribes from 

around the country, and zeroing out this program is a very serious 

mistake. So I guess I would ask, have you taken a hard look at the 

Johnson O’Malley program and what gives rise to deciding not to 

fund that program. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you Senator. Would you like me to comment on all three of those issues? 

JOHNSON O’MALLEY

Senator DORGAN. No, the first two were just rhetorical. I mean 

I understand what your comments would be about the first two. 

But just tell me about Johnson O’Malley, because I understand 

what your comments would be about the first two. But just tell me 

about Johnson O’Malley, because in the budget it says the elimination of the Johnson O’Malley program will allow the Bureau to 

focus on its primary mission requirement of providing basic education to Indian children in Bureau funded elementary, and secondary schools. But I go up to those programs, I don’t see any increase, so you’ve cut Johnson O’Malley, but don’t increase them in 

areas where you say—in the justification you’re going to increase 

them. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you Senator, Indian education, of course, 

is a central priority. It is imperative that these students get this 

education so that they have opportunities for their future. Our reasons for zeroing out the Johnson O’Malley program are several fold. 

One, the program, at its funding level provides, based on the head 

count that we have for students that receive it, about $90 per student. Or have received about $90 per student. When the Johnson 

O’Malley was passed in 1934, or some seven decades ago, there was 

no other competing program of that sort. In the meanwhile, we 

have created the Department of Education and it is now funding 

very similar kinds of programs to the tune of some $667 million. 

We believe that is the appropriate place to fund these special pro-
75 

grams and efforts for Indian students. We have worked very, very 

closely this past year with the Department of Education to jointly 

develop a strategic plan for our Indian schools, to ensure that they 

achieve the performance that they can and also with these students 

that are in public education programs to get the special assistance 

that they need. 

It is our work with the Department of Education and the focus 

of these funds there that has caused us to take this proposed action. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Senator DORGAN. I would just observe however, we can’t find 

where that money was moved somewhere else in a corresponding 

increase in some other area. I know that’s what the administration 

says, but we can’t find that. Let me ask about the steady erosion 

over a long period of time now of the ability to fund the maintenance and the operation of parks and refuges and other lands. 

There’s a lot of deferred maintenance as you know, and you are 

asked, because you don’t request funding for salary increases that 

you know will exist. So you’re asked to absorb these each year, and 

we have less and less money to provide for the basic maintenance 

and the basic operations of the park services and refuges—how 

long can that continue? We can’t continue to do that forever I assume? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator Dorgan, the operations of our land management agencies and their budgets is a high priority and this year 

we’re proposing to fund the fixed pay cost at 70 percent of the proposed pay increase, and 100 percent for the other fixed costs in 

terms of benefits and so forth. Last year we funded those park operations at 100 percent, indeed all the fixed costs for the Department of Interior. The 70 percent was proposed because we believe 

we can continue to make some management improvements that 

will allow us to be more efficient and effective in the delivery of 

services. 

For maintenance itself, we will have completed some 6,000 

projects in park maintenance for the Park Service over these last 

5 years. That has had a dramatic effect. We now track and give a 

grade to the condition of our park facilities, for visitor service facilities, and so forth. We have brought that grade down to a fair or 

at least adequate level, and some, of course are in good condition 

and we’re heading further in that direction. The budget does include a $10 million increase for cyclic maintenance because that 

keeps us on the track of not getting behind, but rather keeping 

ahead of the game and maintains the high levels of funding for the 

Repair and Rehabilitation program. I will note that the cuts in the 

construction program that you see are largely cuts in what would 

be new construction. We have maintained almost the same level of 

rehabilitation funding in the Park Service in the 2007 budget. 

We have a chart that actually shows that. 

[The information follows:] 
76 
77 

Senator DORGAN. If you’ll just submit that to us, that would be 

fine. 

Ms. SCARLETT. That’s the overall trend line, but we have another 

chart that shows—— 

Senator DORGAN. Do you have a chart that shows the backlog, 

this shows the backlog funding. Is there a chart that shows the 

backlog? 

Ms. SCARLETT. There’s not a chart that shows the backlog per se. 

As we have gotten into trying to understand this issue. When we 

came on board we had neither an inventory of facilities, nor an assessment of their condition. We had what might be characterized 

as anecdotal information, on a piece by piece basis of some backlog. 

What we have done is to put in place an industry best practices 

standard, whereby we assess the total cost to replace facilities and 

then all of the repair needs, both backlog as well as current repairs, ongoing current repairs. That gives us a ratio, and gives us 

a grade and that’s the grade I’m referring to when I say we’re now 

kind of at an adequate level except for roads, which remains a 

problem. 

Senator DORGAN. Would you submit that to us, so we can understand what we calculate the backlog to be from those documents? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, we can do that. And we have that calculated 

for eight different kinds of facilities and it shows you what ones are 

in significantly better condition than they were 5 years ago. 

[The information follows:] 

SERVICEWIDE FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCI) INFORMATION BY ASSET TYPE 

Regular asset type 1

Fiscal year 

2003 

baseline 

2004 

target 

2004 

actual 

2005 

target 

2005 

actual 

2006 

target 

2006 

actual 

Buildings ................................................................... 0.16 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.17 0.07 ............

Houses ....................................................................... 0.22 0.21 0.13 0.20 0.16 0.10 ............

Water Treatment Facilities ........................................ 0.17 0.16 0.08 0.16 0.12 0.04 ............

Wastewater Treatment Facilities ............................... 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.07 ............

Trails .......................................................................... 0.17 0.16 0.36 0.16 0.27 0.28 ............

Campgrounds ............................................................ 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.09 ............

Unpaved Roads ......................................................... 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.26 0.17 0.11 ............

Paved (FHWA) Roads ................................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Road Bridges ............................................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

Subtotal 2 Road Assets 3 .............................. 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.38 0.45 0.36 ............

Total ............................................................. 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.20 ............

1 Regular asset types include assets that have completed condition assessments based on industry standards. Additional information will be developed for other assets, such as memorials or archeological sites. 2 Pavement only; does not include retaining walls, parking lots, drainage structures, etc. 

3 Target for fiscal year 2007 revised per fiscal year 2007 PB. 

Senator DORGAN. Just for example in the Indian health service, 

it was like pulling molars to get the data from the Indian health 

service to find out how much of the needs are unserved. They really can’t—they don’t want to tell you. I finally found out we serve 

about 60–65 percent of the need, means 35 to 40 percent is 

unserved. We—you know we’re actually rationing healthcare on 

reservations in contract health. We’re actually rationing 

healthcare. And there are people desperately sick, who are not getting the healthcare because the money doesn’t exist. So I’m always 

interested in what is not being done that must be done. That’s the 
78 

list I’m interested in evaluating in the context of what kind of 

funding is being requested. 

ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

One final question, what do you propose we do with the $8 million you’re asking to be used for drilling in ANWR. As you know 

the Congress has at this point decided not to proceed to drill in 

ANWR, so you’ve requested $8 million for that, would you suggest 

we invest that in the United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, 

or perhaps the Indian health service—where would you suggest we 

move that? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, the President’s budget includes that, because we remain hopeful that the Congress will act on ANWR. Of 

course in recent years they have not done so, but we remain focused because it is the largest single supply of fossil fuels in the 

United States and we are hopeful. Therefore, that money is proposed for studies and related activities that would anticipate such 

action by the Congress. 

Senator DORGAN. Well that’s the amount above $8 million, you actually asked for $12.4 million which includes some studies, but 

I recognize the budget was submitted before the most recent action 

by Congress on the ANWR issue, so I wouldn’t have expected it to 

have been corrected in here. But I think ultimately that $8 million 

will not be used for ANWR, so if you’d send to us maybe a notion 

of where we might invest that, I think we have some ideas as well. 

As I said before, I think we’d like to submit a list of questions. 

You’ve inherited this job, and I know you’ve done a good job over 

a long period of time, and we appreciate your willingness to come 

and testify. The fact is you are the victim; your agency and other 

agencies are the victim of a fiscal policy that is not working in my 

judgment. You don’t need to hear this in another hearing from me. 

The fact is that our fiscal policy is so off course that we are doing 

everything we can to maintain the 15 percent tax rate on capital 

gains, and we’re willing to cut, cut, cut on these other areas in 

order to make up for the revenue we lose on that. So I mean I understand you come here and you have a requirement to support the 

President’s budget, I think we’re short in the Indian Health Service, I think we’re short in Indian Education, I think we’re short in 

the Maintenance Accounts, for doing what we should do on parks 

and those kinds of things. But you know, I say that with good will. 

Our committee appreciates your work, and the work of folks in the 

agency who are coming with the budget prepared largely at the 

White House and the OMB. So I thank you very much for being 

here today. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Good heavens. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m going to run up to the Commerce committee markup then, and see if I can get my vote in before you get 

there. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

Senator BURNS. If I can hold you another 5 minutes, I have no 

worries. No, not really. I’ve got a couple of problems and those of 

you who are—look at all the pencils come out behind you back 
79 

there. We got a problem with, and this goes right down the road 

with our healthcare in Indian Country. We’ve got trust land that 

the ranches are in Montana, but they can’t get their healthcare unless they go back to Fort Berthold. Now there’s an Indian Health 

Service facility at Trenton North Dakota, which is just across the 

border, up in the Williston, up in that area and they can’t go there 

because they live in Montana. 

Now they can’t go to Fort Peck, because they are enrolled under 

Fort Berthold. Have we done anything to address that situation, 

because these folks happen to be there, they’re entitled to their 

healthcare and they’re living in sort of no man’s land? Have we 

done anything to deal with that particular problem up in North 

East Montana? You may need some help on this. 

Ms. SCARLETT. The Indian Health Service of course is not under 

Interior’s direct responsibility, we have the education. So I’m happy 

to talk with my colleagues at Health and Human Services about 

that. It is a challenge of course; not only for education services, but 

health service as well, the wide distribution of these locations and 

trying to get services to people in these remote locations. Certainly 

for our responsibilities we’re trying to make the appropriate services available. 

Senator BURNS. Well, I’ve visited with the Directors there in 

Trenton in North Dakota, and it’s just a situation where it seems 

like we could—in other words if we could move some funds from 

the Fort Berthold for their healthcare into the Fort Peck for the increased traffic, or requirements and get that done. It seems like it 

could be done administratively. 

FEDERAL RECOGNITION

Now also the delays in recognition, the process for Indian tribes, 

the Little Shell Tribe in Montana received a proposed favorable 

finding for recognition in 2000 but no progress has been made in 

intervening years finalizing the finding. I’d like to know the cause 

of the delay. These folks are without recognition right now, and 

could I get some explanation from the Department of Interior? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, thank you Senator. This is actually a somewhat analogous situation with the Tribe. We have been working 

with the Tribe for a number of years, and in fact the Tribe itself 

has asked for 10 different extensions as they have worked to acquire and assemble the information needed. It’s my understanding 

that most of that information is now assembled and they are in the 

ready waiting for action mode, but still getting some final documentation. I would be hopeful that after this long saga, we would 

be able to bring some conclusion in the relatively near future. 

MUSEUM OF THE PLAINS INDIAN

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. Now, does this budget request propose to close the Museum of the Plains Indian? Now I 

think this is up at Browning, is that correct? I think it is. Does this 

budget request propose to close the Museum of the Plains Indian? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Senator, we had over the years acquired three 

museums under our operation. The primary mission of the Indian 

Arts and Crafts Board has been to both promote Indian Crafts, as 

well as to enforce against fraud. We have been trying to shift re-
80 

sources at Indian Arts and Crafts Board to those two primary missions and then work with partners. Our intention would be not to 

close the museums, rather to find partners who would in turn operate the museums and hold those artifacts. 

We have had a number of discussions in the three locations, including in Montana, and in fact are looking forward to talking with 

the Tribe in Montana in the relatively near future to pick up those 

conversations. 

Senator BURNS. I think this is an issue where we’ve got to sit 

down and have a meeting on it, and also work with the Blackfeet 

up at Browning. 

Ms. SCARLETT. We would be very happy to do that. 

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL

Senator BURNS. I think we can work out our differences there, 

but we can do that at a different venue. Last fall I examined the 

oil and gas resources on our federal land. As you well know we 

were backlogged with our APDs, can you bring us up to date for 

the information of this committee I know we increased the $25 million for the energy related programs, can you bring us up to date 

on what we have done. I know the request for drilling permits has 

increased. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes Senator, we have made enormous progress 

and have been able to make that progress notwithstanding significant increases in applications for permits to drill. As I noted in my 

testimony, we estimate a projected 12,000 applications for permits 

to drill in 2007. 

We expect by the end of 2007 to actually have caught up with 

the back log. So that means that we have significantly increased 

the pace at which we are able to do these, because we have both 

a growing request and more rapid disposition of these applications. 

We have a graph that shows that. 

[The information follows:] 
81 
82 

HAZARDOUS FUELS

Senator BURNS. Hazardous fuels I think you should stay after 

that. Now we’ve got a little more moisture up in our part of the 

country this year. But I want to bring up a little situation that is 

up in a wildlife game refuge, and that’s the C.M. Russell. We’ve experienced some problems up there and some proposals have been 

made, and there again I think your staff should make note of that, 

that we’re going to have to sit down and work out some of the problems on the C.M. Russell. Especially those people having grazing 

permits within inside that refuge, and just the overall relationship 

between that and the communities in which it’s held. 

RS 2477

Let’s talk about RS 2477. Seems like that comes up every now 

and again, that 2477 granted rights of way across Federal lands for 

construction of public roads, it was repealed in 1976, but significant disagreements between Utah Counties, BLM and wilderness 

advocates have continued. The 10th Circuit as you know ruled on 

the issue in 2005 in your favor. On March 22, Secretary Norton 

issued guidance to land managers to implement the 10th Circuit 

decision. 

The Department recently announced the new guidelines. Can you 

explain why the new guidelines are necessary? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, thank you Senator. The 10th Circuit Court 

decision essentially ruled that the Department of the Interior, 

while it can make administrative decisions with respect to regulating the maintenance of roads, is not in a position to adjudicate 

the actual ownership of rights of way. 

That is left to the court system. We needed to align our practices 

with that decision and essentially that means that we will be working with states to come up with agreements on road maintenance 

notification, so that when they’re doing road maintenance they will 

notify us first. We have certain provisions to ensure that occurs in 

an appropriate fashion. In addition, the decision makes very clear 

and we make very clear in our guidance to the bureau that this 

does not apply to decisions about identifying new roads. As there 

are no new roads, and new construction, the decision really applies 

to allowing counties to proceed with maintenance of existing roads 

in consultation and discussion with us. 

Senator BURNS. That’s always been a contention, I’m glad the 

courts ruled in the way they did, but I also want the Department 

to be sensitive to those too also, because there are some sensitive 

lands in that country. 

ABANDONED MINE LANDS

The AML fee extension that runs out June of this year, if not extended what happens? What will be the effect on the combined benefit fund? 

Ms. SCARLETT. The fee extension of course on the one hand pays 

for the abandon mines reclamation and then also on the combined 

benefits fund. When that ultimately runs out—I’m actually going 

to turn to Pam, can you answer that? I’m not sure what happens 
83 

with the combined benefit, I know what happens to the abandoned 

mine lands. 

Ms. HAZE. The Department already has been working on the 

rule-making since the fee has been extended several times; the 

rule-making is actually ready. What would happen is we would 

issue the rule that would allow us to go ahead and make the payment and continue to use the interest for that payment. 

Senator BURNS. Without the fee being extended? 

Ms. HAZE. Correct. It would allow us to set a fee at a rate sufficient to pay the combined benefit fund. So it would only collect a 

fee comparable to pay the fund. 

NPS MAINTENANCE

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much. We may have to have a 

visit on that too. Who knows? Park Service maintenance I would— 

I would like to put a comment in here, we have talked to the folks 

up a glacier. The folks at Yellowstone and some other folks around, 

and we get the backlog. Some projects have not moved forward and 

have been put on a delay basis in both of those parks. We are finding out that the cost not only materials, but labor and everything 

else has sort of ballooned a little bit and took them way past what 

we had budgeted to fix, or to build the facility. 

I think what happens is, if we delay long enough then we’re outside our budget, the budgeted dollars. Somewhere or other we’ve 

got to do what we should in maintenance and on our national 

parks and take care of some of this backlog is to initiate those contracts, rapid and get the contractor on the ground the way they’re 

bid and with some realism. I know some of those bids they go on, 

and on, they don’t just let the bid, they let the bid, they delay the 

bid, and pretty soon your costs which have a tendency to accelerate 

under these conditions that we find ourselves in a booming economy where our costs go up everyday. So I would just ask that 

you—that these Park Supervisors and the people who are in charge 

of that, is once they get the authorization and the dollars to build 

a facility is to let the contract. Don’t fiddle around with it. Get it 

done, I’m kind of like Larry the Cable guy, Get her done. We’ll save 

dollars in the long run, and I think we can also taking into account 

some of the backlog that we might be experiencing at this time. So 

I would just ask that you do that. Then we’ll talk about some wildlife refuges in private conversation. 

2005 HURRICANES

That’s just about all the questions I have I think. My staff gives 

me all these, and then I always think of something the night before, but I guess most of our effort in our wildlife refuges have been 

focused towards the hurricane areas down there, is that correct? 

Ms. SCARLETT. That’s correct. In the wake of the hurricanes, we 

have some 66 wildlife refuges that are along the Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and Florida coasts. The President’s supplemental budget actually has proposed $132 million in its most recent request specifically for refuge debris removal and repairs that 

resulted from those hurricanes, specifically for our wildlife refuges. 
84 

Senator BURNS. I knew that you had to relocate some people 

down there, and I know you’ve got some requests in your supplemental. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Our total supplemental I believe is around $216 million. About $58 million of that is for parks, and the biggest 

bulk, I think it might be $132 million, is for wildlife refuges. 

Senator BURNS. Before we go to consider that I’d sure like to get 

a breakdown of those areas where we really have some problems, 

because I know we’ve got some people displaced, and had to move 

into new facilities, and everything. But I understand that you’re 

moving back though and it’s coming along fairly well. 

Ms. SCARLETT. We are doing very well, and we have a very thorough list, I’m pleased to say and we can provide you that. We’ve 

made a lot of progress, particularly in the debris removal but the 

devastation was very extensive. 

[The information follows:] 

MMS HURRICANE RECOVERY MANDATORY FUNDING ESTIMATES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Estimated 

New Orleans, LA Swing Office (February/March 2006): 

Building Lease ................................................................................................................................................ 1,600 

Furniture Lease ............................................................................................................................................... 1,000 

Utility, Security and Other Costs .................................................................................................................... 650 

Elmwood Rebuild (March/April 2006): 

Furniture .......................................................................................................................................................... 4,500 

Utility, Security and Other Costs .................................................................................................................... 2,300 

Design Contract .............................................................................................................................................. 955 

MMS Program Critical Needs: 

Houston Per Diem Travel (March 2006) ......................................................................................................... 1,900 

Contract Support (March 2006) ...................................................................................................................... 2,931 

Overtime/Salaries (January 2006) ................................................................................................................... 800 

Emergency Preparation (March 2006) ............................................................................................................ 1,000 

TAR/Studies (April 2006) ................................................................................................................................ 1,300 

G&G Data Restoration (April 2006) ................................................................................................................ 2,500 

Equip., Supplies, and Other Costs (March 2006) .......................................................................................... 950 

Additional Funding Needs: 

Emergency Preparation Efforts ....................................................................................................................... 250 

Technology Assessment & Research/Environmental Studies ......................................................................... 1,805 

G&G Data Restoration and Preservation Project ............................................................................................ 1,000 

Coastal Protection/Barrier Island - OCS Sand Resource Assessment & Evaluation Project ......................... 2,280 

Post Event Coordination Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 200 

Houston Program Travel Costs ....................................................................................................................... 10 

Repayment of Fiscal Year 2005 Funds: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Section 102 Money) ....................................... 3,343 

Revised Total, Estimated Hurricane Funding Needs .................................................................................. 31,274 
85 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—DRAFT 

Storm OrgCode Station State Timeframe Project title Assert No. Revised estimate 

Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. September 2005 .. Replace Damaged Metal (Butler) Mechanic Shop Building ............. 10006766 $394,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Replace Damaged Metal (Butler) Vehicle Storage Building ............. 10006759 160,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Replace Damaged Modular Office Building ...................................... 10006767 128,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Replace Metal (Butler)Shop/Service Building ................................... 10006854 847,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Replace McFaddin Headquarters Office ............................................ 10006848 399,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Rehab Clam Lake Road (FHA Rte #010) .......................................... 10006851 472,000 

Subtotal: First supplemental ........................ ............ ................................ ....... .............................. ............................................................................................................ ................ 2,400,000 

Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Repair Levees and replace WCS (3) East Bay Bayou (Middleton) ... 10006713 933,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Replace Waterfowl Check Station on East Unit Entrance ................ 10044271 80,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Replace Mobile Home (12’ by 65’’) .................................................. 10006745 93,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Repair Gravel Roads (Oyster Bayou (Undershore Marsh) ................. 10006826 88,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Replace 4-Strand Barbed Wire Interior Fence on Old Anahuac ....... 10006816 127,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Repair Levee, Oyster bayou (Deep Marsh) ........................................ 10006823 708,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Repair Culverts at Crossroad and Westline Road ............................ 10045627 45,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Repair East Bay Boatramp crossover culverts ................................. 10045551 20,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21521 Anahuac NWR ........ TX .. .............................. Repair Ditches, Jackson Ditch Unit .................................................. 10006725 262,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Replace Ten Mile Cut Bridge (FHA Rte #12) .................................... 10006905 668,200 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Sand Dune Structures (Beach Road) .................................... 10006925 500,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair O Ditch and Levee in Wild Cow Bayou Watershed ............... 10006870 247,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Replace Fence, North Unit cattle pasture ........................................ 10006849 290,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair RIPRAP/Bank Protection, ICWW ............................................. 10006860 400,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Shoreline Armoring Protection on Intracoastal Waterway ..... 10006863 100,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Leblanc’s/GIWW Waterway Levee Road ................................. 10006930 700,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Replace Fence, White’s Ranch cattle pasture. Central Unit ............ 10006918 370,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repalce Fence, Clam Lake Pasture Grazing Unit barrier ................. 10006852 62,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Leblanc’s Reservoir Levees .................................................... 10006921 175,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Perkins Levee ......................................................................... 10006889 424,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Clam Lake Road Shoreline Armoring .................................... 10006887 725,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair North Clam Lake Road Shoreline Armoring .......................... 10006910 376,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Replace Fence, Star Lake pasture cattle barrier with gates ........... 10006850 362,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Pond 11 Levee in Wild Cow Bayou Watershed ..................... 10006872 109,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Middleton Levee Hunter Access Trail .................................... 10006922 7,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Pond 13 Levee ....................................................................... 10006914 226,000 
86 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—DRAFT—Continued 

Storm OrgCode Station State Timeframe Project title Assert No. Revised estimate 

Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair 6/7 Levee Road ...................................................................... 10006871 13,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Pond 6 Oil Field Levee .......................................................... 10006882 75,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Pond 7 Oil Field Levee (east of 6/7 levee) ........................... 10006883 91,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair White’s Levee/Fuel Brake ....................................................... 10006890 328,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Texaco Camp Levee on White’s Ranch ................................. 10006898 78,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair West End Spur Levee ............................................................. 10006900 26,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair Weather Road Oil Field Levee ............................................... 10006886 81,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair West Oil Field Levee (west of weather station road) ........... 10006884 65,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21525 McFaddin NWR ...... TX .. .............................. Repair South Oil Field Levee (south of headquarters) ..................... 10006885 31,000 Rita ............................................................................. 20130 Regional Chief 

NWRS.

TX .. .............................. Initial response and recovery ............................................................ N/A 756,800 

Rita ............................................................................. 21526 Texas Point NWR ... TX .. .............................. Repair Texas Point Levee (Cattle Walk) ............................................ 10006933 206,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21526 Texas Point NWR ... TX .. .............................. Repair Rock Weir ............................................................................... 10039768 35,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21526 Texas Point NWR ... TX .. .............................. Replace Boundary Fence, 10 miles of 4-Strand Barbed Wire .......... 10006932 219,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21526 Texas Point NWR ... TX .. .............................. Repair N-ditch Rock Plug ................................................................. 10044344 6,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21526 Texas Point NWR ... TX .. .............................. Repar S Roadside Ditch Rock Plug .................................................. 10044562 6,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21526 Texas Point NWR ... TX .. .............................. Repair Twin Bayou Rock Plugs ......................................................... 10053547 6,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Replace Boundary Fence, 4-strand barbed wire (17 tracts) ............ 10051248 297,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Repair Dirt Roads (7 tracts) ............................................................. 10051332 34,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Repair Culverts (12 tracts) ............................................................... 10051333 27,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Repair Wood Frame Bunkhouse, Die Tract ....................................... 10008098 19,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Replace Signage (50 regulatory signs) ............................................ 10051308 3,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Remove downed trees Public Use Trails/Boardwalks (18 tracts) .... 10051309 77,000 Rita ............................................................................. 21593 Trinity River NWR .. TX .. .............................. Repair Public Use Parking Areas (8 tracts) ..................................... 10051334 23,000 

Subtotal: Second supplemental .................... ............ ................................ ....... .............................. ............................................................................................................ ................ 10,600,000 
87 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Wilma ................................................................ 41560 Arthur R. Marshall 

Loxahatchee NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Replace Headquarters—RES complete for standard design of medium 

office/VC facility. [additional funding included in 2004 supplemental for this facility].

10014603 $3,000,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair Maxent levee system (NORTH-only) (Bayou 

Sauvage); includes damaged structures and public-use facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).

.................. 4,250,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Ridge Trail Boardwalk ................................................................... 10018693 417,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to pump station @ Bayou Thomas (Bayou Sauvage) .... 10049237 210,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged pump station @ Illegal Road (Bayou Sauvage) .......... 10018698 209,600 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR) ............... 10042166 41,300 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair Swamp Tour parking lot ................................... 10051405 32,400 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Maxent levee parking lot ............................................................... 10051407 25,700 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged water control structure (Unit 6) (Bayou Sauvage) ....... 10049198 25,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged water control structure (Unit 5) (Bayou Sauvage) ....... 10049197 25,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge interpretive signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR) .......................... 10049262 23,900 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair entrance gates .............................................................................. 10049245 22,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair gravel parking areas at 3 pumping stations (Bayou Sauvage) .. 10018686 21,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair kiosks (Bayou Sauvage NWR) ....................................................... 10049260 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Highway 11 boat launch parking area ......................................... 10051404 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge entrance signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR) .............................. 10049235 12,900 
88 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace facilities at seaplane facility ...................................................... 10017810 866,800 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair road at visitor center/administrative headquarters Rte #010. 10017819 390,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair boardwalk at Boy Scout Road ....................................................... 10017821 322,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair Boy Scout Road ................................................. 10017820 218,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to administrative building .............................................. 10017815 211,900 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge entrance and guide signs (Big Branch Marsh NWR) ....... 10017827 142,400 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to the historic chapel ..................................................... 10017814 56,700

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair sewage treatment plant for new Administrative Headquarters 

Building.

10049238 44,900 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair Bayou Lacombe Centre equipment access road 10051413 38,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged fence around maintenance facility ............................... 10017831 36,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Big Branch Marsh NWR) ........... 10041523 35,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair culverts .......................................................................................... 10017839 23,900 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair gate at the Holy Redeemer property—2006DM ........................... 10017822 21,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair environmental education center bathrooms ................................. 10053210 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bogue Chitto NWR) ................... 10042080 35,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair septic system for RV pads & shop at Lock 1 facility (Old RPI 

Number 24).

10039293 10,700 

Katrina .............................................................. 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Remove/dispose of debris ......................................................................... .................. 400,000 
89 

Katrina .............................................................. 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair destroyed dune walkover boardwalk (additional damage) ........... 10019068 350,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43556 Breton NWR ..... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Breton NWR) .............................. 10049947 31,500 Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Expand—Headquarters—RES pending [re-roofing contract 

awarded to ACTS].

.................. 1,200,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to maintenance building (Old RPI Number 34) ............. 10018819 111,800 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to pole shed .................................................................... .................. 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace (2) destroyed boats ..................................................................... .................. 70,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Security/Fire Alarm System for Office/Visitor Center. 

(Old RPI Number 389).

10038110 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damaged fish lab building (Old RPI Number 35) ........................ 10018820 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed entrance signs at Office/Visitor Center and wildlife 

drive (Cameron Prairie NWR).

10038126 10,400 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damaged radio tower. This tower is used by the refuge communication system Repeater (Old RPI Number 41). 10018826 10,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Cameron Prairie NWR) .............. 10018845 8,100 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair lo-lift pump (office)—2006DM ..................................................... 10018810 7,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43410 Daphne Field 

Office.

AL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Vegetation planting, turtle light retrofit, and predator removal (Perdido 

Beach Mouse).

N/A 23,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43410 Daphne Field 

Office.

AL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, boardwalk construction, 

turtle light retrofit, predator removal, and sea turtle protection (Baldwin County Access).

N/A 44,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43410 Daphne Field 

Office.

AL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, compatible public access, 

predator removal, and sea turtle protection (Fort Morgan Historic Site).

N/A 45,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43410 Daphne Field 

Office.

AL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, boardwalk protection, reconstruction, and predator removal. N/A 53,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43410 Daphne Field 

Office.

AL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Repair/Install fencing, vegetation planting, boardwalk construction, 

predator removal, and sea turtle protection (Bon Secour).

N/A 85,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 99487 Metairie Wildlife 

Inspector Office.

LA .. OLE August 2005 .... Replace damaged wildlife inspector van ................................................. N/A 30,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair sub headquarters office building ................................................. 10051467 1,500,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Jump Pass boat slip—2006DM .................................................... 10017808 152,000 
90 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace boat shed .................................................................................... .................. 104,600 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair bulkhead around old boat slip ..................................................... 10017804 96,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Jump Pass sheet piling boat ramp .............................................. 10017809 45,700 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Delta NWR) ................................ 10049452 34,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair steel fuel tank at Delta Refuge headquarters ............................. 10041843 31,500 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace damaged North boundary fence ................................................. 10042059 17,700 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 1.5 mile Pollocks Ferry Road ........................................................ 10044392 142,500 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Goat Farm Road ............................................................................ 10044389 95,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair environmental education pavillion ................................................ 10051078 77,300 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 0.5 mile Bayou Heron dirt road .................................................... 10044394 47,500 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair office water well ............................................................................ 10018924 21,500 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair well on the Bellard tract ............................................................... 10037530 21,500 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged visitor pavillion ............................................................. 10051078 15,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged boat ramp at Grand Bay .............................................. 10043923 15,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair two Bellard tract septic systems .................................................. 10037529 12,800 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Security fence around office compound ....................................... 10018927 12,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair office septic system ...................................................................... 10018928 10,700 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Oak Grove Trail—2006DM ............................................................ 10044600 2,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43580 Hillside NWR .... MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to maintenance pole shed .............................................. 10018205 30,000 Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Restore Lacassine Pool from extensive saltwater intrusion (ascassine); includes damaged structures and public-use 

facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).

10018744 700,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to residence, Quarters 1, 3BR/1 Bath (Old RPI Number 

1).

10018701 58,500 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to headquarters equipment pole shed (Old RPI Number 

36).

10018723 50,400 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damage to metal equipment storage building (2 Sided) .......... 10052275 42,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to residence, Quarters 2, 3BR/2BATH (Old RPI Number 

2).

10018702 40,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to amphibious excavator (Lacassine NWR) .................... .................. 30,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Modify bridge decks to Southwest Pool Spillway & 

Bridge—bridge inventory #43610–00023 (Old RPI Number 23).

10018718 20,000 
91 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Modify bridge decks to Southeast Pool Spillway & 

Bridge—bridge inventory #43610–00022 (Old RPI Number 22).

10018717 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Modidy bridge decks to Northeast Pool Spillway & 

Bridge—bridge inventory #43610–00024 (Old RPI Number 24).

10018719 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damaged entrance signs & posts (Lacassine NWR) .................. 10018727 18,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Lacassine NWR) ........................ 10018728 15,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace damaged Informational signs (Lacassine NWR) ............. 10018788 3,900 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace directional signs (Lacassine NWR) ............................................. 10018789 3,800 

Katrina .............................................................. 43626 Mandalay NWR LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Mandalay NWR) ......................... 10041510 9,500 Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Replace Headquarters—RES complete for standard design of medium 

office/VC facility—2006DM.

10018877 2,600,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Purchase office exhibits for replaced headquarters ................................ .................. 300,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair West Perigal Road is a gravel road on the Ocean Springs Unit 10038092 171,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair East Perigal Road is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit ...... 10038095 114,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair maintenance shop facility—2006DM ........................................... 10018876 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Purchase office furniture and video equipment for replaced headquarters. .................. 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair destroyed shop perimeter fencing ................................................. 10018887 15,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to pump/well house ........................................................ 10018878 15,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair doors and siding on metal shop building (carpentry bldg.) ........ 10018889 10,000 
92 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Rita ................................................................... 43270 Natchitoches 

NFH.

LA .. NFH September 

2005.

Repair wind damage to residence #1 ...................................................... 10017325 18,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43270 Natchitoches 

NFH.

LA .. NFH September 

2005.

Repair wind damage to residence #2 ...................................................... 10017326 18,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41580 National Key 

Deer Refuge.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Replace Headquarters—RES complete for standard design of small office facility. 10014776 3,000,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Section Line Road E.—Noxubee County, Various Tracts, Route 

108.

10019029 168,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 5.71 mile Dummy Line Road—Winston County, tracts 394, 

1863, Route 110.

10018960 132,500 

Rita ................................................................... 42653 Red River NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to refuge office & maintenance facility ......................... 10046523 76,200 

Katrina .............................................................. 40130 Regional Chief 

NWRS.

GA NWR August 2005 .... Replace equipment & office furnishing (multiple stations) .................... N/A 720,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR— 

Proposed Closure.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Provide security fencing/lighting for closure ............................................ .................. 150,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR— 

Proposed Closure.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to pole shed .................................................................... .................. 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR— 

Proposed Closure.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to boat house .................................................................. .................. 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR— 

Proposed Closure.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Oil House .................................................................... .................. 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR— 

Proposed Closure.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Cleanup/closure of Sabine NWR ............................................................... .................. 50,000 

Rita ................................................................... 42640 St. Catherine 

Creek NWR.

MS NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to crew quarters .............................................................. 10017042 22,500 

Rita ................................................................... 42640 St. Catherine 

Creek NWR.

MS NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to residence ..................................................................... 10017038 5,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41640 St. Marks NWR FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... TVA Agreement—Repair primary dikes/levees ......................................... .................. 2,000,000 
93 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace destroyed refuge residence/quarters—RES Pending .................. .................. 550,000 

Subtotal: First supplemental ............... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 27,600,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41560 Arthur R Marshall 

Loxahatchee NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Replace destroyed Refuge entrance fee booth and self-pay kiosk (Old 

RPI Number 81).

10040729 30,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41560 Arthur R Marshall 

Loxahatchee NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair flooded/damaged roadways ........................................................... multiple 50,000 

Arthur R Marshall Loxahatchee NWR 

Total.

.......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 80,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR) (additional funds). 10042166 58,700 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair Maxent levee system (remaining repairs) 

(Bayou Sauvage).

.................. 7,750,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Maxent levee parking lot (additional funds) ................................ 10051407 24,300 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair gravel parking areas at 3 pumping stations (Bayou Sauvage) 

(additional funds).

10018686 18,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Highway 11 boat launch parking area (additional funds) .......... 10051404 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge entrance signs (Bayou Sauvage NWR) (additional funds) 10049235 12,100 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Ridge Trail Boardwalk ................................................................... 10018693 425,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair U.S. Hwy 11 in New Orleans Eastboat ramp ................................ 10018700 350,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair ADA accessible fishing pier on U.S. HWY 90 in New Orleans 

East.

10018699 30,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair security shelter and fence for pump stations three and four ..... 10053625 50,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair kiosks ............................................................................................. 10049260 40,000 
94 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge interpretive signs ............................................................... 10049262 25,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair entrance gates .............................................................................. 10049245 25,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace water gauges .............................................................................. 10049261 15,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair the Bayou Sauvage Bikepath ........................................................ 10018692 800,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

HAZMAT/Debris removal ............................................................................ .................. 4,000,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Swamp Tour parking lot ................................................................ 10051405 32,400 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Joe Madere Marsh parking area ................................................... 10039357 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43595 Bayou Sauvage 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Post-hurricane invasives projects ............................................................. N/A 1,000,000 

Bayou Sauvage NWR Total .................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 14,676,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43628 Bayou Teche 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bayou Teche NWR) .................... 10041538 20,000 

Bayou Teche NWR Total ...................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair road at visitor center/administrative headquarters Rte #010 (additional funds). 10017819 155,900 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... TVA Agreement—Repair Boy Scout Road (additional funds) .................. 10017820 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Big Branch Marsh NWR) (additional funds). 10041523 65,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace facilities at seaplane facility (additional funds) ....................... 10017810 33,200 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair kiosks at refuge office (Big Branch Marsh NWR) ........................ 10049450 20,000 
95 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair kiosks (Big Branch Marsh NWR) ................................................... 10017835 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Barringer Road parking lot ........................................................... 10051416 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair maintenance shop & storage facility ........................................... 10017817 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair administrative building (additional funds) .................................. 10017815 600,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair historic chapel (additional funds) ................................................ 10017814 250,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Cane Bayou canoe launch ............................................................ 10017823 60,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair picnic shelter behind White house ............................................... 10049217 45,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair sewage treatment plant for maintenance facility ........................ 10017844 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Rehab landscaping & landscape of administrative headquarters .................. 300,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair weather station ............................................................................. 10050226 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair observation deck platform ............................................................ 10052150 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Urban Interface Firelines. .............................................................. 10036517 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair 6 Boy Scout Rd waysides (metal), 12 benches (wood), 20 numbered posts (wood). 10017836 600,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

HAZMAT/Debris removal ............................................................................ .................. 2,000,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Remove old pool at Holy Redeemer site ................................................... 10049207 35,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair water control structure at Holy Redeemer grounds ...................... 10049206 5,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Sapsucker Road Route #100 ......................................................... 10017840 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Sapsucker Road gravel parking lot .............................................. 10017842 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace Road Grader- (N6260451770627) .............................................. 480935 120,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas ...................... N/A 100,000 
96 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Katrina .............................................................. 43558 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace damaged fire equipment ................................................. .................. 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Big Branch 

Marsh NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Post-hurricane invasives projects ............................................................. N/A 600,000 

Big Branch Marsh NWR Total ............. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 5,619,100 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Bogue Chitto NWR) (additional 

funds).

10042080 40,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge kiosks (Bogue Chitto NWR) ................................................ 10042232 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair refuge kiosks ................................................................................. 10042232 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair ADA accessible fishing piers at the Pearl River Turnaroud ......... 10018920 50,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair 120 foot radio tower at Lock 1 (Old RPI Number 18) ................. 10018916 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair 8 ft. wide Honey Island Swamp Rd hiking trail (Holmes Bayou 

Trail) with 4 in. compacted crushed gravel.

10039187 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43616 Bogue Chitto 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Post-hurricane invasives projects ............................................................. N/A 400,000 

Bogue Chitto NWR Total ...................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 540,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair entrance road to Sand Bayou Unit ............................................... 10019064 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Nunley bunkhouse ......................................................................... 10010953 40,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair to office celing/AC ......................................................................... 10019060 25,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace damaged/destroyed signs & kiosks ............................................ 10019088 35,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43630 Bon Secour 

NWR.

AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair to Gator Lake boardwalk ............................................................... 10019057 90,000 
97 

Bon Secour NWR Total ........................ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 290,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43556 Breton NWR ..... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Critical beach renourishment/replace sand fencing ................................ 10049955 2,000,000 

Breton NWR Total ................................ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 2,000,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Cameron Prairie NWR) (additional funds). 10018845 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Security/Fire Alarm System for Office/Visitor Center 

(Old RPI Number 389) (additional funds).

10038110 17,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed entrance signs at Office/Visitor Center and wildlife 

drive (Cameron Prairie NWR) (additional funds).

10038126 9,600 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to pumphouse for lo-lift pump (office) (Old RPI Number 23). 10018813 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace damaged Boardwalk w/ observation deck at Visitor 

Center (Old RPI Number 392).

10038120 291,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA/DU Agreement—Repair multiple levee systems (Cameron Prairie); 

includes damaged structures and public-use facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).

.................. 5,040,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Pintail Wildlife Drive FHA Rte #010 (Old RPI Number 

13).

10018804 600,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed radio tower (Old RPI Number 41) .............................. 10018826 55,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed oil/paint storage bldg. (Old RPI Number 36) ............ 10018821 5,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Unit 6 24-inch lo-lift pump ( Old RPI Number 14) ..................... 10018805 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Unit 1 30-inch lo-lift pump #1 ( Old RPI Number 15) ................ 10018806 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair 20-inch lo-lift double discharge Pump (Unit 5) ( Old RPI Number 18). 10018809 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair pumphouse for 24-inch Lo-lift (office) ( Old RPI Number 23) .... 10018813 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair multiple water control structure, Waterman screwgate and galvanized steel pipe. 10036540 164,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal Parish Drainage east ( Old RPI Number 173) ................... 10037827 35,000 
98 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal clear marsh drain south. This canal is used to manage 

water levels on refuge moist soil units and is essential for acheivement of refuge water management objectives and moist soil unit gravity drainage. ( Old RPI Number 160).

10037812 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal Graingerville drainage west (Old RPI Number 180) .......... 10037834 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal Outfall ( Old RPI Number 205) .......................................... 10037859 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal Unit 8 North (Old RPI Number 206) .................................. 10037860 200,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal Unit 8 West ( Old RPI Number 208) .................................. 10037862 200,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Canal Main Parish Drainage (Old RPI Number 222) ................... 10037876 1,100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Water Control Structure, Visitor Center Pond ( Old RPI Number 

403).

10043905 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace Cummings diesel power unit (s/n 46170208 Unit 6) ( Old RPI 

Number 404).

10043906 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace Duetz power unit (Office, Model C110HP3-PD9, S/N 3–3 ¥88) 

( Old RPI Number 405).

10043920 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Pumping station, Unit 1&2. Property includes 3 concrete pads 

and 2 pumphouses.

10054735 5,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair parking area. ( Old RPI Number 11) ............................................ 10018802 200,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair West Cameron Prairie Road FHA Rte #100 ( Old RPI Number 

24).

10018814 750,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Bankfishing Road FHA Rte #101 ( Old RPI Number 25) ............. 10018815 350,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair road by old office access ( Old RPI Number 382) ....................... 10038073 60,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair road by Claude’s house ( Old RPI Number 383) .......................... 10038074 200,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Office/Visitor Center Parking lot Rte #900 ( Old RPI Number 

386).

10038104 100,000 
99 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair parking area, Bankfishing Road, FHA Rte. #902. ( Old RPI 

Number 423).

10049751 150,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43612 Cameron Prairie 

NWR.

LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace for damaged/destroyed vehicles ................................................. .................. 75,000 

Cameron Prairie NWR Total ................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 10,166,600 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull) ................................ n/a 5,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair damage to entrance roadway ....................................................... 10014132 35,000

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair erosion/undermining of Bridge #1 (parking lot) ........................... 10014107 60,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair erosion/undermining of Bridge #2 (quarters) ............................... 10014089 60,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair erosion/undermining of Bridge #3 (hatchery intake) ................... 10014129 80,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair damage to wing-wall & rip-rap Rock/Mill Creeks ........................ 10044349 50,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair retaining wall at Rock/Mill Creeks ............................................... 10014133 100,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Replace destroyed domestic well & distribution lines ............................. 10014096 135,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair water damage to Education Center .............................................. 10014099 25,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair water damage to Residence (#13) ............................................... 10014098 20,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41210 Chattahoochee 

Forest NFH.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair water damage to Residence (#20) ............................................... 10014104 20,000 

Chattahoochee Forest NFH Total ......... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 590,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43535 Choctaw NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas ...................... N/A 120,000 

Choctaw NWR Total ............................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 120,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43676 Coldwater NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair County Line Road .......................................................................... 10044790 50,000 

Coldwater NWR Total ........................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 50,000 
100 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Wilma ................................................................ 41581 Crocodile Lake 

NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair flooded/damaged roadways ........................................................... multiple 30,000 

Crocodile Lake NWR Total ................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 30,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43635 Dahomey NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Headquarters Road ........................................................................ 10045052 125,000 

Dahomey NWR Total ............................ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 125,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair sub headquarters office building (additional funds) ................... 10051467 750,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Delta NWR) (additional funds) 10049452 66,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace damaged North boundary fence (additional funds) ................... 10042059 19,300 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged kiosk .............................................................................. 10051177 20,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

HAZMAT/Debris removal ............................................................................ .................. 2,000,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Protect crevaces with dredging, sedimant transport, engineered structures, and vegetative planting. N/A 2,000,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43555 Delta NWR ....... LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Provide critical data management and GIS functions to support planning, habitat/species inventories, monitoring, and habitat management. N/A 225,000 

Delta NWR Total .................................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 5,080,300 

Wilma ................................................................ 41545 Florida Panther 

NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair damaged roof on garage, storage building & maintenance 

shop; Plywood and metal roof (Old RPI Number 5).

10014533 50,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41545 Florida Panther 

NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair flooded/damaged roadways ........................................................... multiple 500,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41545 Florida Panther 

NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull) ................................ n/a 70,000 

Florida Panther NWR Total .................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 620,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair environmental education pavillion ................................................ 10051078 100,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace destroyed Ledlow bunkhouse ...................................................... 10018921 750,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair concrete boat launching ramps .................................................... 10049797 75,000 
101 

Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged visitor pavillion ............................................................. 10051078 30,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair ADA-accessible fishing/observation pier ....................................... 10049802 75,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damaged boat ramp at Grand Bay .............................................. 10043923 30,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Clyde Brown boat ramp ................................................................ 10043923 60,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair well on the Bellard tract ............................................................... 10037530 45,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair office water well ............................................................................ 10018924 45,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair wooden pier/dock ........................................................................... 10049801 20,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair two Bellard tract septic systems .................................................. 10037529 20,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Security fence around office compound ....................................... 10018927 20,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR AL .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair office septic system ...................................................................... 10018928 20,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43617 Grand Bay NWR MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 2000ft of paved section of trail loops ......................................... 10049944 5,000 

Grand Bay NWR Total .......................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 1,295,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41582 Great White 

Heron NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys ................................. n/a 100,000 

Great White Heron NWR Total ............. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43580 Hillside NWR .... MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Open Pole Shed ............................................................................. 10018205 10,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43580 Hillside NWR .... MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair AP Slough Shed ............................................................................. 10018191 100,000 

Hillside NWR Total ............................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 110,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41561 Hobe Sound 

NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair beach access boardwalk ............................................................... 10014649 75,000 

Hobe Sound NWR Total ....................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 75,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41583 Key West NWR FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys ................................. n/a 75,000 

Key West NWR Total ............................ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 75,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to residence, Quarters 1, 3BR/1 Bath (Old RPI Number 

1) (additional funds).

10018701 16,500 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Install hurricane protection shutters on multiple structures ....... .................. 125,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damage to metal equipment storage building (2 Sided) (additional funds). 10052275 33,000 
102 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to residence, Quarters 2, 3BR/2BATH (Old RPI Number 

2) (additional funds).

10018702 10,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Restore Lacassine Pool from extensive saltwater intrusion (Lacassine); includes damaged structures and public-use 

facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.) (additional funds).

10018744 800,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Modify bridge decks to Southwest Pool Spillway & 

Bridge (additional funds).

10018718 165,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Lacassine NWR) (additional 

funds).

10018728 85,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace damaged interpretative panels for Wildlife Drive ........... 10044644 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Unit A Pumping Plant. Permanently installed water pumping 

station (Old RPI Number 45).

10018731 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Unit C Pumping Plant, permanently installed water pumping 

station (Old RPI Number 63).

10018737 35,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair Northeast Pool perimeter levee. Raised ridge of soil used to retain & control the flow of water. Section 16 to boundry (Old RPI 

Number 116).

10018780 1,100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43610 Lacassine NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Unit A shell road. (Old RPI Number 21) .................................................. 10018716 40,000 

Lacassine NWR Total ........................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 2,529,500 

Rita ................................................................... 43440 Lafayette ES 

Office.

LA .. ES .. September 

2005.

Emergency surveys on T&Es species, contaminants, and habitat stabilization. N/A 500,000 

Lafayette ES Office Total .................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 500,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43440 Lafayette Field 

Office.

LA .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (repair cavity trees). N/A 5,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43440 Lafayette Field 

Office.

LA .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered lichen populations 

(C. perforata).

N/A 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43440 Lafayette Field 

Office.

LA .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered gulf sturgeon (repair 

culverts; erosion control).

N/A 20,000 
103 

Katrina .............................................................. 43440 Lafayette Field 

Office.

LA .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered piping plover ............ N/A 70,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43440 Lafayette Field 

Office.

LA .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered beach mouse (repair 

dune walkovers; beach stabilization).

N/A 345,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43440 Lafayette Field 

Office.

LA .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to threatened & endangered sea 

turtle species (beach stabilization).

N/A 440,000 

Lafayette Field Office Total ................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 900,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43695 Lake Ophelia 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to sattelite office/substation .......................................... .................. 30,000 

Lake Ophelia NWR Total ...................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 30,000 

Rita ................................................................... 99221 LE Office Beaumont. TX .. LE .. September 2005. Replace water damaged personal property .............................................. N/A 50,000 

LE Office Beaumont Total ................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 50,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41515 Lower Suwannee NWR. FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Replace destroyed dock at Atesna Otie Key (Cedar Keys) ....................... 10039135 325,000 Dennis ............................................................... 41515 Lower Suwannee NWR. FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair damage to Fishbone Creek Observation Tower ............................. 10038048 250,000 Dennis ............................................................... 41515 Lower Suwannee NWR. FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Replace destroyed Shell Mound fishing pier (damaged during Hurri- cane Ivan in 2004). 10014408 250,000 Dennis ............................................................... 41515 Lower Suwannee NWR. FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair damage to Salt Creek Trail/Boardwalk ......................................... 10014407 175,000 Dennis ............................................................... 41515 Lower Suwannee NWR. FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair facilities at Seahorse Key (Cedar Keys) ........................................ 10014380 100,000 Dennis ............................................................... 41515 Lower Suwannee NWR. FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair damaged refuge roads .................................................................. multiple 1,500,000 

Lower Suwannee NWR Total ................ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 2,600,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43626 Mandalay NWR LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace refuge boundary signs (Mandalay NWR) (additional 

funds).

10041510 40,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43626 Mandalay NWR LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace damaged entrance signs (Mandalay NWR) ................................ 10041513 10,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43626 Mandalay NWR LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair office/visitor building (Mandalay NWR)—2006DM ....................... 10019047 75,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43626 Mandalay NWR LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Post-hurricane invasives projects ............................................................. N/A 100,000 
104 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Mandalay NWR Total ........................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 225,500 

Katrina .............................................................. 43681 Matthews Brake 

NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Pin Oak Road ................................................................................ 10019772 50,000 

Matthews Brake NWR Total ................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 50,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43910 Mississippi 

Field Office.

MS ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (repair cavity trees). N/A 5,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43910 Mississippi 

Field Office.

MS ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered lichen populations 

(C. perforata).

N/A 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43910 Mississippi 

Field Office.

MS ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered gulf sturgeon (repair 

culverts; erosion control).

N/A 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43910 Mississippi 

Field Office.

MS ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered piping plover ............ N/A 70,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43910 Mississippi 

Field Office.

MS ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered beach mouse (repair 

dune walkovers; beach stabilization).

N/A 345,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43910 Mississippi 

Field Office.

MS ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to threatened & endangered sea 

turtle species (beach stabilization).

N/A 440,000 

Mississippi Field Office Total .............. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 900,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Valentine road a gravel road on the Gautier Unit ....................... 10037727 1,250,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Browns Trail a gravel road on the Gautier Unit .......................... 10037726 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Sweet Bay a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit ...................... 10037731 150,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Duck pond Road is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit ........ 10037730 250,000 
105 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Green Pond is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit ................ 10038084 350,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Big Flat dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit .............................. 10038082 250,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Glenndale Road is a gravel road on the Ocean Springs Unit ..... 10038089 350,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Firetower road on the Gautier Unit ............................................... 10037540 750,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Cotton Mouth is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit ............. 10038087 300,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair maintenance shop facility ............................................................. 10018876 450,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Fire break( Ocean Springs Unit) ................................................... 10018904 250,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Fire break (Gautier Unit) ............................................................... 10018903 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Fire break (Fountainbleau Unit) .................................................... 10018905 75,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 3/4 Mile nature trial at the visitor center .................................... 10018899 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 0.6 mile Fountainebleau Unit nature trail .................................... 10038435 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair doors and siding on metal shop building (carpentry bldg.) ........ 10018889 20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair damage to pump/well house ........................................................ 10018878 30,000 
106 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair destroyed shop perimeter fencing ................................................. 10018887 30,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Sidewalk into visitor center .......................................................... 10018901 10,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Shop Concrete wash rack ............................................................. 10018896 5,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair wet cells Ocean Springs Unit 1,350’ Low hazard dam ................ 10018907 150,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Wet Cells Ocean Springs Unit 1,000’ Low hazard dam ............... 10018906 150,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Double Tree is a dirt road on the Ocean Springs Unit ................ 10038083 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair North Beasley dirt road on the Gautier Unit ................................ 10037729 150,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Vistor Center Paved parking lot, Route 900 ................................. 10018883 75,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair visitor center/office paved road, Route 010 ................................. 10018879 75,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43615 Mississippi 

Sandhill Crane NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair/Replace damaged fire equipment ................................................. .................. 60,000 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR Total .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 5,820,000 
107 

Katrina .............................................................. 43582 Morgan Brake 

NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Alexandrer Slough Access ............................................................. 10038758 75,000 

Morgan Brake NWR Total .................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 75,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43270 Natchitoches 

NFH.

LA .. NFH September 

2005.

Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull) ................................ n/a 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43270 Natchitoches 

NFH.

LA .. NFH September 

2005.

Repair flooded/damaged roads & culverts ............................................... 10017318 10,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43270 Natchitoches 

NFH.

LA .. NFH September 

2005.

Replace dislodged main hatchery drain discharge pipe ......................... 10017309 210,000 

Natchitoches NFH Total ....................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 240,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41580 National Key 

Deer Refuge.

FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Replace/Repair ten damaged backcountry buoys .................................... 10014803 20,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41580 National Key 

Deer Refuge.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Replace damaged Quarters (Cudjoe Key)—damaged during Katrina ..... 10051007 750,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41580 National Key 

Deer Refuge.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys ................................. n/a 50,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41580 National Key 

Deer Refuge.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Replace three (3) damaged/destroyed vehicles ....................................... n/a 90,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41580 National Key 

Deer Refuge.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair flooded/damaged roadways ........................................................... multiple 30,000 

National Key Deer Refuge Total .......... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 940,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 8.6 mile Brooksville-Louisville Road. Winston County, Route 011 10019043 600,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair GTR #4 Levee Road, Tracts 210, 394, Oktibbeha County ............ 10019034 400,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 5.2 mile Brooksville-Louisville Road, Noxubee County, Route 011 10019044 450,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Section Line Road-W-Winston County, Route 108 ........................ 10019028 600,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Permanent Fire Breaks .................................................................. 10019027 450,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Trails—Woodpecker, Prairie Grass, Scattertown, Wilderness, 

Beaver Dam, Trail of Big Trees—in various tracts.

10019022 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 5.71 mile Dummy Line Road—Winston County, tracts 394, 

1863, Route 110.

10018960 750,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 0.75 mile Goose Pen Road in Winston County, Route number 

113.

10018945 100,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 2.5 mile Goose Pen Road in Noxubee County (road tracts 381a1816), Route number 113.. 10018944 250,000 
108 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 1.8 mile Douglas Bluff Road, Noxubee County (road tracts 385, 

1869).

10018943 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 1.2 mile Bluff Lake Road in Oktibbeha County, Route #010. ..... 10018942 250,000 Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair 1.76 mile River Road (road tracts 91 i–374), Route number 

101.

10018941 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43620 Noxubee NWR .. MS NWR August 2005 .... Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas ...................... N/A 150,000 

Noxubee NWR Total ............................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 4,500,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41540 Office of Law 

Enforcement.

FL .. OLE October 2005 ... Repair/Replace manatee protection signs ................................................ n/a 750,000 

Office of Law Enforcement Total ........ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 750,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 41410 Panama City 

Field Office.

FL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (repair cavity trees). N/A $5,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 41410 Panama City 

Field Office.

FL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered lichen populations 

(C. perforata).

N/A $20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 41410 Panama City 

Field Office.

FL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered gulf sturgeon (repair 

culverts; erosion control).

N/A $20,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 41410 Panama City 

Field Office.

FL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered piping plover ............ N/A $70,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 41410 Panama City 

Field Office.

FL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to endangered beach mouse (repair 

dune walkovers; beach stabilization).

N/A $345,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 41410 Panama City 

Field Office.

FL .. ES .. August 2005 .... Support, surveys, emergency relief to threatened & endangered sea 

turtle species (beach stabilization).

N/A $440,000 

Panama City Field Office Total ........... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 900,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43581 Panther Swamp 

NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Deep Bayou Road .......................................................................... 10018392 100,000 

Panther Swamp NWR Total ................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 100,000 
109 

Katrina .............................................................. 43290 Private John 

Allen NFH.

MS NFH July 2005 ......... Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull) ................................ n/a 150,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43290 Private John 

Allen NFH.

MS NFH August 2005 .... Repair damage to Perimeter Road ........................................................... 10017397 83,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43290 Private John 

Allen NFH.

MS NFH August 2005 .... Repair flood damage to office parking area ............................................ 10044206 15,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 43290 Private John 

Allen NFH.

MS NFH July 2005 ......... Repair erosion damage to Pond 8A levee ................................................ 10017384 235,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 43290 Private John 

Allen NFH.

MS NFH July 2005 ......... Replace damaged fishery drain line ........................................................ 10017389 397,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 43290 Private John 

Allen NFH.

MS NFH July 2005 ......... Repair damage to backup power generator system ................................ 10014993 50,000 

Private John Allen NFH Total ............... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 930,000 

Rita ................................................................... 42653 Red River NWR LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to refuge office & maintenance facility (additional 

funds).

10046523 133,800 

Red River NWR Total ........................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 133,800 

Katrina .............................................................. 42577 Reelfoot NWR ... TN NWR August 2005 .... Repair Grassy Island Autotour Route ....................................................... 10016811 75,000 

Reelfoot NWR Total .............................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 75,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 40130 Regional Chief 

NWRS.

GA NWR August 2005 .... Initial response and recovery .................................................................... N/A 5,000,000 

Rita ................................................................... 40130 Regional Chief 

NWRS.

GA NWR September 

2005.

Initial response and recovery .................................................................... N/A 2,130,000 

Regional Chief NWRS Total ................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 7,130,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

HAZMAT/Debris removal ............................................................................ .................. 12,000,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Vastar Road (Old RPI Number 164) ........................... 10019210 1,000,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to 1A/1B Parking Area Rte #904 (Old RPI Number 138) 10019184 50,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace/repair refuge posting ( Old RPI Number 38) .............................. 10019130 600,000 
110 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to concrete nature trail and boardwalk (Old RPI Number 78) (partnership w/tourism board). 10019140 500,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to 3 Mile Canal bridge—bridge inventory #43640– 

00168 (Old RPI Number 168).

10019214 250,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Northline parking lot Rte #901 & pier (Old RPI 

Number 132).

10019178 1,500,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Plains Road 3.1 miles long (Old RPI Number 166) .. 10019212 2,000,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damaged boathouse ...................................................................... 10019133 150,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Vastar Rd. bridge—bridge inventory #43640–00170 

(Old RPI Number 170).

10019216 120,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Hwy. 27 bridge—bridge inventory #43640–00171 

(Old RPI Number 171).

10019217 218,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Hog Island South parking lot Rte #903 (Old RPI 

Number 115).

10019163 250,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to South West Cove parking area Rte #906 (Old RPI 

Number 116).

10019164 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Nature Trail Parking Lot Rte #907 (Old RPI Number 

134).

10019180 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

TVA Agreement—Repair 1A/1B and Pool 3 impoundment levees 

(Sabine); includes damaged structures and public-use facilities (boatramps, trails, parking areas, etc.).

.................. 11,600,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to Northline bridge—bridge inventory #43640–00169 

(Old RPI Number 169).

10019215 250,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed maintenance shop ...................................................... 10019172 1,500,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed headquarters—RES complete for standard design of 

small office/VC facility.

10019161 4,000,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damaged oil house ........................................................................ 10019168 120,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damage to West Cove parking lot (north side) Rte #905 (Old 

RPI Number 133).

10019179 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair damaged fueling facilities; above ground fuel storage tanks 

(Old RPI Number 105).

10019155 160,000 
111 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed fire headquarters/shop building ................................. 10019168 1,500,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Maintenace Area Water lines (Old RPI Number 152) ............................... 10019198 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Maintenance Area Electric Lines (Old RPI Number 153) ......................... 10019199 250,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Security Fence at Headquarters Compound (Old RPI Number 162) ........ 10019208 75,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair destroyed restrooms at nature trail (Old RPI Number 114) ......... 10019162 125,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed radio tower & radio communication equipment ........ 10018826 250,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair viewing tower, 24’ X 12’ with metal roof and an attached 90’ X 

5’ accessible walking ramp. Located near Hwy 27 and Headquarters. (Old RPI Number163).

10019209 35,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace Headquarters’ sewerage treatment unit. (Old RPI Number 146) 10019192 20,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace Headquarters Telephone System and lines (Old RPI Number 

154).

10019200 250,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair sewage treatment unit (Nature trail) (Old RPI Number 108) ...... 10019157 50,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Reopen 18 miles of canals ........................................................... .................. 3,600,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Headquarters/Visitor Center’s Parking and Driveway Rte #900 (Old RPI 

Number147).

10019193 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Maintenance Parking Areas (Old RPI Number148) .................................. 10019194 200,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Blue Goose Trail Driveway and Parking Area (Old RPI Number150) ....... 10019196 90,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Bridge, inventory #43640–00170, Backridge, on Vastar Rd crossing 

Central Canal; public use (Old RPI Number 170).

10019216 150,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Bridge, inventory #43640–00171, Hwy. 27 & Central Canal (identified 

in EFMIS & formerly known as Texaco bridge, inventory #43640– 00136??) (Old RPI Number171).

10019217 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair rear access road to pole shed (Old RPI Number198) .................. 10049951 22,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damaged ATVs ............................................................................ .................. 15,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damaged office equipment/furniture/supplies ........................... N/A 100,000 
112 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damaged vehicle (truck) ............................................................. .................. 35,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace damaged vehicle (SUV) ............................................................... .................. 25,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace/Repairs multiple damaged boats/trailers ................................... .................. 35,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Replace destroyed helipad/used for fire suppression operations ............ .................. 100,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Repair/Replace damaged fire equipment ................................................. .................. 300,000 

Rita ................................................................... 43640 Sabine NWR ..... LA .. NWR September 

2005.

Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull)—Hwy 27 hazardous material debris. N/A 450,000 

Sabine NWR Total ................................ .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 44,545,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41420 South Florida 

ES Office.

FL .. ES .. October 2005 ... Repair Turtle Hospital (Monroe Co.) in the Florida Keys ......................... n/a 183,200 

South Florida ES Office Total .............. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 183,200 

Katrina .............................................................. 42640 St. Catherine 

Creek NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Pintail Lane, Route 010 ................................................................ 10017046 250,000 

St. Catherine Creek NWR Total ........... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 250,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41640 St. Marks NWR FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... TVA Agreement—Repair primary dikes/levees (additional funds) ........... .................. 2,000,000 Dennis ............................................................... 41640 St. Marks NWR FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Replace damaged and missing pilings/markings for Executive Closure 

Order.

10015299 300,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41640 St. Marks NWR FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair overwash/undermined lighthouse pakring lot ............................... 10038986 20,000 

St. Marks NWR Total ........................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 2,320,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41650 St. Vincent 

NWR.

FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Replace damaged/missing boundary signs .............................................. 10040181 20,000 
113 

Dennis ............................................................... 41650 St. Vincent 

NWR.

FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair damaged barge storage building (barge is used to access St. 

Vincent NWR).

10015319 350,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41650 St. Vincent 

NWR.

FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair flooded Indian Pass check station ............................................... 10015330 10,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41650 St. Vincent 

NWR.

FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Replace misc. small equipment in flooded storage facility .................... n/a 25,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41650 St. Vincent 

NWR.

FL .. NWR July 2005 ......... Repair damage at Indian Pass parking area/pump house ..................... 10052228 4,000 

St. Vincent NWR Total ......................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 409,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43645 Tallahatchie 

NWR.

MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Flat Lake Access Road .................................................................. 10044518 75,000 

Tallahatchie NWR Total ....................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 75,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41555 Ten Thousand 

Islands NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair/Replace destroyed boundary markers/buoys ................................. n/a 100,000 

Wilma ................................................................ 41555 Ten Thousand 

Islands NWR.

FL .. NWR October 2005 ... Repair flooded/damaged roadways ........................................................... multiple 250,000 

Ten Thousand Islands NWR Total ....... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 350,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Replace destroyed refuge residence/quarters (additional funds) ............ .................. 550,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Bridge, Cross Bayou(Fina). Inventory #- 43690–00019. .............. 10042739 200,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair bridge, Tensas River @ Mill Road-bridge inventory #43690– 

00005 (Cross roads).

10019992 700,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair Rainey lake road, Rte #010. (Cross roads to refuge headquarters). 10020002 450,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Repair misc. damage to roads/trails/ATV ................................................ .................. 250,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 43690 Tensas River 

NWR.

LA .. NWR August 2005 .... Clean/remove debris/trees from roads and parking areas ...................... N/A 40,000 

Tensas River NWR Total ...................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 2,190,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Downed tree and debris removal (1st push & pull) ................................ n/a 2,000 
114 

2005 HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTALS—Continued 

Storm Org Station State Type Timeframe Project title Asset No. Revised estimate 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair damage to roadways & parking areas ......................................... multiple 75,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair water/electrical damage to Laboratory Building .......................... 10014262 93,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair water damage to Aquarium Building ........................................... 10014245 65,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair flood damage/erosion to multiple facilities .................................. multiple 37,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair water damage to Residence (#3) ................................................. 10014224 20,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Replace wetlab gutters ............................................................................. 10014263 12,000 

Dennis ............................................................... 41280 Warm Springs 

RFC.

GA NFH July 2005 ......... Repair damaged fencing around compound ............................................ 10014290 8,000 

Warm Springs RFC Total ..................... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 312,000 

Katrina .............................................................. 42682 Yazoo NWR ...... MS NWR August 2005 .... Repair Wildlife Drive ................................................................................. 10019865 125,000 

Yazoo NWR Total ................................. .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 125,000 Subtotal: Second supplemental .......... .......... .......................... ....... ........ .......................... .................................................................................................................... .................. 121,800,000 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Rita ........ BCW—Loop Road, unpaved RTE. 0102 ............................................. regrade road surface/repair culverts .............................................................. $484,608 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... 40M—40 Mile Bend Check Station Bldg A123 ................................. replace shutter ................................................................................................ 552 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... 40M—Grounds ................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 122 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Big Cypress Wetland, Grounds ............................................... RCW, Eagle surveys, inventories ..................................................................... 909,687 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Birdon Road, unpaved ............................................................ replace signs ................................................................................................... 921 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Jim Dill Road, unpaved RTE. 0703 ........................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 12,251 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Loop Road, paved Rt. 102 ...................................................... repair signs, culverts, asphalt roadway ......................................................... 55,596 
115 

Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Loop Road, unpaved RTE .0102 ............................................. repair road-culverts, washouts, shoulders ...................................................... 4,770,216 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Lower Wagon Wheel Road, unpaved ....................................... remove trees, replace signs ............................................................................ 587 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—Pine Oaks Road, unpaved RTE. 0106 .................................... remove trees/debris ......................................................................................... 188 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—SCA Bldg A68 ......................................................................... replace radio tower, facia, soffit, repair screen ............................................. 66,571 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BCW—West Fire Prairie Trail ............................................................. clear brush ...................................................................................................... 4,473 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BL—Burns Lake Campground Road .................................................. remove trees .................................................................................................... 514 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BL—Burns Lake Campground, Grounds ............................................ repair kiosk roof, reset portapotties ................................................................ 597 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BL—TPBL 02 VIP Site/Housing .......................................................... install service pedastall .................................................................................. 1,019 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... BR—Bass Lake Road, Unpaved ........................................................ remove downed trees ....................................................................................... 318 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... DD—Dona Drive Grounds ................................................................... Remove debris ................................................................................................. 492 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... DL—Deep L Fire Station Bl ............................................................... replace downspout, repair metal doors .......................................................... 11,822 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... DL—Deep Lake, Water Dist. System .................................................. remove debirs,clean system ............................................................................ 2,494 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... EE—EE Center Bld A61 ..................................................................... replace window ................................................................................................ 1,174 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... FO—Fire Operations Center, Bldg. A100 ........................................... replace posts/facia, repair framing ................................................................ 6,744 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... GH—Gator Head, Roads .................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 2,851 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... GHS—Gator Hook Trail ....................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 11,676 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... GHS—Gator Hook, Chickee Bldg. A145 ............................................. reset cross T’s ................................................................................................. 160 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... GHS—Gator Hook, Chickee Bldg. A146 ............................................. reset cross T’s ................................................................................................. 160 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... HP—Hp Williams Grounds ................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 318 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... I—South I–75 Gounds ....................................................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 856Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... I—South I–75 Parking Lot ................................................................. replace barrier sections ................................................................................... 122 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... KS—Kirby Storter Boardwalk ............................................................. replace lumber sections .................................................................................. 636 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... KS—Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A141 .............................................. replace chickee ................................................................................................ 10,830 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... KS—Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A142 .............................................. replace chickee ................................................................................................ 10,830 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... KS—Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A143 .............................................. replace chickee ................................................................................................ 10,830 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... KS—Kirby Storter Chickee Bldg. A144 .............................................. replace chickee ................................................................................................ 10,830 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... KS—Kirby Storter, Grounds ................................................................ remove debris/replace picnic table ................................................................. 3,091 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... LP—Loop Road RS, Barn Bldg A97 ................................................... replace windows, repair siding ....................................................................... 2,915 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... LP—Loop Road RS, Bldg. A96 B Upstair Q–96 ................................ repair roof, replace carpet, porch ................................................................... 35,941 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... LP—Loop Road RS, Fuel Island (Unleaded Gas) .............................. replace tank cover ........................................................................................... 130 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... LP—Loop Road RS, Grounds ............................................................. repair fence, remove debris ............................................................................ 1,452 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... MC—Mitchell, Grounds ...................................................................... remove debris/repair kiosk roof ....................................................................... 7,193 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... MC—Mitchell, Road ........................................................................... repair gravel road ............................................................................................ 20,324 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ML—Monument Comfort Station ....................................................... replace screen, soffit, skylight, roof vent ....................................................... 2,595 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ML—Monument Lake Grounds ........................................................... repair signs, replace grills .............................................................................. 4,716 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... MS—Monroe Station, Bldg. A76 ........................................................ repair bldg damage, remove debris ................................................................ 49,719 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... MW—Midway Grounds ....................................................................... replace signs, chickees, trees, remove debris ................................................ 151,240 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... MW—Midway, Comfort Station Bldg. A 127 ..................................... replace siding .................................................................................................. 130 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Aviation Hangar A91 .................................................................. replace door, downspout, weather station ...................................................... 10,534 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Herbicide Storage A86 ............................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,522 
116 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Oasis Comfort Station Bldg. A126 ............................................ replace soffit ................................................................................................... 1,884 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Pole Barn #2 A90 ...................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 606 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Quarters #1 ................................................................................ replace porch screen ....................................................................................... 1,065 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Ranger Storage A85 ................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,522 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Repeater Building A88 ............................................................... repair fence, replace roof turbine ................................................................... 742 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Visitor Cent. Bld A79 ................................................................. replace screen and door, repair fence ............................................................ 13,753 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Wood House A98 ........................................................................ replace soffit ................................................................................................... 590Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OA—Woodhouse Grounds ................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 848 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Headquarter BldA50 .................................................................. repair roof, antenna, screen, replace gutters ................................................. 20,031 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—HQ Parking Area, East—Rte 900 ............................................. repair lights ..................................................................................................... 1,057 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—HQ Parking Area, West Rte 900 ................................................ repair lights ..................................................................................................... 2,665 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—HQ Swimming Pool .................................................................... replace porch enclosure .................................................................................. 56,581 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Maint. Bldg. A54 ....................................................................... repair roof, vent cap, facia ............................................................................. 5,010 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Ochopee Vehicle Wash Station Bldg. A113 ............................... replace soffit, fence ........................................................................................ 3,916 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Ochopee Water Dist. System ..................................................... replace generator ............................................................................................. 21,428 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #19 .............................................................................. replace screen , downspout ............................................................................ 477 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #15 .............................................................................. replace facia, soffit, porch screen, drip edge ................................................ 15,839 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #16 .............................................................................. replace porch, repair tower and siding .......................................................... 15,124 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #17 .............................................................................. replace shutters, porch, shingles .................................................................... 13,634 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #20 .............................................................................. replace screen, facia, soffit, repair porch ...................................................... 4,089 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #21 .............................................................................. replace fence, roof tile, gutters, porch ........................................................... 39,479 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #22 .............................................................................. repair roof and ceilings ................................................................................... 6,407Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #23 .............................................................................. repair roof and screen ..................................................................................... 37,384 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Quarters #25 .............................................................................. repair roof and porch ...................................................................................... 9,206Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Ranger Station A67 ................................................................... replace wiring, screen ..................................................................................... 2,018 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... OH—Wastewater System/Treatment Plant ......................................... repair fence ..................................................................................................... 6,871 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Bear Island Trail ...................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 90,091 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Buckskin Trail .......................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 48,916 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Burns Lake Trail ...................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 28,862 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Concho Billy Trail .................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 105,092 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Jetport Trail .............................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 22,783 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Little Deer Trail ........................................................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 25,176 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Lost Dog Trail .......................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 25,176 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Monroe South Trail .................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 20,434Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Monument Bypass Trail ........................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 25,176 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Monument Trail ........................................................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 50,960 
117 

Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Mud Lake Trail ......................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 28,218 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—North Little Deer Trail .............................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 25,176 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—North Raccoon Point Trail ....................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 16,305 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Oasis Trail ............................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 56,524 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Paces Dike ............................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 11,305 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Pipeline Trail ............................................................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 7,827 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Raccoon Loop Trail .................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 9,566 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Raccoon Point Trail ................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 50,873Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Rock Toad Trail ........................................................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 31,262 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Sig Walker Airboat Waterway Trail .......................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 19,721 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Skillet North Trail .................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 30,437 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—South Little Deer Trail ............................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 27,392Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—West Raccoon Point Trail ........................................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 16,305 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Windmill Trail .......................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 10,871 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... ORV—Zone 4 Airboat Waterway Trail ................................................ remove downed trees ....................................................................................... 65,733 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... PC—Pine Crest, Grounds ................................................................... remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 6,841 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... PJ—Pink Jeep, Campsites .................................................................. remove downed trees ....................................................................................... 2,866 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... SC—Scissor Camp, Bldg. A107 ......................................................... repair soffit, remove trees ............................................................................... 321 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... SC—Scissor Camp, Grounds ............................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 463 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... TR—Quarter #4, Grounds .................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 1,262 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... TR—Quarter #2 Gournds ................................................................... repalce fence gate, remove debris .................................................................. 1,680 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... TR—Quarters # 4 ............................................................................... replace meter,gutters, screen .......................................................................... 1,657 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... TR—Quarters #2 ................................................................................ repair screen/replace gutter ............................................................................ 584 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... WP—Weeks Prop House ..................................................................... replace door, repair roof .................................................................................. 8,419 Big Cypress National Preserve .......... Wilma ..... WP—Weeks Storage Bldg. A108 ........................................................ replace siding, corregated tin ......................................................................... 3,475 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... AK Landscape- .................................................................................... Replace Sea Grape Tree .................................................................................. 1,610 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... AK Residence East 103- ..................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 800 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... BC Lighthouse- ................................................................................... replace broken dome windows ........................................................................ 442 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... BC Trail- ............................................................................................. Remove and replace 2 trees ........................................................................... 4,816 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... CP Duplex (Housing)- ......................................................................... replace screens ................................................................................................ 1,886 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... CP Entrance Road- ............................................................................. repair fence/remove trees ................................................................................ 1,811 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... CP HQ Bldg- ....................................................................................... replace screens ................................................................................................ 1,947 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... CP Landscape- ................................................................................... replace trees .................................................................................................... 5,527 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... CP Trail- ............................................................................................. Replace sign at end of Jetty ........................................................................... 170 Biscayne National Park ...................... Katrina ... EK VC— ............................................................................................. repair roof-replace shingles ............................................................................ 2,428 Biscayne National Park ...................... Rita ........ BB Stiltsville 2146 ............................................................................. Replace Dock ................................................................................................... 22,437 Biscayne National Park ...................... Rita ........ BB Stiltsville 2303 ............................................................................. Replace Dock ................................................................................................... 12,330 Biscayne National Park ...................... Rita ........ CP Marina-Waterfront system ............................................................ Repair CP Floating Docks ................................................................................ 16,835 Biscayne National Park ...................... Rita ........ EK Boardwalk ...................................................................................... Replace Destroyed sections of boardwalk ....................................................... 265,378 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK Electrical Generating System ........................................................ repair electrical connections ........................................................................... 773 
118 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK Landscape ..................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 1,353 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK residence East 103 ....................................................................... replace gutters, screen, repair hvac, remove debris ...................................... 6,469 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK residence West 102 ....................................................................... repair roof, hvac, replace screen .................................................................... 16,106 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK Trail ............................................................................................... clear brush ...................................................................................................... 2,832 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK Waste Water System ..................................................................... repair electrical connections ........................................................................... 583 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... AK Water System ................................................................................ repair electrical connections ........................................................................... 773 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Barn .............................................................................................. repair roof, vents ............................................................................................. 812 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Chapel ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 664 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Comfort Station ............................................................................ repair roof, porta john ..................................................................................... 8,413 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Generator Bldg .............................................................................. repair steps, replace vents ............................................................................. 1,218 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Landscape ..................................................................................... replace signs,repair washouts ........................................................................ 4,428 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Lighthouse .................................................................................... replace glass panes, repair steps, window trim ............................................ 818 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... BC Pavillion ........................................................................................ repaint pavillion .............................................................................................. 1,590 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Biscayne National Park Computer Network ........................................ replace battery backups .................................................................................. 1,176 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Biscayne National Park Fleet ............................................................. repair fleet ....................................................................................................... 11,000 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Biscayne National Parkayne Bay-replace navigation aids ................ replace lost/destroyed nav aids ...................................................................... 27,043 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Blackpoint Jetty Trail .......................................................................... remove debris, replace concrete bridge washouts ......................................... 49,807 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Bone Yard ..................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 241 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Duplex-residence ........................................................................... replace screen ................................................................................................. 6,606 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP HQ Bldg ......................................................................................... replace screen, repair hvac, lattice ................................................................ 13,918 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Landscape ..................................................................................... replace lights/remove debris ........................................................................... 114,929 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Maintenance Bldg ......................................................................... repair hvac, siding, fiberglass ........................................................................ 2,427Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Marina-Waterfront system ............................................................ replace finger piers ......................................................................................... 205,220 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Picnic Area .................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 2,165 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Trail ............................................................................................... remove debris/replace toe rail, repair boardwalk ........................................... 1,825 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP VC Parking Lot .............................................................................. replace signs/trash cans ................................................................................. 5,348 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Visitor Center ................................................................................ repair handrails ............................................................................................... 1,104 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... CP Waste Water System ..................................................................... remove debris, inspect lift station .................................................................. 1,012 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Boardwalk ...................................................................................... replace decking ............................................................................................... 286,001 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Comfort Station ............................................................................. repair roof,frame,fascia ................................................................................... 19,932 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Generator Bldg .............................................................................. replace bldg ..................................................................................................... 5,313 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Horseshoe Trail .............................................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 10,707 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Landscape ..................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 6,459 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Maintenance Bldg ......................................................................... replace roof ...................................................................................................... 14,418 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Residence East 213 ...................................................................... repair roof, hvac, pilings, appliances ............................................................. 18,407 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Residence West 212 ...................................................................... repair roof, hvac, pilings,screens, wiring ....................................................... 15,838 
119 

Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Spite Highway trail ....................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 55,184 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK Swim Area ..................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 2,992 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK VC .................................................................................................. repair roof,overhead doors, electrical system ................................................. 28,034 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... EK WTP Bldg & Covered Storage ....................................................... replace roof ...................................................................................................... 14,418 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Florida Straits-replace navigation aids ............................................. replace nav aids .............................................................................................. 12,725Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2146 ................................................................................... replace deck, repair roof ................................................................................. 25,387 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2157 ................................................................................... repair roof, replace shed, dock ....................................................................... 108,208 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2159 ................................................................................... replace dock,repair roof,fence ......................................................................... 21,399 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2167 ................................................................................... repair roof, siding, replace deck/dock ............................................................ 65,669 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2173 ................................................................................... repair deck, wiring, roof, ................................................................................. 48,566 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2213 ................................................................................... replace deck, repair roof ................................................................................. 206,187 Biscayne National Park ...................... Wilma ..... Stiltsville 2303 ................................................................................... repair roof, replace screen .............................................................................. 8,275 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. BIBD Coquina Comfort Station ........................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 567 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. BIQT Q117 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 487 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. BIQT Q120 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 567 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. BIRMP Oregon Inlet Ramp 4 .............................................................. replace carsonite signs posts ......................................................................... 12,143 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD Avon Pier House ........................................................................ repair roof ........................................................................................................ 3,704 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD Cape Point CG Loop B Shower Bldg ......................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 5,277 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD Cape Point CG Loop H Shower Bldg ......................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 2,463 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD Cape Point CG Storage Kiosk .................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,245 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD Frisco CG Loop E Shower Bldg ................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 3,028 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD Frisco Comfort Station .............................................................. repair roof caps ............................................................................................... 754 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIBD LH Fee Kiosk .............................................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 3,983 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIHS Double Keepers Quarters (VC) ................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 61,102 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIHS Hatteras Weather Bureau .......................................................... replace handicap elevator door ....................................................................... 2,046 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIHS Little Kinnakeet Boathouse ........................................................ repair roof ........................................................................................................ 260 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIHS Principal Keepers Quarters (Bookstore) ..................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 42,863 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIHS Ranger Station ........................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 36,323 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIML Hattersas Island Maintained Landscape .................................. replace signs ................................................................................................... 21,047 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIMW Avon Fishing Pier ..................................................................... Repair piers ..................................................................................................... 35,223 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIQT Q391 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 3,441 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIQT T4 ............................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 891 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIRD Billy Mitchell Road-rte 014 ....................................................... remove tree ...................................................................................................... 285 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIRD Frisco Water Plant Road-rte 414 .............................................. repair road base .............................................................................................. 39,778 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIRD Ramp 55 Parking ...................................................................... remove sand from parking lot ........................................................................ 987 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIRD Soundside Access MP53 ............................................................ repair road surface .......................................................................................... 19,495 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIRD Turnout Ramp 38-rte 913 ......................................................... remove sand from parking lot ........................................................................ 1,443 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HIRMP Ramp 30 ................................................................................. fill and grade ramp ......................................................................................... 2,474 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. HITR Buxton Woods Nature Trail ........................................................ remove trees .................................................................................................... 3,283 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIBD Emergency Generator/Lumber Shed .......................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 3,741 
120 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIBD Metal Storage Bldg ................................................................... replace metal storage bldg ............................................................................. 7,366 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIBD Ocracoke Campground Shed ..................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 319 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIBD Ocracoke CG Loop B Shower ..................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 567 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIBD Ocracoke Island Portalets ......................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,183 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIBD Q137 .......................................................................................... repair ceilings .................................................................................................. 721 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OICS Ocracoke Campground Portalets ............................................... replace door ..................................................................................................... 652 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIMI Pony Pen Corral .......................................................................... repair fence ..................................................................................................... 9,945 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIML Ocracoke Island Maintained Landscape ................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 32,039 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIN: Ocracoke Island Natural Landscape .......................................... remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 3,821 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q137 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 650 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q138 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 650 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q138 ........................................................................................... repair ceilings .................................................................................................. 1,105 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q139 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 650 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q139 ........................................................................................... repair ceilings .................................................................................................. 690 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q140 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 650 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT Q140 ........................................................................................... repair ceilings .................................................................................................. 151 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT T141 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 2,224 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT T142 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,356 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIQT T143 ........................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,356 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIRD Quock Hammock Road .............................................................. repair road surface-fill washouts ................................................................... 1,352 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIRD South Point Road (Ramp 72) .................................................... repair road surface .......................................................................................... 32,875 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIRMP Ramp 59 ................................................................................. repair road surface-fill washouts ................................................................... 4,305 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OIRMP Ramp 70 ................................................................................. repair potholes ................................................................................................. 2,339 Cape Hatteras National Seashore ..... Ophelia .. OITR Hammock Hill Nature Trail ........................................................ remove debris .................................................................................................. 523 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Colonial Waterbird Nesting assessment ............................................ 2 year assessment of birding habitat ............................................................ 91,500 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Harkers Island VC/Admin ................................................................... Replace HVAC units ......................................................................................... 15,783 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Harkers Island VC/Admin ................................................................... repair front vis svcs desk ............................................................................... 15,578 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Harkers Island VC/Admin ................................................................... repair security system ..................................................................................... 1,000 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Ice Machine-Maintenance BLdg ......................................................... repair ice machine .......................................................................................... 4,819 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Life Saving Station Stable ................................................................. repair roof, windows, siding and walls .......................................................... 53,704 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. Lola Radio Repeater ........................................................................... repair repeater ................................................................................................. 7,500 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. North Core Banks Road ...................................................................... regrade road .................................................................................................... 13,903 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. signs ................................................................................................... replace lost/destroyed signs parkwide ............................................................ 30,000 Cape Lookout National Seashore ....... Ophelia .. South Core Banks Road ..................................................................... regrade road .................................................................................................... 11,918Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... ND Maintenance Shop ........................................................................ replace vent cap .............................................................................................. 161 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... ND Pole Shed ...................................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 4,197 
121 

Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD Boardwalk 8 .................................................................................. repair boardwalk .............................................................................................. 1,021 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD Boardwalk Eddy Creek/Pavillion ................................................... repair boardwalk .............................................................................................. 1,484 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD Comfort Station 10 ....................................................................... repair vault ...................................................................................................... 1,606 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD Comfort Station 3 ......................................................................... repair vault ...................................................................................................... 1,606 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD Eddy Creek Waterfront System ..................................................... replace eddy creek dock .................................................................................. 27,138 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD Ranger Station Pump House ........................................................ replace roof turbine ......................................................................................... 41 Canaveral National Seashore ............ Wilma ..... SD-Playalinda Beach Swimming Area ................................................ clean beach area ............................................................................................. 38,450 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Cotton Gin ........................................................................................... Reapir roof flashing/gable shutter/wood siding ............................................. 3,412 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Cotton Picker Shed-Magnolia ............................................................. Repair roof ....................................................................................................... 20,324 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Magnolia Cultural Landscape ............................................................ Remove limbs and hazard trees ..................................................................... 27,420 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Main House-Oakland .......................................................................... Repair/replace missing or loose shingles ....................................................... 2,094 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Mule Barn ........................................................................................... Repair roof/Repair fistoric hinge on barn door .............................................. 2,908 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Oakland Cultural Landscape .............................................................. Remove limbs and hazard trees ..................................................................... 33,131 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Overseers House-Slave Hospital-Magnolia ......................................... Reapir roof, gutters and flashing ................................................................... 1,939 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Slave Quarters 1 ................................................................................. Replace lost cedar shingles ............................................................................ 8,369 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Slave Quarters 6 ................................................................................. Repair exterior wall shift ................................................................................. 839 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Square Crib ......................................................................................... Repair Roof ...................................................................................................... 879 Cane River Creole NHP ...................... Rita ........ Tractor Shed ....................................................................................... Repair Roof ...................................................................................................... 1,730 De Soto National Monument .............. Wilma ..... De Soto National Monument Trail ...................................................... repair washouts, regrade trail ........................................................................ 15,000 De Soto National Monument .............. Wilma ..... Grounds ............................................................................................... remove debris/haz trees .................................................................................. 22,500 De Soto National Monument .............. Wilma ..... Shoreline ............................................................................................. stablize shoreline-prevent addtl erosion ......................................................... 22,500Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKBCGR Garden Key Grounds ............................................................ Replace Entrance sign/NR mitigation ............................................................. 65,567 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKBCMU Gasoline Storage ................................................................. relocate Gasoline Storage ................................................................................ 122,319 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKBCWF Garden Key Water Front- ..................................................... dock repair/buoy replacement ......................................................................... 22,704 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJAD Fort Jefferson Office .............................................................. Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 1,374Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJEE Electrical System ................................................................... Replace Generators .......................................................................................... 137,123 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJFT Counterscarp and Moat .......................................................... Repair coping on counterscarp/dredge moat .................................................. 125,856 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJFT Fort Jefferson .......................................................................... Curtain Wall Repair ......................................................................................... 153,101 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHM17–3 A-B Personnel Housing ................................................. Ceiling repair ................................................................................................... 10,770 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHM17–4 Personnel Housing ........................................................ Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 2,765 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–10 Personnel Housing ....................................................... Repair Windows ............................................................................................... 1,963 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–11 Personnel Housing ....................................................... Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 2,120 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–12 Personnel Housing ....................................................... Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 2,120 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–2 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Repair windows/siding .................................................................................... 15,811 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–4.5 Personnel Housing ...................................................... Ceiling and window repair .............................................................................. 5,020 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–5 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 3,609 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–8 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 1,848 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJHS17–9 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Ceiling and window repair .............................................................................. 3,410 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJMP Recreation Room ................................................................... Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 8,724 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJMU Generator Room .................................................................... Install exhaust fans ........................................................................................ 1,360 
122 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKFJVS Garden Key VC- ...................................................................... Replace windows/walls .................................................................................... 2,397 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... GKUTRA Dry Tortugas Radio System .................................................. Install Tower .................................................................................................... 10,605 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... Grounds Cleanup ................................................................................ Debris removal ................................................................................................. 9,000 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... IMT Response/misc repairs ................................................................ .......................................................................................................................... 56,911 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... Law Enforcement Support .................................................................. .......................................................................................................................... 10,000 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHGR Loggerhead Key Grounds ...................................................... Repair Flag Pole .............................................................................................. 807 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHHS001 Kitchen Building ............................................................. Repair siding/repaint ....................................................................................... 10,307 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHHS002 Keepers Residence .......................................................... Gutter and carpet replacement ....................................................................... 14,734 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHLH Loggerhead Key Lighthouse .................................................. Replace windows/other misc repairs .............................................................. 12,564 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHMF Oil House .............................................................................. Replace Windows ............................................................................................. 11,395 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHMU Generator Room .................................................................... Replace Doors .................................................................................................. 5,819 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHLHWF Loggerhead Water Front- ...................................................... decking repair .................................................................................................. 14,684 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... LHUTWP Loggerhead Water System .................................................... Salt Water intakle system repair .................................................................... 3,395 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Katrina ... MEWCBO Boat Outboard ..................................................................... Replace 25’ boat ............................................................................................. 148,565 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKBCBG Dock House .......................................................................... replace decking ............................................................................................... 9,592 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKBCCG Garden Key Campsite .......................................................... remove trees, replace tables ........................................................................... 13,800 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKBCWF Garden Key Water Front ....................................................... repair piers, electric svc, replace seaplane ramp .......................................... 322,979 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJAD Fort Jefferson Office .............................................................. repair hvac ...................................................................................................... 5,165 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJEE Electrical System ................................................................... repair wiring, antenna ..................................................................................... 1,459Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJFT Counterscarp and Moat .......................................................... repair seawall, dredge moat ........................................................................... 147,371 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJFT Fort Jefferson .......................................................................... replace shutter system, remove debris, misc repairs .................................... 579,529 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJHM17–3 A-B Personnel Housing ................................................. repair walls, replace furnishings .................................................................... 39,308 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJHS16–1 Engineer Officers Quarters ............................................ repair porch railing ......................................................................................... 4,496 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJHS17–2 Personnel Housing ......................................................... repair ceilings .................................................................................................. 5,377Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJHS17–4.5 Personnel Housing ...................................................... repair hvac ...................................................................................................... 5,165 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJHS17–8 Personnel Housing ......................................................... repair hvac ...................................................................................................... 5,165Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKFJMF Carpenter Shop ...................................................................... replace saws .................................................................................................... 6,841 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... GKUTRA Dry Tortugas Radio System .................................................. repair telephone communications ................................................................... 7,044 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHEE Loggerhead Electrical System ............................................... repair wiring, solar controller .......................................................................... 29,470 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHHS001 Kitchen Building ............................................................. repair hvac, antenna, siding ........................................................................... 9,282 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHHS002 Keepers Residence .......................................................... repair roof, railings ......................................................................................... 6,830 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHLH Loggerhead Key Lighthouse .................................................. repair exterior walls ......................................................................................... 28,224 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHMF Boat House ........................................................................... remove sand, repair walls ............................................................................... 4,581 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHMS Storage Shed/Shop ............................................................... repair door, roof ............................................................................................... 1,028 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHMU Generator Room .................................................................... replace generator ............................................................................................. 35,893 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHLHWF Loggerhead Water Front ....................................................... replace tank, pipe ........................................................................................... 38,456 
123 

Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Wilma ..... LHUTWP Loggerhead Water System .................................................... remove debris, repair dock .............................................................................. 34,189 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKBCCG Garden Key Campsite .......................................................... Remove debris ................................................................................................. 629 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKBCGR Garden Key Grounds ............................................................ Remove debris ................................................................................................. 3,148 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKBCWF Garden Key Waterfront ......................................................... Replace Finger Piers ........................................................................................ 9,800 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJEE Electrical System ................................................................... Repair electrical distribution system .............................................................. 4,680 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJFT Counterscarp and Moat .......................................................... Replace bridge ................................................................................................. 8,391 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJFT Fort Jefferson Parade and Brick Walk ................................... Remove debris ................................................................................................. 6,888 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJHM17–3 A-B Personnel Housing ................................................. Replace cabinets ............................................................................................. 7,101 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJHS16–1 Engineer Officers Quarters ............................................ Repair porch and shutters .............................................................................. 8,691 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJHS16–6 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Replace shutters .............................................................................................. 1,380 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJHS17–2 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Replace gutter system ..................................................................................... 18,871 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKFJWP Garden Key Potable Water System ........................................ Repair water line ............................................................................................. 882 Dry Tortugas National Park ............... Rita ........ GKUTFD Diesel Fuel System ................................................................ Replace controller ............................................................................................ 2,053 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... ADEXFL Flamingo Waysides ................................................................ Replace wayside .............................................................................................. 36,781 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... ADEXFLCB Signs Wayside ................................................................... Replace wayside .............................................................................................. 18,841 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... ADEXFLEC Signs Wayside ................................................................... Replace wayside .............................................................................................. 37,681 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... ADEXFLMR Signs Wayside .................................................................. Replace wayside .............................................................................................. 9,420Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... ADEXFLVC Signs Waysides ................................................................. Replace wayside .............................................................................................. 9,420Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... ADEXFLWL Signs Wayside ................................................................... Replace wayside .............................................................................................. 9,420 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... EECHRP14 SW 237th Ave ................................................................... Repair signs & posts ...................................................................................... 369 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... EEPHHM703 Lg Hernandez House ...................................................... Replace appliances ......................................................................................... 7,251 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLBWMA Florida Bay Marina .............................................................. Replace electrical service to docks ................................................................. 8,300 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLBWMA Whitewater Bay Marina ........................................................ Replace docks .................................................................................................. 533,597Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLCGAT430 Amphitheater ................................................................... Demo & replace amiphitheater ....................................................................... 348,574 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLCGVS409 Campground Kiosk .......................................................... Demo & Replace Entrance station .................................................................. 27,600 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLCSPP921P Marina Access Parking .................................................. Repair electrical lighting ................................................................................. 10,014 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLCSPP922P Boat Ramp Parking ....................................................... Repair electrical lighting ................................................................................. 37,195 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLCSWF Concessions Waterfront ........................................................ Repair concrete seawall .................................................................................. 330,335 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLECBW Eco Pond Board Walk / Viewing Platform ........................... .......................................................................................................................... 1,135 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLMRGR Mrazek Pond Grounds .......................................................... Replace sign posts .......................................................................................... 771 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLMRRB Buttonwood Bridge ............................................................... Repair expansion joint ..................................................................................... 148,457 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLMYEE Electrical System .................................................................. Repair electrical lighting ................................................................................. 6,886Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLMYRU Mosquito Alley ...................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... 17,312 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLMYWP Water System ....................................................................... Repair water lines ........................................................................................... 1,717 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLPHHT60 Personnel Housing ............................................................. Demo housing unit .......................................................................................... 17,688 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLPHHT61 Personnel Housing ............................................................. Demo housing unit .......................................................................................... 17,688 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLPHMP417 Personnel Chickee ........................................................... Replace screens and paint ............................................................................. 4,130 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLVCVS415 Visitor Center ................................................................... Replace elevator/museum locks/repair fire system and pillars/Repair electrical system. 24,039 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLVCVS419 Fish Cleaning Station ...................................................... Repair roof & screen/Replace controls ........................................................... 43,792 
124 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... FLWLBW West Lake Board Walk ......................................................... Repair damaged decking ................................................................................ 1,342 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... GCBCCG16579 Rabbit Key Campsite ................................................. Replace confort station ................................................................................... 6,020 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... GCBCCK Rodgers River Chickee ......................................................... replace comfort station ................................................................................... 6,020 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... GCBCWW Wilderness Waterway .......................................................... Replace waterway signage .............................................................................. 9,354 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... KLFBCG Nest Key Campsite ................................................................ Repair dock/replace portable toilets ............................................................... 76,526 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... KLFBGR Back Country Grounds .......................................................... .......................................................................................................................... 13,420 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... KLRSMF505 Maintenance Shed .......................................................... Replace roof ..................................................................................................... 2,257Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... KLRSRA Key Largo Radio System ....................................................... Repair boat radio ............................................................................................ 515 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... MEGT GROUND TRANSPORT ................................................................ Repair/Replace 16 vehicles ............................................................................. 590,485 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... MEHE Heavy Equipment ..................................................................... Repair/Replace 2 tractors ............................................................................... 133,990 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... METL Tools .......................................................................................... Repair/replace 4 yard mixer ............................................................................ 4,303 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... METLRE Research Equip ..................................................................... Replace Research equipment .......................................................................... 173,301 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... MEWCBO Boat Outboard ..................................................................... Repair boats .................................................................................................... 100,300 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDEEHS347 Personnel Housing .......................................................... Replace screen/Repair roof ............................................................................. 1,792 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTAADS33 Maintenance / Ranger Station ....................................... Repair roof ....................................................................................................... 6,601 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTAFG Gasoline Storage Facility ...................................................... Repair roof ....................................................................................................... 4,230 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTAHS345 Personnel Housing .......................................................... Replace roof & screen/repair transmission tower .......................................... 3,365 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTAHS346 Personnel Housing .......................................................... Replace screen ................................................................................................ 1,987 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTAPP931N Tamiami Ranger Station .............................................. Replace fence and gate .................................................................................. 362 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTCHM350 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Repair roof/walls ............................................................................................. 18,005 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTCHM352 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Repair roof/replace screen and shutters ........................................................ 22,424 Everglades National Park .................. Katrina ... NDTCHM354 Personnel Housing ......................................................... Replace shutters .............................................................................................. 2,870 Everglades National Park .................. Rita ........ PIDBAD190 Research Center .............................................................. Replace Screen Enclosure ............................................................................... 37,353 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... ADEXFLEC Signs Wayside ................................................................... replace wayside ............................................................................................... 403Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... ADEXFLWL Signs Wayside ................................................................... replace wayside ............................................................................................... 1,028 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... ADEXPIRP Signs Wayside .................................................................... replace wayside ............................................................................................... 55Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... ADEXSVST Signs Wayside ................................................................... replace wayside ............................................................................................... 763Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... ADEXSVVC Signs Wayside ................................................................... replace wayside ............................................................................................... 925Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... EEPHHM703 Lg Hernandez House ...................................................... repair hvac, walls, roof, lighting .................................................................... 46,275 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... EEPHHS702 Sm Hernandez House ...................................................... repair roof, antenna ........................................................................................ 2,660 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCG Graveyard Creek Campsite ................................................... remove trees, replace tables, portojohn .......................................................... 17,305 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK445 Pearl Bay Chickee ........................................................... repair portojohn, steps .................................................................................... 5,293 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK446 Hells Bay Chickee ........................................................... repair portojohn ............................................................................................... 4,240Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK447 Lane Bay Chickee ........................................................... repair portojohn, structure .............................................................................. 6,041 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK448 Roberts Bay Chickee ....................................................... repair portojohn ............................................................................................... 4,240 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK45 South Joe River Chickee ................................................... repair portojohn, repair roof ............................................................................ 8,397 
125 

Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK453 Oyster Bay Chickee ......................................................... repair portojohn, structure .............................................................................. 27,123 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBCCK454 Joe River Chickee ............................................................ repair portojohn ............................................................................................... 4,240 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBLRU211 Bear Lake Road ............................................................... repair road surface .......................................................................................... 9,088 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBWMA Florida Bay Marina .............................................................. repair dock ....................................................................................................... 14,041 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBWMA Whitewater Bay Marina ........................................................ repair dock ....................................................................................................... 5,601 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLBWWW Buttonwood Canaveral National Seashorel ......................... remove boat lift, replace markers ................................................................... 32,846 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCBGR Coot Bay Grounds ................................................................. replace signs ................................................................................................... 806 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGCG A-loop Campsites ................................................................. replace exterior furnishings ............................................................................. 16,679 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGCG C-loop Campsites ................................................................. replace exterior furnishings ............................................................................. 131,179 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGCG T-loop Campsites .................................................................. replace exterior furnishings ............................................................................. 14,647 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGCG Walk In Campsites ............................................................... replace electrical panel ................................................................................... 1,795 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGPP927P B-C Loop Parking .......................................................... replace signs ................................................................................................... 3,294Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGPP928P T Loop Parking .............................................................. replace signs ................................................................................................... 3,170 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGRP219 Picnic Area RD ................................................................ replace exterior furnishings ............................................................................. 1,502 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGRP220 Camp Ground Loop A Road ............................................ replace signs ................................................................................................... 2,171 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS402 A-loop Comfort Station ................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 142 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS403 A-loop Comfort Station ................................................... replace screens, roof vent,soffit ...................................................................... 1,828 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS404 B-loop Comfort Station ................................................... repair roof, screen ........................................................................................... 623 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS405 B-loop Comfort Station ................................................... repair roof, electrical system .......................................................................... 2,030 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS406 C-loop Comfort Station ................................................... repair soffit, window screen ............................................................................ 371 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS407 T-loop Comfort Station .................................................... replace sink, repair soffit ................................................................................ 1,808 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS408 T-loop Comfort Station .................................................... repair soffit ...................................................................................................... 169Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGVS411 Walk In Comfort Station ................................................. repair roof, door, ceiling, plumbing ................................................................ 1,828 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCGWW Flamingo Waste Water System ............................................ repair electrical system ................................................................................... 7,092 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCMGR Concession Maint Grounds .................................................. remove debris .................................................................................................. 20,510 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCMST473 Concession Storage/Utility .............................................. demolish bldg .................................................................................................. 16,848 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCSCR460 Restaurant/Lounge .......................................................... repair electrical system ................................................................................... 3,172 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCSSW Swimming Pool ..................................................................... remove screen enclosure ................................................................................. 2,952 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLCSWF Concessions Waterfront ........................................................ dredge marina area for access to Fl Bay ....................................................... 649,916 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLECBW Eco Pond Board Walk / Viewing Platform ........................... repair platform and railing ............................................................................. 54,390 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLHPPP919N Residence Parking ......................................................... regrade parking area ....................................................................................... 6,238 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMRRB Buttonwood Bridge ............................................................... repair bridge joint ........................................................................................... 2,641Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMRRP010 Route 10 ......................................................................... replace road signs ........................................................................................... 22,237 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMRRU425 Sewer Plant Access Road .............................................. repair road surface, replace sign ................................................................... 1,588 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMRTU Christian Point Trail ............................................................. repair boardwalk .............................................................................................. 537Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMRWW Hells Bay Canoe Launch ..................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 1,366 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYEE Electrical System .................................................................. repair electrical system ................................................................................... 9,854Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYFG Gasoline Fuel System-Vehicles ............................................. repair fuel system ........................................................................................... 5,703 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYGR Maint Yard Grounds ............................................................. replace fence ................................................................................................... 30,551 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMA Maintenance Marina ............................................................ repair dock, wiring, dumpster ......................................................................... 79,287 
126 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMF406 Oil Shed .......................................................................... replace door ..................................................................................................... 474 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMF422 Boat Shop ....................................................................... repair doors, electrical system ........................................................................ 33,466 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMF423 Boat Shelter .................................................................... repair pillars .................................................................................................... 3,060 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMS420 Paint Storage Bldg ......................................................... replace structure ............................................................................................. 24,425 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMS426 Herbicide/Pesticide ......................................................... repair doors, steps, glass ............................................................................... 15,937 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMS431 Haz Material Storage ..................................................... haz mat disposal ............................................................................................. 11,058 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMS467 Maintenance Warehouse ................................................ repair windows, roof, electrical ....................................................................... 88,089 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYMU424 Water Treatment Plant Bldg .......................................... repair fence, hvac, water lines ....................................................................... 55,822 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYRU Mosquito Alley ...................................................................... repair road surface .......................................................................................... 1,363 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYWP Water System ....................................................................... replace filters and computer ........................................................................... 9,400 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLMYWW Waste Water ........................................................................ repair lift stations, replace signs ................................................................... 6,179 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHM416 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair elcetrical, porch, interior walls ............................................................. 25,506 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHM439 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair porch, electrical .................................................................................... 15,517 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHM440 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair windows, wiring, doors, porch .............................................................. 21,853 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHM441 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair doors, porch, hvac, appliances, walls .................................................. 27,085 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHS442 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair doors, porch, hvac, appliances, walls .................................................. 20,671 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHS443 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair hvac, roof, porch, wiring ...................................................................... 28,318 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHS444 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair porch, wiring, roof, hvac ...................................................................... 22,422 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHT20 Trailer Pad ......................................................................... repair electrical ............................................................................................... 2,061 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHT21 Trailer Pad ......................................................................... repair electrical ............................................................................................... 2,061 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHT22 Trailer Pad ......................................................................... repair electrical ............................................................................................... 2,061 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHHT23 Trailer Pad ......................................................................... repair electrical ............................................................................................... 2,061 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPHMP417 Personnel Chickee ........................................................... repair roof, fans, flooring, wiring .................................................................... 24,578 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLPLMA Plug Dock Complex ............................................................... repair electrical pedestal ................................................................................ 16,270 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLVCPP920P VC Parking Area ............................................................ repair lighting .................................................................................................. 9,438 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLVCRP216 Marina Parking Access ................................................... repair electrical, replace signs ....................................................................... 820 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLVCVS Visitor Center ......................................................................... repair hvac, phone system, windows, soffit, railings .................................... 41,459 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLVCVS419 Fish Cleaning Station ...................................................... repair screen, pipes ......................................................................................... 9,652 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLWEMU407 Pump House ................................................................... repair wiring .................................................................................................... 2,460 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLWLBW West Lake Board Walk ......................................................... replace rail ...................................................................................................... 251 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLWLGR West lake Grounds ................................................................ remove haz tree/stump .................................................................................... 857 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLWLVS425 Comfort Station and Pavillion ........................................ replace door lock/signs ................................................................................... 513 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... FLWLWF West Lake Water Front ......................................................... repair rails ....................................................................................................... 131 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCBW sand Fly Island Boardwalk ................................................. repair portojohns ............................................................................................. 4,240 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCG Darwins Place Campsite ..................................................... replace sign ..................................................................................................... 935 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCG Pavillion Key Campsite ........................................................ replace sign, portojohn .................................................................................... 4,936 
127 

Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCG Watsons Place Campsite ..................................................... replace picnic tables ....................................................................................... 5,581 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCG16579 Rabbit Key Campsite ................................................. replace sign, portojohn .................................................................................... 4,936 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCG50052 Lopez River Campsite ................................................ repair portojohns ............................................................................................. 4,240 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCG50053 Broad River Campsite ............................................... replace sign ..................................................................................................... 403 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCK Picnic Key Campsite ............................................................ replace sign, portojohn .................................................................................... 4,936 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCK Rodgers River Chickee ......................................................... repair portojohns ............................................................................................. 4,240 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCK Sundays Bay Chickee ........................................................... repair roof, portojohn, boardwalk .................................................................... 16,755 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCK Sweetwater Chickee ............................................................. replace sign, repair roof, portojohn ................................................................ 15,873 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCK14050 Kinston bay Chickee .................................................. replace sign,repair portojohn, chickee ............................................................ 27,819 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCCK16580 Plate Creek Chickee ................................................... replace sign ..................................................................................................... 935 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCBCWW Wilderness Waterway .......................................................... replace markers ............................................................................................... 2,339 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECFG Gasoline Fuel System ........................................................... repair fuel system ........................................................................................... 1,517 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECGR Everglades National Parkglades City Grounds .................... repair fencing, replace signs, repair walkways .............................................. 72,993 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECHS606 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair hvac, roof, siding, porch ...................................................................... 13,721 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECMA Marina .................................................................................. repair piers, boat covers ................................................................................. 13,244 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECMF605 Maintenance Shop/Garage ............................................. repair roof, wiring, doors, hvac ....................................................................... 10,295 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECVS Gulf Coast Picnic Area Chickee ........................................... replace roof ...................................................................................................... 11,468 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECVS604 Visitor Center/Concession ............................................... repair doors, lattice, gutters, wiring, partitions ............................................. 23,376 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECWF boat/Canoe Launch .............................................................. repair canoe launch ........................................................................................ 18,260 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCECWF Everglades National Parkglades City Water Front .............. replace waterfront rip-rap ............................................................................... 11,563 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCPHHS601 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair wiring, screens, tiles, roof, door ........................................................... 6,352 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCPHHS602 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair roof, appliances, tiles, screens, door ................................................... 12,616 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCPHHS603 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair porch, tiles, roof, screens, HVAC .......................................................... 5,175 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... GCTICG New Turkey Key Campsite ..................................................... replace sign, portojohn .................................................................................... 4,936 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLFBCG Little Rabbit Key campsite ................................................... repair dock ....................................................................................................... 2,386 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSAD503 Research Bldg North ....................................................... replace turbine ................................................................................................ 864 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSDK Concrete Dock ....................................................................... inspect concrete dock ...................................................................................... 2,343 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSDK Wooden Dock ......................................................................... repair dock ....................................................................................................... 345,578 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSFG Gaoline Fuel System .............................................................. replace dispenser and hose ............................................................................ 6,416 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSHT53 Personnel housing ............................................................. repair hvac, porch, roof, ceilings, doors ......................................................... 10,411 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSRA Key Largo Radio System ....................................................... repalce repeater ............................................................................................... 1,074 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSST Research Storage .................................................................. repair flood damage ........................................................................................ 300 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSVS500 Ranger Station ................................................................ repair steps, hvac ........................................................................................... 7,623Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... KLRSWF Key Largo Water Front .......................................................... repair wiring .................................................................................................... 373Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... MEITNB Notebook Computers ............................................................. replace computers ........................................................................................... 9,600 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... MEITPC Main Entrance computers ..................................................... replace computers ........................................................................................... 6,800 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... MEPREQ Protection Equipment ........................................................... replace flooded lockers .................................................................................... 2,000 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... MEREEQ Research Equipment ............................................................ replace lost/destroyed research equip ............................................................ 285,000 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDEEGR Env Educ Grounds ................................................................ repalce bulletin board, signs .......................................................................... 1,202 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDEEHS347 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair roof, porch, door, HVAC ........................................................................ 16,453 
128 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDEEUB343A Pump House ................................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 2,135 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDEEVS343 Loop Rd Office Bldg ....................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 498Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDEEVS343B Comfort Station ............................................................ repair roof, portojohns ..................................................................................... 10,930 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDEEWWEast Everglades National Parkglades Waste Water ............. replace fence, repair lift station ..................................................................... 5,606 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTAADS33 Maintenance / Ranger Station ....................................... repair roof, shutter .......................................................................................... 2,852 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTAHS346 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair ceilings .................................................................................................. 669 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTAMS348 Maintenance Pole Barn .................................................. replace ice machine ........................................................................................ 4,672 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTAMS348A Ranger Station Storage Shed ...................................... repair storage shed ......................................................................................... 403 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTAMS348C Maintenance Storage ................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 2,817 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTCBG356 Laundry Bldg .................................................................. repair roof, windows ........................................................................................ 1,063 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTCGR Trail Center Grounds ............................................................ repair fence and gate ..................................................................................... 13,130 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTCHS350 Personnel housing .......................................................... repair porch, downspout .................................................................................. 691 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTCHS352 Personnel housing .......................................................... repair porch, windows, hvac, door, roof ......................................................... 5,891 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTCHT007 Storage Shed/Trailer Pad ................................................ replace structure ............................................................................................. 15,101 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTCUB357 Pump House ................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 956 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... NDTRHS345 Personnel housing .......................................................... repair roof, porch, ceiling ................................................................................ 3,912 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... OPBCRP9336-main park road ............................................................ replace signs, .................................................................................................. 5,832Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIBRAD181 Bill Robertson Bldg ......................................................... repair screen, roof, carpet ............................................................................... 513 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIBRMS184 Flammable Storage Bldg ................................................ repair roof edge ............................................................................................... 60 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIBRST182 Bill Robertson garage ...................................................... repair fascia .................................................................................................... 1,048 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIBRST182B Fire Equipment Outbldg ................................................ repair fence, roof ............................................................................................. 2,170 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIDBAD190 Research Center .............................................................. repair walls, carpet, hvac, roof, wiring .......................................................... 11,875 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIDBGR Research Center Grounds ..................................................... repair greenshouse sun shades ...................................................................... 115,336 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIDBST190B Interconnecting Bldg ..................................................... repair roof, wiring, ceiling ............................................................................... 10,790 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIDBST190E General Purpose Warehouse .......................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 6,698 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIDBUB190C Pump House .................................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 201 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPAT153 Amphitheater .................................................................... repair prjection screen .................................................................................... 372 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPCG Camp Site .............................................................................. replace signs ................................................................................................... 1,882 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPHS152 Camp Tender House ......................................................... repair fascia .................................................................................................... 221 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPPP908P Long Pine Key Campground Loop .................................. replace bulletin board, furnishings ................................................................. 1,810 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPUB152 Pump House ..................................................................... repair roof, holding tank ................................................................................. 903 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPVS148 Comfort Station ................................................................ repair skylight .................................................................................................. 135 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPVS149 Comfort Station ................................................................ repair roof, door ............................................................................................... 198 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPVS150 Comfort Station ................................................................ repair roof, bulliten board ............................................................................... 719 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPVS154 Entrance Station ............................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 203 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPVS168 Comfort Station ................................................................ repair fascia .................................................................................................... 315 
129 

Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PILPVS169 Comfort Station ................................................................ repair roof ........................................................................................................ 63 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMRRP010 Route 10 ......................................................................... replace signs ................................................................................................... 3,395 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMYAD164 Ranger Station/Telecommunications ............................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 328 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMYGR PI Maintenance Yard Grounds .............................................. repair fence ..................................................................................................... 1,784 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMYMS140 PI Storage Bldg .............................................................. haz mat disposal ............................................................................................. 8,249 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMYST114B Supply Office Shed ........................................................ repair roof ........................................................................................................ 203 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMYWP PI Water System ................................................................... repair fence, turbine ........................................................................................ 2,471 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIMYWW Waste Water ......................................................................... repair lift station ............................................................................................. 2,549 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPARP204 Pahayokee Road ............................................................... replace road signs ........................................................................................... 135 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHAD186 FPMA Bldg ....................................................................... remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 355Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHM155 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair turbine, door, screen ............................................................................. 1,262 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHM157 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair door, screen .......................................................................................... 2,044 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHM185 Personnel Housing .......................................................... repair turbines ................................................................................................. 492 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS105 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair roof, shutters, antenna ......................................................................... 1,796 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS108 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair screens, antenna .................................................................................. 777 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS110 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair roof, antenna ........................................................................................ 2,225 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS112 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair window, antenna ................................................................................... 937 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS119 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair shutter, turbine ..................................................................................... 2,583 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS120 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair roof, septic ............................................................................................ 703 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS122 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 187 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHS124 Personnel Housing ........................................................... repair gutter .................................................................................................... 169Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHT001 Trailer Pad ....................................................................... replace telephone box cover ............................................................................ 135 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHHT62 Personnel Housing ............................................................. reset trailer ...................................................................................................... 537 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIPHMF142 Recycle Bldg .................................................................... replace window screens .................................................................................. 714 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIRPTP Gumbo Limbo Trail ................................................................. replace sign ..................................................................................................... 428 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIRPVC109 Visitor Center ................................................................... repair fascia .................................................................................................... 146 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIRPVS176 Trail Shelter ..................................................................... repair bench, replace shed ............................................................................. 5,272 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIVCPP900P Visitors Parking .............................................................. remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 6,765 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIVCVS160 Visitor Center ................................................................... repair wiring, hvac motor ................................................................................ 3,332 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIVCVS160A Comfort Station .............................................................. repair shutters, fascia, lightning system ....................................................... 628 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIVCVS160B Chickee .......................................................................... repair security system, remove trees .............................................................. 1,690 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIVCVS161 HQ Bldg ............................................................................ repair antenna, fascia, lightning suppression ............................................... 1,251 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... PIVCVS162 Entrance Station .............................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 172 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVADWW Shark Valley Admin Waste Water ........................................ repair lift station ............................................................................................. 311 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVDTUB326 Old Generator Bldg ......................................................... repair window .................................................................................................. 78 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSAAT332 Bike Storage Shed ........................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,539 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSAHS334 Personnel housing ........................................................... repair gutters, HVAC ........................................................................................ 2,121 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSAMS331 Storage / Ice Shed ......................................................... replace floor tile .............................................................................................. 667 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSARA Shark valley Radio System ................................................... repair antenna ................................................................................................. 537 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSATC Shark valley Telecommunications ......................................... replace hardware ............................................................................................. 9,865 
130 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSTRP224 Shark valley Tram Road .................................................. remove debris,repost signs ............................................................................. 311 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSTUB325 Pump House .................................................................... replace vent, eyewash station ......................................................................... 1,458 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSTVS326 Tower Comfort Station and Shelter ................................. repair roof, replace window ............................................................................. 3,487 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSTVS327 Shark valley Tower .......................................................... repair hand rail ............................................................................................... 103 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVSTWP Shark Valley Tower Water System ........................................ repair fence ..................................................................................................... 6,504 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCGR Shark Valley VC Grounds ..................................................... repair fence, flagpole ...................................................................................... 3,340 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCPP940P Shark Valley Tram Parking ........................................... replace signs ................................................................................................... 339 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCRP223 Sharl valley Access RD ................................................... repair gate ....................................................................................................... 2,822Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCVS310 Comfort Station ............................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 302 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCVS311 Comfort Station ............................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 1,512 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCVS329 Entrance Station ............................................................. repair fence, screen, solar panels .................................................................. 443 Everglades National Park .................. Wilma ..... SVVCVS349 Visitor Center .................................................................. repair hvac,antenna, fence ............................................................................. 1,085 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Campground Fee Stn .......................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 886 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Campground Restroom ....................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 3,616 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Carpenter/Marine Shop ....................................................................... repaint walls .................................................................................................... 417 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Cat Island Storage Bldg ..................................................................... replace storage bldg ....................................................................................... 5,332 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... CCC Cabin No. 8 ................................................................................ rehab interior/repair roof ................................................................................. 14,584 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... CCC Cabin Housing No. 9 .................................................................. rehab interior/repair roof ................................................................................. 4,080 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Davis Bayou Fuel System ................................................................... Reconstruct fuel system .................................................................................. 55,682 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Boat Dock Access and Park ......................................................... Remove debris/replace signs/repair surface ................................................... 10,924 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Campground Road ........................................................................ repair surface/remove debris and stumps ...................................................... 28,625 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Eagle Point Road .......................................................................... Remove debris/replace sign ............................................................................ 9,504 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Electrical/Plumbing Shop ............................................................. repaint walls .................................................................................................... 625 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Govn’t Marina ............................................................................... replace decking and caps ............................................................................... 70,629 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Gov’t Boat Dock Access Park ....................................................... Replace signs/fencing ..................................................................................... 57,246 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Gov’t Boat Launch Road .............................................................. remove debris/regarde shoulder/replace signs ............................................... 6,959 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Grounds, Landscape, Boardwalks ................................................ Remove debris/hazard trees ............................................................................ 1,958,869 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Grounds/Maint Shop ..................................................................... repaint walls .................................................................................................... 418 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Hanley Road .................................................................................. remove debirs/replace guardrails .................................................................... 11,718 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Johnboat House ............................................................................. Reconstruct John boat house .......................................................................... 257,850 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Lumber Storage ............................................................................ repaint walls .................................................................................................... 207 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Maint. Complex Parking ............................................................... Remove debris/replace fencing ....................................................................... 34,070 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Nature’s Way Trail ........................................................................ remove debris/hazard trees/repair trail surface ............................................. 72,078 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Park Road ..................................................................................... Repair & resurface road and guardrails ........................................................ 24,236 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Picnic Area Restroom ................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 354 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Primitive Camp ............................................................................. Replace signs/fire rings/tables/remove trees ................................................. 26,842 
131 

Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Public Fishing Marina .................................................................. replace dock .................................................................................................... 127,885 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Public Marina ............................................................................... repair decking and seawall ............................................................................. 1,445 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Ranger Station/VC Parking ........................................................... Remove debris & stumps/replace wheel stops .............................................. 30,511 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Savanna Extention Trail ............................................................... repair surface/replace boardwalk .................................................................... 35,052 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB South Walk Trail ........................................................................... Remove debirs/replace lighting ....................................................................... 8,342 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB VC Well Shed ................................................................................ Reconstruct VC Well shed ............................................................................... 28,651 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Vehicle Storage ............................................................................. repaint walls .................................................................................................... 418 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB VFW Road ...................................................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 2,789 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DB Warehouse ..................................................................................... repair roof/repaint walls .................................................................................. 3,453 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... DSC & A/E Planning/Project Mgmt .................................................... .......................................................................................................................... 2,685,000 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... East Ship Island Grounds .................................................................. Remove debris ................................................................................................. 5,867Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Fishing Pier Gazebo ............................................................................ recinstruct pier gazebo .................................................................................... 72,118 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... FL Debris Removal .............................................................................. .......................................................................................................................... 3,200,000 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Ft. Mass Shore Protection .................................................................. .......................................................................................................................... 800,000 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Ft. Massachusetts .............................................................................. Repair masonry/earthern roof/parade grounds/replace eletrical system in 

Fort.

541,534 

Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Ft.Pickens/Santa Rosa Roads ............................................................. Remove sand/repair road ................................................................................ 12,000,000 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Fuel Pump Shelter .............................................................................. reconstruct fuel pump shelter ......................................................................... 34,141 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Gov Boat Dock Office ......................................................................... reconstruct boat dock office ........................................................................... 114,598 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Gov Boat Dock Shelter ........................................................................ reconstruct boat dock shelter ......................................................................... 730,573 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... H. Generator Bldg #3 ......................................................................... Reconstruct generator bldg ............................................................................. 80,219 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Haz. Mat. Storage ............................................................................... reconstruct haz mat storage bldg .................................................................. 12,755 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Electrical System ....................................................................... Reconstruct electrical system ......................................................................... 42,659 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Fuel System ................................................................................ repair fuel station ........................................................................................... 5,588 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Haz Mat #37 .............................................................................. Reconstruct haz material bldg ........................................................................ 8,503 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Island Grounds ........................................................................... Debris removal ................................................................................................. 32,038 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Island Triplex #31 ...................................................................... Reconstruct triplex housing ............................................................................. 759,800 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Maint. #32 ................................................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 7,287 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Pier & Boat Hoist ....................................................................... repair boatlift and pier ramp .......................................................................... 10,203 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Solar Utility System ................................................................... Reconstruct soler utility system ...................................................................... 142,195 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn W. Crossover Trail ...................................................................... Remove trees and brush ................................................................................. 1,993 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Horn Water System ............................................................................. Repair water system ........................................................................................ 44,486 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Housing No. 33 ................................................................................... Gut and rehab bldg ......................................................................................... 131,346 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Housing furnishings ........................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... 300,000 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Housing Yates No. 17 ......................................................................... Reconstruct yates housing .............................................................................. 649,677 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Marina Restroom ................................................................................ Reconstruct restroom ....................................................................................... 210,402 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... MS Debris Removal ............................................................................ .......................................................................................................................... 3,250,000 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... MS VC/HQ ........................................................................................... Gut and rehab bldg ......................................................................................... 563,024 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Oil Storage Facility ............................................................................. reconstruct oil storage shed ........................................................................... 53,717 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Perdido Key Johnson Beach Road ...................................................... Sand removal ................................................................................................... 13,333 
132 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Petit Bois Islands Grounds Debris ..................................................... remove debris .................................................................................................. 10,764 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Picnic Area A Gazebo ......................................................................... reconstruct picnic gazebo ............................................................................... 54,648 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Picnic Area Cluster ............................................................................. replace tables/grills/cans/remove haz trees ................................................... 51,354 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Picnic Shelter #2 MS 3 ...................................................................... reconstruct shelter ........................................................................................... 96,158 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Picnic Shelter #4 MS 7 ...................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 177 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Picnic Shelter 1 MS1 .......................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 177 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Picnic Shelter/Restroom #3 MS6 ........................................................ replace door ..................................................................................................... 284 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Public Boat Launch She ..................................................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 637 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Savanna, Arboreteum tra ................................................................... replace decking/piers ...................................................................................... 75,410 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Ship Island Pier .................................................................................. remove damaged beams ................................................................................. 103,197 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... Ship Island Ranger Station ................................................................ Reconstruct ranger station .............................................................................. 240,649 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Boardwalks ..................................................................................... Replace boardwalks ......................................................................................... 1,396,002 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Concesseion Bldg #46 ................................................................... Reconstruct Concession bldg .......................................................................... 487,383 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Crossover Boardwalks .................................................................... Repair decking and kick rail ........................................................................... 185,929 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Electrical System ............................................................................ Reconstruct electrical system ......................................................................... 88,872 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Fuel System .................................................................................... Reconstruct fuel system .................................................................................. 76,475 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Generator Bldg. #45 ....................................................................... Reconstruct generator bldg ............................................................................. 286,498 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Generator Bldg. #46 ....................................................................... Reconstruct generator bldg ............................................................................. 61,118 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Haz Mat Storage #52 ..................................................................... reconstruct haz mat storage bldg .................................................................. 10,629 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Housing #41A&B ............................................................................ Reconstruct duplex housing ............................................................................ 264,664 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Housing Bunk #44 ......................................................................... Reconstruct bunkhouse ................................................................................... 262,947 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Lifeguard Station ........................................................................... Reconstruct Lifeguard station ......................................................................... 32,705 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Lighthouse ...................................................................................... Replace Lighthouse ......................................................................................... 844,729 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Pavilions #49 & 50 ........................................................................ Resonctruct Pavillion Cluster .......................................................................... 266,931 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Public Restroom ............................................................................. Reconstruct public restroom ........................................................................... 619,509 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Restrooms No. 48 ........................................................................... Reconstruct public restroom ........................................................................... 93,707 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Septic System ................................................................................. Replace septic system ..................................................................................... 231,290 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Solar Boat Lift ................................................................................ Reconstruct sloar boat lift .............................................................................. 7,999 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Util/Propane No. 42 ........................................................................ Reconstruct Utility bldg-propane .................................................................... 23,874 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Katrina ... SI Water System ................................................................................. Reconstruct water system ............................................................................... 10,848Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Rita ........ Fort Pickens Marina ............................................................................ Replace Joist beans and rail .......................................................................... 5,696 Gulf Islands National Seashore ......... Rita ........ WSI Marina ......................................................................................... Replace Decking .............................................................................................. 300,000 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Bayou Coquilles Canoe Trail .............................................. remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 15,652 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Bayou Coquilles Trail ......................................................... replace boardwalk sections ............................................................................. 47,485 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Bayou des Familles Canoe Trail ........................................ remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 20,249 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Ed Center Parking Route 912 ............................................ repair exterior lights ........................................................................................ 10,695 
133 

Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Ed Center Trail ................................................................... repair boardwalk .............................................................................................. 15,497 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Education Center ................................................................ repair screens/roof/hand rails ......................................................................... 6,105 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Kenta Canaveral National Seashorel Canoe Trail ............. remove trees from Canaveral National Seashorel .......................................... 8,870 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Kenta Canaveral National Seashorel Recreational Area ... remove debris and hazard trees ..................................................................... 2,242 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Office Complex & Restrooms ............................................. replace doors/handrails/repair roof ................................................................. 16,953 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Old Barataria Trail ............................................................. remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 6,957Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Palmetto Trail ..................................................................... Replace boardwalk/waterline and valves ........................................................ 1,072,635 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Parallel Canaveral National Seashorel .............................. remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 10,124 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Plantation Trail Loops A & B ............................................. remove haz trees/repair boardwalk ................................................................. 234,494 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Preserve Pecan Grove Comfort Station .............................. repair metal roof ............................................................................................. 823 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Ring Levee Trail ................................................................. remove haz trees/repair boardwalk ................................................................. 42,110 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Sewage Treatment Plant I VC/Admin & Main ................... remove haz tree ............................................................................................... 661 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Tarpaper Canoe Trail ......................................................... remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 39,416 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Canoe Trail ............. remove haz treees ........................................................................................... 43,895 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Foot Trail ................. remove haz trees/repair boardwalk ................................................................. 69,439 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Parking Route 916 .. repair erdoded parking lot .............................................................................. 850 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Twin Canaveral National Seashorels Recreational Area ... remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 3,183 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Visitor Center ..................................................................... repair roof and walls ....................................................................................... 54,008 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Visitor Center Trail ............................................................. Replace hand rail ............................................................................................ 140 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Barataria Wood Duck Trail ................................................................. remove haz trees ............................................................................................. 28,380 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Chalmette Battlefield—Maintained Landscape ................................. multiple landscape impacts ............................................................................ 178,611 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Chalmette Battlefield Comfort Station ............................................... replace HVAC, plumbing and doors/repair electrical ...................................... 16,337 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Chalmette Battlefield M-B House(Roof) ............................................. repair slate roof/repair interior ceiling ........................................................... 144,273 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Chalmette Battlefield Monument ....................................................... repair historic masonry/repair contractor scaffolding .................................... 136,540 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Chalmette Battlefield Visitor Center (Raze) ....................................... replace VC ....................................................................................................... 555,001 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Chalmette National Cemetery ............................................................. multiple landscape impacts ............................................................................ 385,279 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Carriage House ........................................................................... Gut and rehab bldg ......................................................................................... 113,603 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Equipment Storage Bldg ............................................................ repair exterior walls ......................................................................................... 2,140 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Equipment Storage Building 250 Gal Tank ............................... Repair fuel storage tank ................................................................................. 3,287 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Maintained Landscape ............................................................... repair brick wall/security gates ...................................................................... 77,098 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Military Cemetery Road-Route 11 .............................................. clean and repair roadway and historical curb ............................................... 28,926 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Sewage Collection ...................................................................... repair Carriage House lift station ................................................................... 5,765 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... CNC Superintendents Lodge ............................................................... Gut and rehab bldg ......................................................................................... 169,937 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Debris removal .................................................................................... Debirs removal ................................................................................................. 350,000 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... FQ Bldg Visitor Center & Administration ........................................... misc interior/exterior repairs ........................................................................... 238,750 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... FQ Maintained Landscape .................................................................. Remove and replace trees ............................................................................... 8,097 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Government Property Loss not tracked by FMSS ............................... replace lost/destroyed equipment ................................................................... 350,000 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Grounds ,Chalmette Battlefield M-B House ....................................... replace shrubs at Beaugard House ................................................................ 1,128 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Lake Salvador Geo Crib Structure ...................................................... replace Geo Cirb structure .............................................................................. 1,410,000 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Project Mgmt and Planning ............................................................... DSC Project Mgmt ........................................................................................... 525,000 
134 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—SOUTHEAST REGION—HURRICANES KATRINA, OPHELIA, RITA, WILMA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/Need Recommended repair Estimate 

Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Replace/Rehabilitate park signs, waysides & exhibits ...................... replace signs/waysides parkwide .................................................................... 750,076 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... Stabilize/Protect/Rehabilitate Curatorial Resources ........................... Preserve and store curatorial artifacts ........................................................... 450,000 Jean Lafette NHP & Preserve ............. Katrina ... WACC Percy Lobdell Warehouse Building ........................................... repair roof/elevator .......................................................................................... 5,450 Natchez National Historic Park .......... Katrina ... Replace & relocate electical panels .................................................. .......................................................................................................................... 16,000 Natchez National Historic Park .......... Katrina ... Replace & Relocate Telecom equipment ............................................ .......................................................................................................................... 7,200 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Cherokee District—Maintained Landscapes ...................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 10,075 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Coles Creek Comfort Station Building No. 329 ................................. repair roof/siding ............................................................................................. 8,456 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Dancy District-Maintained Landscapes .............................................. remove trees/repair fence ................................................................................ 258,492 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Emerald Mound ................................................................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 1,537 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Emergency Response .......................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... 46,450 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Jeff Busby Campground ..................................................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 8,183 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Jeff Busby Comfort Sta. Building No. 195 ......................................... repair roof ........................................................................................................ 8,890Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Jeff Busby Picnic Area ........................................................................ remove trees .................................................................................................... 2,856 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Jeff Busby Trail ................................................................................... repair bridge .................................................................................................... 3,492 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... KO Hurricane Creek Trail .................................................................... .......................................................................................................................... 4,628 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Kosciusko District-Maintained Landscapes ........................................ remove trees .................................................................................................... 846,139 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Meriwether Lewis District-Maintained Landscapes ............................ remove trees .................................................................................................... 9,705 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Mount Locust Historic House No. 100 ................................................ Repair roof ....................................................................................................... 20,937 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Natchez National Historic Parkhez District-Maintained Landscapes remove trees/repair fencing/replace signs ...................................................... 191,010 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Port Gibson District-Maintained Landscapes ..................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 154,974 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... RI Cypress Swamp Trail ..................................................................... remove trees/repair trail .................................................................................. 7,836 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Ridgeland Covered Storage Building No. 308 ................................... .......................................................................................................................... 5,797 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Ridgeland District-Maintained Landscapes ....................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 326,792 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Ridgeland Storage Building No. 109 ................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 6,935 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Rocky Springs Picnic Area .................................................................. remove trees .................................................................................................... 9,778 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Rocky Springs Campground ............................................................... remove trees .................................................................................................... 5,562 Natchez Trace Parkway ...................... Katrina ... Tupelo District-Maintained Landscapes ............................................. remove trees .................................................................................................... 29,716 Vicksburg National Military Park ....... Katrina ... Cemetary maintenance Shop .............................................................. repair roof ........................................................................................................ 8,900 Vicksburg National Military Park ....... Katrina ... Ranger Storage Bldg .......................................................................... repair storage bldg .......................................................................................... 950Vicksburg National Military Park ....... Katrina ... Tour Road Landscape ......................................................................... remove trees/debris from tour road ................................................................ 82,980 

Total ...................................... ................ ............................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................................... 64,353,455 
135 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—INTERMOUNTAIN REGION HURRICANE RITA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006 

Park Storm Asset/need Recommended repair Estimate 

Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Set up temp HQ offices/Building destroyed in storm ................................... Travel for O. Olsen to assist w/computer setup ........................................... $1,460 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Beaumont HQ office destroyed in storm ....................................................... Set up temporary office trailers at Maint. Complex ..................................... 8,005 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Temporary Office Trailers .............................................................................. Construct boardwalk between trailers to doors ............................................ 7,800 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... HQ office furniture destroyed in storm ......................................................... Replace office furniture ................................................................................. 7,488 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Sidewalks to temp. trailers ........................................................................... Purchase and pour concrete ......................................................................... 740 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Equipment (printers, copiers) ........................................................................ Repair or replace ........................................................................................... 19,263 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... GSA Vehicle costs .......................................................................................... Used for Recovery effort ................................................................................ 12,640 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Archeologist .................................................................................................... Travel to assess archeological damage ........................................................ 168 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Evacuation needs ........................................................................................... Food, water, propane, etc .............................................................................. 1,863 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Damaged computer equipment ..................................................................... Repair or replace ........................................................................................... 739 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Fuel Storage and Transfer ............................................................................. Replace damaged parts and repair .............................................................. 1,139 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Phone lines (SBC) .......................................................................................... Transfer from destroyed building .................................................................. 1,774 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Phone System (Beaumont annex) (NextiraOne) ............................................. Replace digital trunk media module ............................................................ 19,499 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Maintenance Security System ........................................................................ Replace batteries and transformer ............................................................... 112 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Vehicle Fuel for Recovery Patrols .................................................................. purchase gasoline .......................................................................................... 203 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Maintenance buildiing overhead door ........................................................... Repair damaged door .................................................................................... 420 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Damaged Uniforms ........................................................................................ Replace damaged uniforms .......................................................................... 570 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Assess Damage ............................................................................................. Copy aerial photos taken by SETT Team ...................................................... 280 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Radio Batteries .............................................................................................. Replace damaged batteries .......................................................................... 359 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Gyrotrac for damaged tree removal .............................................................. Ship from Florida ........................................................................................... 2,432 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Hazardous Tree & Limb removal ................................................................... Purchase necessary equipment for removal ................................................. 1,179 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Picnic Tables .................................................................................................. Replace destroyed picnic tables ................................................................... 6,524 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Trash Containers ............................................................................................ Replaced destroyed trash containers ............................................................ 9,970 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Maintenance Complex .................................................................................... Electrical repairs needed ............................................................................... 1,100 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Turkey Creek Radio Tower ............................................................................. Repair damaged tower .................................................................................. 4,910 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Beaumont Radio Antenna .............................................................................. Repair damaged antenna .............................................................................. 750 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Town Bluff Radio Tower ................................................................................ Repair damaged tower .................................................................................. 2,500 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Turkey Creek Radio Repeater ........................................................................ Replace damaged repeater ........................................................................... 1,570 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Maintenance Complex .................................................................................... Replace damaged HVAC system ................................................................... 22,000 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Maintenance Complex .................................................................................... Rebuild damaged fire pump ......................................................................... 1,477 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Patrol Boat trailer .......................................................................................... Replace destroyed boat trailer ...................................................................... 1,075 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Patrol Boat parts ........................................................................................... Replace damaged boat parts ........................................................................ 476 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... LE Flashlight .................................................................................................. Replace lost flashlight .................................................................................. 115 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... All Preserve Trails .......................................................................................... Purchase equipment for clearing trails ........................................................ 5,126 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Landfill Dump fees ........................................................................................ Removal of Hurricane trash .......................................................................... 212 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Turkey Creek Trail .......................................................................................... Replace damaged boardwalks & clear trail ................................................. 13,600 
136 

STORM DAMAGE DETAIL REPORT—INTERMOUNTAIN REGION HURRICANE RITA AS OF JANUARY 19, 2006—Continued 

Park Storm Asset/need Recommended repair Estimate 

Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Kirby Nature Trail ........................................................................................... Replace damaged boardwalks & clear trail ................................................. 13,150 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Pitcher Plant Trail .......................................................................................... Replace damaged boardwalks & clear trail ................................................. 2,000 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Big Sandy Trail (Horse Trail) ......................................................................... Clear limbs & trees from trail ...................................................................... 4,500 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Woodlands Trail ............................................................................................. Replace damaged boardwalks & clear trail ................................................. 9,470 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Beaver Slide Trail .......................................................................................... Replace damaged boardwalks & clear trail ................................................. 5,480 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Beech Woods Trail ......................................................................................... Clear limbs & trees from trail ...................................................................... 5,980 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Birdwatchers Trail ......................................................................................... Clear limbs & trees from trail ...................................................................... 4,480 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Sundew Trail .................................................................................................. Replace damaged boardwalks & clear trail ................................................. 5,985 Big Thicket National Preserve ..... Rita ... Trail Heads, Parking Lots, Grounds, Roads .................................................. Clear limbs and trees ................................................................................... 14,170 

Total ............................... ........... ........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ 224,753 

USGS SUMMARY OF ACTUAL AND PROJECTED 

Response and recovery cost 

Total 

Labor Equipment Supplies Travel & per diem Other 

Biology: 

NWRC operations: 

Intern/External Communications ................................................................................................................................................... $84,654 ................ ................ ................ ................ $84,654 Search and rescue ........................................................................................................................................................................ 97,324 ................ $15,000 $6,000 $34,760 153,084 Flights to assess DOI asets .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 35,000 35,000 FEMA and State OEP support ....................................................................................................................................................... 80,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 80,000Equipment Repair .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ $100,000 ................ ................ ................ 100,000 

Geology: 

Coastal Marine (LIDAR) .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 795,000 795,000 Potential Health and Environmental Impacts Related To Sediment ..................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 250,000 250,000 

Water: 

Coastal gages (35 gages) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 157,500 2,111,900 ................ ................ ................ 2,269,400 Water Quality instruments on coastal gages ........................................................................................................................................ ................ 1,638,100 ................ ................ ................ 1,638,100 Temporary gages in N.O. (6) .................................................................................................................................................................. 9,000 182,040 ................ ................ ................ 191,040 SR Streamflow gages (18 gages) .......................................................................................................................................................... 180,000 360,000 ................ ................ ................ 540,000 Unplanned response to Katrina OT (SR & CR) ..................................................................................................................................... 600,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 600,000CR Streamflow gages (9 gages) ........................................................................................................................................................... 56,000 229,000 ................ ................ ................ 285,000
137 

Boat & Trailer Replacement ......................................................................................................................................................... ................ 55,000 80,000 ................ ................ 135,000 

Mobile Laboratory (Mercury) repair ........................................................................................................................................................ ................ 200,000 ................ ................ ................ 200,000 High-water marks ................................................................................................................................................................................... 339,000 ................ ................ ................ ................ 339,000 Travel & Perdiem .................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ 85,200 ................ 85,200 Water Quality: 

Ponchartrain .................................................................................................................................................................................. 200,000 ................ ................ ................ 408,000 608,000 Ground (tap) Water analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 ................ ................ ................ 403,000 603,000 Microbiology ................................................................................................................................................................................... 100,000 ................ 20,000 ................ ................ 120,000 QW Field Sites (12-LA, 15-MS) ..................................................................................................................................................... 124,000 200,000 ................ ................ ................ 324,000 Other field station laboratory analysis ......................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 500,000 500,000 

Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility Recovery ........................................................................................................................................ 180,000 ................ ................ 217,500 ................ 397,500 Flood Response Support ......................................................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 159,400 159,400 

Geography: Imagery and GIS support ............................................................................................................................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 522,000 522,000 Enterprise Information: Custom geospatial products ..................................................................................................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ 500,000 500,000 

Total Initial Response Funding Needed ............................................................................................................................................ 2,407,478 5,076,040 115,000 308,700 3,607,160 11,514,378 

Repayment of funds borrowed from BIA ........................................................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 4,000,000 

Total USGS Needs for Hurricane Response/Recovery ........................................................................................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 15,514,378 
138 

REQUEST FOR $3 MILLION IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND GRANTS FOR GULF

COAST STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS

The Gulf Coast Region is rich in heritage assets and the extensive devastation inflicted by the recent hurricanes is unrivaled in the Nation’s history. These assets 

not only form the cultural character of the region; they also play a critical role in 

the economy as the base of the tourism industry. New Orleans has 20 recognized 

historic districts, most of which suffered serious damage from wind and flooding. In 

Mississippi, Katrina destroyed over 300 designated historic properties. 

Reconstruction of heritage assets is essential to the economic recovery of the region, so investment and development plans must recognize the repair and rehabilitation of these assets as a priority. The revitalization of the region’s heritage tourism industry will be a vital component of the overall economic recovery. Tourism 

is a major industry in this part of the country and visitors to cultural and heritage 

assets make-up a significant portion of the overall $18.3 billion travel industry along 

the Gulf Coast. 

Federal law, through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, requires Federal agencies to evaluate the impact of their actions on historic properties. The ‘‘Section 106 process’’ is overseen by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) but relies heavily upon the involvement of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) for its day-to-day operation. Without timely and effective 

SHPO participation, the Section 106 process cannot function. 

The Section 106 process ensures that Federal assistance is used in a manner that 

avoids unnecessary harm to historic properties and, where possible, to promote the 

constructive reuse of those properties. The billions of dollars of Federal reconstruction funding will affect thousands of surviving historic properties, a scale unprecedented in the history of the Section 106 process. 

The extensive number of historic properties in the region will likewise affect the 

delivery of Federal reconstruction assistance. The sheer magnitude of Federal 

projects will overwhelm the Section 106 process at the state level without the requested grants. This will delay Federal decisions and threaten numerous additional 

heritage assets with destruction by poorly planned redevelopment projects. 

Federal financial assistance is needed immediately to ensure the efficient functioning of the Section 106 review process. An infusion of funds during the reconstruction period will avoid system overload and promote development decisions that 

best integrate the region’s heritage assets into a revitalized Gulf Coast economy. It 

will also offset the negative impact state budget reductions have had on SHPO resources in the region. The funds will be distributed among the Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama SHPOs. The estimated allocation by state is Louisiana 

($1.25 million), Mississippi ($1.5 million), Texas ($150,000), and Alabama ($100,000) 

based on a needs assessment. 

EASEMENTS

Senator BURNS. It was. Last year we appropriated $985 thousand 

to begin purchasing easements along the Front Range of west of 

Great Falls Montana, of the Rocky Mountains. For those who don’t 

know, this is a part of the world where grizzly bears, wolves, wolverine, lynx live amongst the areas many ranches. In fact I will tell 

you that our efforts in order to identify how many bears we got, 

grizzle bears up there we got, has moved along and I think we’ve 

got a few more than we first thought. 

If you don’t know the map of the area, they spotted a grizzly bear 

last year, as far out at the Interstate 15 coming out of Canada. 

That’s way out on the prairie, and that’s a long ways from the 

front. So we did some quarter works up there and some easement 

programs, you might bring us up to date and what’s happening 

with that program, including your plans for funds in 2007? 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes. Thank you Senator, my understanding is 

that the Fish and Wildlife Service is moving ahead with the acquisitions with the 2006 funds. I believe that will total about 4,700 

acres in 2006. In 2007 we would expect another 6,500 acres and I 
139 

believe the budget does have some funding, about $1.9 million for 

that purpose. 

Senator BURNS. Sometimes we ought to look on how we put valuations on that. You know you’re not buying a farm in Iowa, or irrigated land. Sometimes I think we should look at that somewhat. 

I’d like to sit down and visit with how much we’re paying for a parcel, and I think some savings could be made through that direction. 

That’s about all I have. There are other questions and there will 

be other questions before this is over, we’d like to work with you 

on the PILT and several areas where we’re short, after all a budget 

does boil down to what your priorities are and sometimes our priorities are not yours, but nonetheless we’ll find someway to work our 

way through it. I thank you for your testimony this morning. Other 

Senators may have questions if you could respond to those individual senators and to the committee I’d certainly appreciate that, 

and I thank you for your testimony this morning. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We have received the statement of Senator Thad Cochran that 

will be made part of the hearing record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Mr. Chairman I am pleased to join you in welcoming Secretary Lynn Scarlett to 

the committee this morning. I would also like to recognize Secretary Gale Norton 

for her years of service to this nation. I enjoyed working with Secretary Norton over 

the past 5 years on issues such as the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the Migratory Bird Commission. Secretary Norton has been a good advocate for properly 

managing our nation’s nature resources. I wish Secretary Norton well in her future 

endeavors. 

Secretary Scarlett, I want to commend you and your staff for the effort you have 

made throughout the Gulf Coast region following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to 

clear debris and establish emergency staging areas for delivering assistance in the 

form of shelter, food, and water to thousands of Gulf Coast residents who lost their 

homes. 

These hurricanes also caused widespread damage to many of the National Wildlife 

Refugees and National Parks on the gulf coast. The Gulf Islands National Seashore, 

which provides a natural barrier from hurricanes, was severely damaged during 

Hurricane Katrina. It is critical that the Department of the Interior and other federal agencies move forward with plans to restore these important natural barriers. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. I look forward to 

the testimony. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BURNS. We will leave the record open for questions from 

other committee members. 

[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

PILT REDUCTIONS

Question. The Committee has a real concern with your PILT request. Since I’ve 

been chairman we’ve managed to increase the annual amount for PILT from around 

$135 million in fiscal year 2000 to a high last year of $233 million. This program 

is absolutely critical to local county governments yet the Administration proposes 

to cut it virtually every year. 

What is the rationale for proposing to cut this vital program again this year? 
140 

Answer. As part of the President’s effort to reduce the budget deficit by half over 

five years, the 2007 budget for the Department makes difficult choices among programs. Overall the Department’s 2007 budget reflects a reduction of $322 million 

in current discretionary funding. The 2007 budget continues essentially the same 

level as was funded in 2001, and is still at a level that is significantly above the 

levels paid in the 1990s, which were on the order of $100–120 million. 

Question. Aren’t you sending a mixed message to local communities when you emphasize cooperation and collaboration in implementing the Healthy Forests Initiative and various conservation programs, but when it comes to a vital program that 

funds rural schools and infrastructure you keep proposing to cut the funding? 

Answer. The PILT program compensates counties across the U.S. for losses to 

their real property tax base when Federal lands are located within their boundaries. 

Payments received under the program may be used for any governmental purpose, 

such as police and fire protection, school buses, or road maintenance. In addition 

to PILT, the Department provides $4 billion in revenues to States and counties on 

an annual basis. These payments help to defray the costs of infrastructure and services at the State and county level. Although these funds are not intended to substitute for payments to counties, the Department does project continuing increases 

in revenues that are shared with States and counties, to help defray the costs of 

infrastructure and services at the State and county level. In 2000 these payments 

totaled $1.9 million. The 2007 estimated payments are expected to be double this 

amount. 

FINANCIAL SYSTEMS—COST OVERRUNS

Question. The Committee is concerned with the growing costs and delays associated with implementing your Financial and Business Management System (FBMS). 

The Department is requesting $22 million for this system in fiscal year 2007 but 

recently you removed the contractor that was doing the work because of implementation problems. 

Can you tell us what the status is of this project? 

Answer. A new competitive solicitation for implementation services for the Financial and Business Management System was issued in November 2005. On February 

28, 2006, Interior awarded a contract to IBM Business Consulting. The DOI FBMS 

team is working with IBM toward deployment of the core financial and reporting 

modules of FBMS in the Minerals Management Service and Office of Surface Mining in the fall of 2006. The grants module that was deployed in April 2005 remains 

in production; software that was purchased is being used; the hosting services and 

infrastructure continue to be provided by DOI’s National Business Center. 

Question. How much more is implementation of this system costing than you 

originally projected? 

Answer. Originally, we projected that the system implementation would cost 

about $125 million. Based on the new contract award, the implementation costs 

have increased by approximately $55 million over a six-year period. In addition, the 

Department has increased resources devoted to planning by $15 million over the implementation period, principally for increased subject matter experts drawn from 

DOI’s bureaus, and more oversight into the technical work products of the project 

implementation. 

Question. Can you assure the Committee that this isn’t going to turn into a system that doesn’t work as advertised and costs tens of millions more to implement 

than what you originally projected? 

Answer. The primary software used for FBMS, from SAP, is used around the 

world by businesses and government. We have built rigorous functional oversight 

and project management best practices into our contract with IBM. Each deployment phase includes a formal Integrated Baseline Review to ensure that the scope, 

schedule, cost and risks have been fully defined and appropriate management and 

mitigation strategies identified. The project has engaged an independent contractor 

to oversee the implementation and report its findings to management. We are reporting our status and progress to the Interior Chief Information Officer monthly, 

using a formal project earned value management system. One of the most important 

reasons to invest in more bureau participation in the project planning and management is to ensure that the deployed system meets the Department’s and bureaus’ 

business needs and enables us to achieve our vision of having a single, integrated 

business system with standardized data and processes across the Department. 

ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY (R.S. 2477)

Question. R.S. 2477 granted rights of way across federal land for the construction 

of public roads. It was repealed in 1976, but significant disagreements between 
141 

Utah counties, BLM, and wilderness advocates have continued. The 10th Circuit 

ruled on this issue in 2005 in BLM’s favor. On March 22, Secretary Norton issued 

guidance to land managers to implement the 10th Circuit’s decision. 

The Department recently announced new guidelines on R.S. 2477. Can you explain why new guidelines are necessary? 

What affect will this have on road construction on federal lands? Will it change 

the way roads are currently managed or change access to federal lands? 

Answer. On March 26, 2006, Secretary Norton announced new guidelines to assist 

Interior land managers in implementing a recent court decision regarding roads 

across federally owned lands. The new guidelines implement the principles outlined 

in the 2005 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management 

(SUWA v. BLM) decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. 

This decision and the new guidelines protect federal lands by clarifying that these 

roads cannot be expanded or significantly improved without consultation with federal land managers. 

SUWA v. BLM clarified many legal issues related to Revised Statute 2477 (R.S. 

2477), which granted rights of way for the construction of public roads across federal 

land. Because of this clarification by the 10th Circuit, Secretary Norton on March 

22 formally revoked the interim Departmental policy on R.S. 2477, issued in 1997. 

In addition, the new guidelines direct the termination of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Department and the State of Utah in April, 

2003. 

R.S. 2477 granted rights of way for public use across federal land prior to 1976, 

when Congress repealed the law. Congress specified that any valid R.S. 2477 rights 

of way existing at the time of the repeal would continue in effect. This has resulted 

in considerable doubt as to whether counties or the federal government own certain 

roads on federal lands. 

In SUWA v. BLM, the 10th Circuit clarified that only courts could finally determine the ownership issue, but that federal agencies are permitted to develop a process to analyze claims for administrative purposes. The decision allows the roads to 

be maintained at status quo and does not authorize automatic expansion. The new 

guidelines clarify how Interior will carry out its obligations following SUWA v. BLM, 

and respect the obligation that Interior has to protect federal lands and environmentally sensitive areas, particularly parks, refuges and congressionally designated 

wilderness areas. For example, under the guidelines a dirt road will remain a dirt 

road and a two-track road will remain a two-track road unless there is a permitting 

process and environmental analysis. 

The new guidelines recognize the special status of national parks, wildlife refuges 

and congressionally designated wilderness areas and direct Interior land managers 

to issue, as necessary, revised instructions or guidance consistent with the SUWA 

v. BLM decision and their obligation to protect federal lands and resources. The new 

guidelines recognize a number of options for Interior land managers to address 

claimed rights of way: 

—where a claimant wishes to do no more than maintain the existing status quo 

of a road and the current use and maintenance are consistent with the land 

manager’s duty to protect the surrounding and underlying federal lands, the 

parties may utilize a road maintenance agreement; 

—where title to the road is already vested in an entity other than the federal government, the parties may utilize a recordable disclaimer, which formalizes that 

the federal government itself does not dispute the entity’s road claim; 

—where a road has an unclear R.S. 2477 status but the land manager and a 

claimant agree on the need for the road, the BLM, pursuant to Title V of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, may grant rights of way irrespective 

of R.S. 2477; 

—where a claimant wishes to perform construction or expand use beyond the status quo, the land manager may make an informal, nonbinding determination 

(NBD) of whether the R.S. 2477 claim is valid and whether the proposed improvements are reasonable and necessary in light of the traditional uses that 

established the claimed right of way. A land manager would allow improvement 

only if the land manager determines that the improvement is consistent with 

the traditional uses and is consistent with Interior’s duty to protect surrounding 

and underlying lands; 

—where a claimant seeks a binding determination of a claimed right of way, the 

claimant may file a quiet title action. A court would then make a determination. 

Before a land manager implements any of the above options, members of the public will be given notice and an opportunity to comment. 
142 

PLAINS INDIAN MUSEUM

Question. The Indian Arts and Crafts Board (IACB) funds three Indian museums, 

one in Browning, MT. The Museum of the Plains Indian in Browning contains many 

culturally and historically important items. It is an important resource for the community and for the entire state of Montana. In last year’s Budget Request, the administration proposed to end funding for the museum in fiscal year 2007. You 

should know that the subcommittee was strongly opposed to that idea, and we included language in the fiscal year 2006 Interior Report advising Interior against it. 

Does the fiscal year 2007 Budget Request propose to close the Museum of the 

Plains Indian? 

Can you assure me that the Department of Interior will work with the local community on a way to enhance this unique asset, rather than continuing to threaten 

to close it? 

Answer. The priority activities of the IACB are to promote Indian crafts and enforce the civil and criminal provisions of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990. 

The need to focus on enforcement is increasing due to evidence that counterfeiting 

of Indian Arts and Crafts is increasing and becoming more sophisticated, as well 

as exhibiting ties to more serious crimes. Violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts 

Act directly impacts the economy of tribes and individual Indians. 

The ability to expand law enforcement will depend in large part on the success 

of efforts to shift Federal funding from operations of the three IACB museums. The 

intention would not be to close the museums, but rather to find partners such as 

Tribes, local community groups or others who would operate the museums and manage those artifacts. Other options under consideration include creation of foundations to support the museums and establishment of relationships with universities. 

Management and engagement in the operation of these museums at the community 

level would enrich the use of the assets. 

In response to the Interior report language, the Department is reconsidering its 

options on how to best address funding issues of the Indian Arts and Craft Board. 

Particular issues include Indian Arts and Crafts Act enforcement and how best to 

improve museum operations to better reflect the mission, activities, and goals of the 

Indian Arts and Crafts Board. 

ENERGY PRODUCTION

Question. Last fall the subcommittee held a hearing to examine the impediments 

to developing oil and gas resources on federal land. One of the main complaints from 

industry has been a major backlog in processing APD’s (applications for permits to 

drill). BLM’s fiscal year 2007 Budget contains $25.4 million in increases for energyrelated programs. 

Can you tell me whether the backlog situation has improved? 

Answer. BLM has made significant improvements in the rate at which APDs are 

being processed. Using past appropriation increases, process improvements from 

streamlining and the new revenue provided for pilot project offices under Section 

365 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the BLM is reducing the number of pending 

APDs even though the demand for APDs continues to increase. The table and graph 

below show the number of APDs received, processed, and pending since 2004 in both 

pilot and non-pilot offices: 

2004 

actual 

2005 

actual 

2006 

estimate 

2007 

estimate 

Pending APDs less than 60 days old at start of year ................ 888 1,082 1,450 1,976 

Pending APDs greater than 60 days old at start of year ........... 2,780 2,214 2,461 1,161 

Total Pending APDs at start of year .............................. 3,668 3,296 3,911 3,137 

New APDs Received ...................................................................... 6,979 8,351 9,386 10,525 

APDs Approved .............................................................................. 6,452 7,018 ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 

Total APDs Processed ...................................................... 7,351 7,736 10,160 11,984 

Pending APDs less than 60 days old at end of year .... 1,082 1,450 1,976 1,678 

Pending APDs greater than 60 days old at end of year 2,214 2,461 1,161 ....................

Total Pending APDs at end of year ................................ 3,296 3,911 3,137 1,678 

1 The number of APDs processed in 2006 includes 410 APDs processed with funds reprogrammed late in fiscal year 2005. The additional 

funds requested in 2007 will enable BLM to process 1,100 more APDs in non-pilot offices than it could at the 2006 base funding level. 
143 

Question. How will this budget proposal continue to support our domestic energy 

production needs? 

Answer. BLM’s budget proposal would implement a number of important sections 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 including those related to energy permit processing 

and improvements in its inspection program and monitoring associated with oil and 

gas development. The budget also makes investments in renewable energy, supports 

the exploration and development of energy on Alaska’s North Slope, and funds the 

testing of gas hydrates, a potentially significant source of natural gas. The budget 

also funds a major environmental analysis needed to support oil shale commercial 

leasing decisions. 

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

Question. Fractionation of individually-held tracts of Indian Trust land continues 

to contribute to the cost and complexity of managing Trust Lands. There are over 

3.2 million individual interests held in Trust by the federal government, many of 

which are incredibly small and difficult to manage. 

One of the single biggest increases in the Department of the Interior’s Budget is $25.4 million for Indian Land Consolidation, which is a 75 percent increase over last 

year’s level. 

How will these funds be allocated in fiscal year 2007? 

How is the decision made on where to direct the funds? 

Are we making progress on this problem or are we continuing to fall behind? 

Answer. The 2007 budget proposes funding of $59.4 million for Indian land consolidation, an increase of $25.4 million, or 75 percent above the 2006 enacted level. 

The $59.4 million will fund an acquisition program of about 80,000 additional 

fractionated interests, an increase of approximately 34,000 above the estimated 

2006 level of acquisition. (The estimates of the number of interests to be acquired 

are based on historical average cost to date. As acquisition activities continue and 

additional targeted interests are acquired, the average cost per acquisition, cost per 

interest, and amount of interests acquired will likely change from the experience to 

date.) 

The Department has demonstrated success over the past several years acquiring 

the highly fractionated interests through the Indian Land Consolidation program. 

Through December 31, 2005, the Department has acquired 202,775 fractional interests in individual Indian allotted lands. 

Based on the activities to date, the Department has determined that a more focused tiered acquisition approach is needed to: 

—Provide a long term strategy for acquisition of highly fractionated interests; 

—Establish a tiered priority process to select which interests to acquire; 

—Achieve the most efficient use of limited resources; and 

—Develop additional tools and an enhanced financing option to address this program. 

As part of this proposal, the Department will implement a tiered acquisition strategy, targeting selected highly fractioned tracts. Based on data available from the 

TAAMS database as of March 2005, there are 2,173 highly fractioned tracts (defined 

as 200 or more interests per tract) owned by 98,905 individuals. A focus on these 

tracts will begin in 2006 and target approximately 1,557 highly fractionated tracts 

that include 520,685 individual interests located in ten geographic locations. 

WILDLAND FIRE/FUELS REDUCTION

Question. The Department’s overall Wildland Fire Budget is $769 million, which 

is a $14 million increase over last year but includes major cuts to core programs— 

particularly an $8.3 million reduction in Hazardous Fuels Reduction and elimination of the $10 million Rural Fire Assistance program, which funds small rural 

fire departments. 

The Committee does not understand how cutting the hazardous fuels program 

squares up with the Administration’s stated goal to increase Forest Health and reduce wildfire risk on our public lands. 

How does the BLM plan to increase the acres of forests treated while reducing 

the dollars used for Hazardous Fuels Reduction? 

Answer. We believe that the hazardous fuels reduction funding request will continue to sustain significant progress toward performance goals. By using new authorities (such as stewardship contracting) to leverage additional resources while 

also more efficiently using existing funds, and by better use of partnerships and collaboration, the bureaus have been able to exceed performance targets the past two 

years. Overall fuels treatment funding for the Federal fire community (including the 

Forest Service) is level with 2006. 
144 

Question. Why eliminate the Rural Fire Assistance program? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service both operate grants programs that provide similar services 

to rural fire departments across the country. The Department of Interior has invested heavily each year since the emergence of the National Fire Plan to help small 

community and rural fire departments with equipment, training, and public education. For the future, we are moving more toward assisting these departments with 

specific wildland fire training to further enhance their response capabilities. Beginning in fiscal year 2006, Preparedness funds have been set aside to implement the 

Ready Reserve program as a pilot project. In 2006, this program is closely aligned 

with the Rural Fire Assistance program, and is designed to expand wildland fire response capability by providing wildland fire training and technical assistance to 

local and rural fire department personnel. The 2007 DOI request for Preparedness 

continues the $1.9 million set aside for advancing the Ready Reserve concept. The 

2007 Interior budget does propose to terminate the Rural Fire Assistance program; 

however, the Department will continue ongoing efforts to work with the Department 

of Homeland Security to meet the needs of rural fire departments for basic training 

and equipment through the much larger DHS Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. The Department recently updated an existing agreement with DHS that will 

ensure a greater role for the wildland fire agencies in reviewing grants to rural fire 

departments through programs DHS administers. As part of this enhanced collaboration, the two Departments now link websites to better direct rural fire departments seeking grants to available funding. 

Question. Aren’t state and local fire departments critical in helping fight fire on 

federal lands? 

Answer. The Department does rely on State and local fire departments, particularly in remote areas where DOI firefighting resources may be several hours away 

from the land they protect. As explained above, DOI recognizes the importance of 

these departments and continues to focus available resources on providing training 

and safety gear. In fiscal year 2005, the DOI and USDA Forest Service assistance 

programs provided technical assistance, training, supplies, and equipment to nearly 

11,000 small rural communities, and the Departments entered into cooperative 

agreements with many rural and volunteer fire departments for the protection of 

both communities and natural resources. The Department will continue to rely on 

collaboratively developed mutual aid agreements with State and local jurisdictions 

to support firefighting efforts. 

Question. The BLM is asking for the 10-year average for suppression, or $257 mil- lion, which is $26 million more than last year. This is a significant increase in tight 

budgetary times. How can we bring down these costs? 

Answer. We are employing a range of tactics to address high fire costs. In some 

cases, keeping fires small through successful initial attack may make the most 

sense. In these cases, quick suppression response avoids higher suppression costs 

on extended attack, significant resource damage, loss of economic benefits from tourism and resource-dependent industries, and loss of community infrastructure. 

Question. In many other locations and situations, however, different fire management situations may be appropriate. Continuing to emphasize both Wildland Fire 

Use (WFU) and Appropriate Management Response (AMR) strategies may provide 

the means to better control the rising costs of wildfire suppression. Wildland Fire 

Use is the management of naturally ignited fires to achieve resource benefits. These 

fires generally require fewer management resources so are less expensive than suppression fires. DOI increased its use of WFU fires from 170,000 acres in 2004 to 

more than 197,000 acres in 2005, and plans to continue to emphasize this strategy 

where possible in 2006. Appropriate Management Response may involve selecting 

suppression strategies that do not involve containing a wildfire to the smallest size 

possible because of safety reasons or because less-aggressive suppression can be 

more cost-effective. AMR balances the allocation of suppression resources with the 

level of risk a wildfire poses to the public or resources. 

The use of fewer suppression resources reduces costs of not only suppression operations but also of the cost to repair resource damage caused by suppression operations. In areas in which AMR is an appropriate tactic, larger areas may burn, reducing both wildland fuels and the potential for large, destructive, and expensive 

wildland fires in future years. 

Do you have any specific proposals to reduce suppression costs? 

Answer. Both Wildland Fire Use and Appropriate Management Response are critical strategies under the Fire Program Analysis planning system, currently in development. Shifting fire management resources in a cost-effective manner is an underpinning of this system. Under these strategies more resources will be allocated to 

high priority wildfires that threaten public safety, property, and resources. Fewer 
145 

resources will be allocated to wildfires that are less threatening, resulting in more 

efficient use of available resources. 

Interagency teams from both DOI and USDA Forest Service are currently addressing specific recommendations to manage large fire costs. These efforts, under 

the guidance of the Wildland Fire Leadership Council, will be reported to the Council at the next meeting. A preliminary report is expected this summer and will be 

shared with the Committee. 

Over the long term, hazardous fuels reduction will play a key role in controlling 

wildfire suppression costs. In total, the DOI and Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction programs are treating more acres, and more critical acres, in Wildland 

Urban Interface areas each year. 

AML FEE EXTENSION

Question. The fiscal year 2007 Budget contains a proposal to extend the AML fee 

from October 1, 2006 through Oct. 1 2007. However, since the AML fee is set to 

expire on June 30, 2006, there is a 3 month gap in the collection. In June, the unappropriated balance of the AML Trust Fund will be $1.85 billion. Currently, interest 

earned on the unused portion of the AML fund is transferred to the United Mine 

Workers Combined Benefit Fund. 

The authority to collect the AML fee expires in June 2006. If the authorization 

for the fee collection is not extended, what will be the effect on the Combined Benefit Fund? 

Answer. In accordance with the existing provisions of Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act, OSM is obligated to set the fee at a rate sufficient to ensure that 

the UMWA Combined Benefit Fund continues to receive annual transfers to defray 

the costs of providing health care benefits to unassigned beneficiaries under that 

plan. Should the fee not be extended, OSM is prepared to promulgate a rule implementing that provision. This rule would only take effect if the collection authority 

is allowed to expire. 

Question. What will be the impact on abandoned mine reclamation? 

Answer. If the AML fee is not reauthorized, only about 23 percent of the estimated $3.0 billion needed to reclaim the coal related health and safety hazards remaining could be eliminated with the remaining unappropriated funds available for 

high priority coal work. More than 2.1 million citizens would remain at risk to the 

health and safety coal related problems of abandoned coal mines. 

DELAYS IN TRIBAL RECOGNITION

Question. The Committee is concerned about delays in the recognition process for 

Indian Tribes. For example, the Little Shell Tribe in Montana received a proposed 

favorable finding for recognition in 2000, and no progress has been made in the intervening years to finalize that finding. 

What is the cause of the delay in this case? 

Is this kind of delay typical around the country? 

What measures are you taking to expedite the process? 

Answer. The Federal Acknowledgment regulations govern the Department’s administrative process for determining which groups are ‘‘Indian Tribes’’ within the 

meaning of Federal law. To be Federally acknowledged the petitioner must meet 

seven mandatory criteria, which the Office of Federal Acknowledgement must 

verify. Anthropologists, genealogists, and historians in OFA review, verify, and 

evaluate petitions from groups seeking Federal acknowledgement. A final determination that a group is an Indian tribe means, among other things, that is has 

continuously existed as a tribe, has inherent sovereignty, and is entitled to a government-to-government relationship with the United States. OFA makes a recommendation whether to acknowledge a group to the Assistant Secretary—Indian 

Affairs, who has been delegated the authority to make the decision. 

The Little Shell Tribe first applied for recognition in 1984, and received preliminary approval in 2000. After receiving preliminary approval the regulations require 

a 180 day comment period. Little Shell asked for and received ten extensions on the 

comment period, as well as a suspension, in order to collect additional documentation necessary for final approval. During that time OFA held a number of technical 

assistance meetings with Little Shell to assist them in preparing their final draft 

petition. Little Shell submitted a final draft of their petition in 2005. Meanwhile Little Shell is still working on collecting additional evidence, primarily membership 

lists. 

The Little Shell petition is in the ‘‘Ready, waiting for active consideration’’ category. Little Shell was informed that their petition would be put into this category 

due to the number of extensions and the suspension they requested and were grant-
146 

ed. OFA expects to place the Little Shell petition in the active consideration category in 2007. 

The delay experienced by the Little Shell is not typical. Their petition has been 

delayed due to their record number of requests for extensions and suspension while 

they collected necessary evidence. Nationwide there are currently ten petitions 

under active consideration; ten petitions are under ‘‘ready and waiting for active 

consideration’’ status; two are in post decision appeal process; and one is in litigation. There are 232 petitions that are not ready for evaluation: 70 are incomplete; 

146 are only letters of intent; ten are no longer in contact; and six require legislation to permit processing under 25 CFR Part 83. 

OFA recently added a fourth professional research team with administrative support and associated infrastructure. With the additional research team, OFA will 

produce four proposed findings and four final determinations or reconsidered final 

determinations per year to address the petitions that are current on the ‘‘Active 

Consideration’’ and ‘‘Ready, Waiting for Active Consideration’’ priority lists. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Endangered Species 

Question. Please justify the request of $100,000 for the ongoing wolf monitoring 

effort in the Snake River Basin. If the State of Idaho has subcontracted with the 

Nez Perce Tribe to monitor wolves, why is it necessary to continue to direct 

$295,000 of Service base funds to the tribe? 

Answer. The $100,000 will be used by the Fish and Wildlife Service Snake River 

Basin Office for personnel and equipment, such as radio collars, capture equipment, 

and aircraft time. The Nez Perce Tribe, under cooperative agreement with the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and in cooperation with the State of Idaho, conducts the dayto-day, on-the-ground monitoring, outreach, information and education and assisting 

with control actions of wolf populations in the North Central Idaho Experimental 

Nonessential Population Area. The State of Idaho is responsible for the day-to-day 

operations in the remainder of the State. The Service believes it is necessary to direct these resources to the Nez Perce for its participation in the wolf recovery program in Idaho. 

Question. The committee is concerned about the Service’s $493,000 reduction request for recovery of Lahontan cutthroat trout—particularly since this species is not 

yet recovered. Please itemize the Service’s proposed expenditures in fiscal year 2007 

towards recovery of this species. 

Answer. Lahontan cutthroat trout were extirpated from Pyramid Lake, Walker 

Lake, and Lake Tahoe by the mid 1940’s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have 

been working with multiple state, federal, and local entities for the last 5 years to: 

—Further our understanding of available populations for use in reestablishment, 

primarily through genetic conservation research and brood stock development 

at Lahontan National Fish Hatchery; 

—Improve our understanding of habitat utilization by Lahontan cutthroat trout, 

primarily through radio telemetry research, population monitoring, and spawning habitat assessments; and 

—Implement watershed connectivity projects to improve opportunities for 

Lahontan cutthroat trout to reestablish in the future. 

The FWS is in the early stages of projects in each of the three basins but making 

great strides through strategic use of the 2006 funding. The funds have allowed the 

FWS to build strong support for Lahontan cutthroat trout conservation and recovery. But the FWS still has important and critical work left to do to establish populations through work with our partners. 

In 2007, utilizing Recovery funding, the Service plans to initiate the following actions: 

(1) A second year of the radio telemetry study on the Truckee River, in partnership with the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, 

to improve our understanding of the distribution and movement of Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Truckee River system. $60,000 

(2) Continued efforts to reintroduce Lahontan cutthroat trout to Fallen Leaf Lake 

to improve our understanding of how Lahontan cutthroat trout use historic lake 

habitats. Research to build a survivorship model for different size classes. $120,000 

(3) Streamside incubation of the Pilot Peak strain of Lahontan cutthroat trout on 

the McCarran restoration project, in partnership with The Nature Conservancy and 

the Pyramid Lake Paiute tribe, to imprint Lahontan cutthroat trout to the Truckee 

River so they return to migrate and spawn. $70,000 

(4) Performance evaluation of the Pilot Peak strain of Lahontan cutthroat trout 

in Pyramid Lake in partnership with the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe. $80,000 
147 

(5) Development of a Lahontan cutthroat trout rearing pond and streamside incubation project in coordination with the historic State hatchery restoration project at 

Lake Tahoe, in partnership with University of California, Davis and the local community at Tahoe City. $163,000 

The President’s budget request includes an increase in 2007 for two Fisheries 

Operational Needs System (FONS) projects within Hatchery operations: a massmarking program for the reintroduction of Lahontan cutthroat trout into historic 

habitats in Walker Lake, Truckee River and the Tahoe Basin ($180,000); and, 

Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery, in partnership with the Community of Fallen 

Leak Lake and the Forest Service, which will focus on the continued recovery needs 

of the species in Fallen Leaf Lake located in the Tahoe Basin ($32,000). These 

FONS projects concentrate on hatchery related activities addressing hatchery production and related hatchery costs identified by the program as a priority but for 

which funds have been unavailable. These projects and the activities described 

above are complimentary and contribute to recovery of Lahontan cutthroat. 

Habitat Conservation 

Question. Please explain and justify how the administration and implementation 

of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program varies by region. 

Answer. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is executed by each Regional 

Director within the Fish and Wildlife Service. Each Regional Director designates a 

manager for the program. The Assistant Regional Director for Ecological Services 

manages the program in Regions 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and the California Nevada Operations 

Office, and the Regional Refuge Chief manage the program in Regions 3 and 6. Regardless of where management responsibilities reside in the Regions, the program 

is bounded by the policies described in section 640 FW1 of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Manual. Each regional coordinator is responsible for providing guidance to 

the field regarding all current policies, procedures, or national directives issued by 

the Washington Office; collecting data on the accomplishments, costs, and benefits 

of the Region’s activities; developing, administering, and monitoring multi-State 

partnership agreements; conducting oversight reviews of field stations; and developing regional budget allocation recommendations for all program activities and stations. 

Question. What is the role of the Project Planning Program in the implementation 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005? Given this country’s commitment towards energy 

independence, why is the Service proposing a $1 million cut to the program? 

Answer. The Service’s Project Planning Program provides our federal, state, and 

local partners with biological expertise to support many different types of development and conservation projects across the country. Project Planning is the ‘‘environmental streamlining’’ arm of the Service and plays a central role in advancing energy, transportation, water, and restoration projects—all Administration priorities. 

The Program’s mission is to help expeditiously create ‘‘win-win’’ projects for economic development of fish and wildlife conservation. 

The Service’s role in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 addresses several major energy 

issues which include: the development, study and incentives for renewable energy 

sources, oil, and gas. The Service is currently involved with the planning and implementation of four key provisions of theEnergy Policy Act: Sections 241, 365, 368, 

and 1834. Section 241 requires that an interagency rule be developed to provide an 

appeal process for all parties to challenge submitted alternative hydropower project 

conditions or prescriptions. Section 365 requires that an interagency memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental 

Protection Agency, and Bureau of Land Management be developed. The MOU, 

signed by the Secretaries of Department of Agriculture, Interior, Army, and Administrator of the EPA, dedicates several Service staff to BLM field offices to expedite 

and streamline oil and gas permitting process on BLM lands. Section 368 directs 

the Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture, and the Interior to prepare a Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate issues associated with the designation 

of energy corridors on federal lands in eleven Western states. Section 1834 directs 

the Secretaries of the Interior and Army to: (1) develop a study evaluating the potential for increased hydroelectric generation at existing federal facilities, and (2) report the study results to Congress by February 2007. Project Planning expects to 

continue collaboration and assistance with involved agencies and bureaus to expediently accomplish these Energy Policy Act provisions. 

The $1 million reduction in Project Planning includes a $262,000 reduction associated with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission actions in the Northwest Forest 

Plan area (Oregon, Washington, and California). Savings of $76,000 will be realized 

by streamlinging program administrative support activities. The remaining requested reduction eliminates the earmarks of $542,000 for the Middle Rio Grande 
148 

Bosque Initiative, and $99,000 for the Cedar City, Utah ES Office.The FWS will 

continue to work with partners to help obtain funding from other sources and continue to work with partners on critical projects as funding allows. 

The Service is committed to continuing to meet our responsibilities on our energy 

workload and will focus on providing biological assistance on high priority projects 

and those with the greatest conservation benefit. 

Question. Please provide an update of the CBRA mapping pilot project. 

Answer. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 directed the 

Service to complete a Digital Mapping Pilot Project that includes: (1) digitally produced maps for between 50 and 75 Coastal Barrier Resources System areas; and (2) 

a report to Congress that describes the results of the pilot project and the feasibility, 

data needs, and costs of completing digital maps for all CBRS areas. The Service 

is mapping a total of 60 existing CBRS areas as part of the pilot project. We anticipate the pilot project draft maps and report will be completed and delivered to Congress in 2006. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Question. The National Park Service employees the resources of a Service-wide Inventory and Monitoring Program at 270 parks, in order to track the status and 

trends of species diversity, abundance and distribution. This is a high priority for 

the Park Service, who has requested a $1 million increase for fiscal year 2007. To 

what extent is there a similar program on National Wildlife Refuges? Given that 

a primary focus of the Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Program is monitoring and assessment, what role does or can this program have? Is there an ecological benefit to having a coordinated program, particularly on federal lands residing 

within common ecosystem boundaries? 

Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not have an inventory and monitoring 

program within the National Wildlife Refuge System similar to that of the National 

Park Service. The NPS model involves clustered parks with assigned scientists 

working with each cluster to develop protocols and databases and collect data. 

FWS does have important inventorying and monitoring requirements, but some 

of its priorities are different than those of NPS. While there is a role in the NWRS 

for landscape-scale and Systemwide monitoring similar to that of NPS, refuges have 

a much greater need than NPS for station-specific monitoring. Most refuge lands in 

the contiguous U.S. are intensively manipulated, either to restore indigenous habitats or to provide for the needs of specific species or guilds of species. Parks do some 

land management (mostly around prescribed fire or control of invasive species), but 

such activities are much more extensive on refuges, and so refuges need more site 

specific monitoring than NPS to track the success of such actions. 

During the last 10 years, the NWRS has improved its inventorying and monitoring activities on a landscape-scale and on site-specific efforts. This has included 

more rigorous policy guidelines, increasingly focused efforts aligned with adaptive 

management, increased technical assistance to field stations (including web-based 

tools), efforts to standardize databases and protocols, and attempts to capitalize on 

successful efforts like those of the NPS. The NWRS is also exploring the adaptation 

of many elements of the NPS program including the NPSpecies program, some aspects of their ARC GIS platform applications, some of their web-based tools, and 

possibly some of their nomenclature standards. 

Monitoring is only one of a broad range of responsibilities assigned to the Fish 

and Wildlife Management Assistance Program. Others include technical assistance 

to other Federal agencies, tribes, and States; fish passage restoration; outreach and 

education; and elements of subsistence management in Alaska. Based on the NWRS 

ability to monitor and cooperate with other partners, the FWMA program is probably not the best candidate for an exclusively collaborative monitoring effort with 

NWRS. Some cooperative efforts already exist across FWS programs, most notably 

related to migratory birds, where, for example, refuges contribute to mid-winter waterfowl surveys coordinated by the Migratory Bird Program in conjunction with 

State wildlife agencies. If appropriate to a data need and study design, other collaborative efforts might be designed with the Management Assistance or Endangered Species Programs. 

There is value to coordinated monitoring efforts in some cases, particularly if it 

is designed to address focused objectives. 

Activity Based Costing 

Question. Please explain what activity based costing is, what it measures, and 

how the data were used to justify almost $2 million in administrative savings. Provide for the record a complete list of all activities measured. 
149 

Answer. Activity Based Costing and Management (ABC/M) is a cost accounting 

and management tool that will provide the Service with improved visibility into the 

full costs of daily operations and outputs. It is expected that ABC/M data will be 

used extensively across the FWS and DOI for process improvement, budget formulation and justification, and performance measurement in upcoming fiscal years. Employees define the work that must be completed to achieve the outputs and outcomes identified in the GPRA Performance Plan. The work is broken into activities 

that describe the consumption of resources or cost associated with doing that work. 

The Service’s ABC system has 176 codes for different work activities. This is not 

a new financial accounting system, but a costing approach that provides a different, 

more effective way to view and interpret managerial cost and performance information—rather than report costs just by object class or division, ABC/M assigns resources to work activities so they can be viewed from an operating business process 

perspective. The Service first identified a target of reducing $2 million in program administration, and then used ABC data to help determine the distribution of the reduction. 

The categorized list of activities follows: 

Process 1: Protect and Manage Species 

Protect and Manage Candidate, T&E and CITES Species 

Manage Candidate Species and Prevent the Listing of Species 

A2: Plan and Implement Candidate Conservation Actions 

A3: Evaluate Species for Candidate Status 

List Endangered Species 

B2: Prepare and Process Listing Petitions 

B3: Prepare and Process Listing Rules for US/Domestic Species 

B4: Prepare and Process Critical Habitat Rules for US/Domestic Species 

B5: Provide Litigation Support for Listing of US/Domestic Species 

B6: Prepare and Process Foreign Listings 

Develop Recovery Plans or Special Rules for Endangered Species 

C2: Develop Recovery Plans for T&E Species 

C3: Prepare, Process and Implement Special 4d, Experimental Population and 

Other Rules for T&E Species 

C4: Conduct 5-Year Reviews 

C5: Prepare and Process Delisting/Downlisting Petitions 

C6: Prepare and Process Delisting/Downlisting Rules 

Conduct Recovery Actions 

D2: Implement Recovery Actions for T&E Species 

D3: Plan and Implement Post-Delisting Monitoring 

D4: Provide Litigation Support for Recovery Actions 

Provide ESA (Section 7) Consultations 

E2: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Wildland Fire to Service and 

Other Federal Agencies 

E3: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Water Use to Other Federal 

Agencies 

E4: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Hydropower to Other Federal 

Agencies 

E5: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Forage to Other Federal Agencies 

E6: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Forest Resources to Other Federal Agencies 

E7: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Non-Energy Minerals to Other 

Federal Agencies 

E8: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Energy to Other Federal Agencies 

E9: Provide ESA Section 7 Consultations for Recreation to Other Federal 

Agencies 

EA: Provide All Other ESA Section 7 Consultations to Other Federal Agencies 

EB: Provide ESA Section 7 Intra-Service Consultations to Service Programs 

except for Wildland Fire 

EC: Provide Litigation Support for Section 7 Consultations to Service and 

Other Federal Agencies 

Evaluate Need for, Process and Monitor Permits, Agreements and Assurances 

for T&E Species 

F2: Evaluate Need for, Process and Monitor HCP Permit Applications 

F3: Process and Monitor Safe Harbor Permit Applications 

F4: Process and Monitor Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances 
150 

F5: Process and Monitor Recovery Permits for T&E Species 

F6: Provide Litigation Support for Permitting Actions of T&E Species 

Conduct Law Enforcement for T&E and CITES Listed Species 

G2: Conduct and Assist with Law Enforcement Investigations for T&E and 

CITES Listed Species 

G3: Conduct Import/Export Inspections for T&E and CITES Listed Species 

Protect and Manage Non T&E Species 

H2: Process Non-T&E Litigation for Resource Protection 

Reintroduce or Enhance Non T&E Species 

J2: Produce and Reintroduce Aquatic Species for Non T&E Species Conservation 

J3: Develop New Aquatic Technologies for Non T&E Species 

J4: Conduct Disease Monitoring and Treatment for Non T&E Species 

J5: Conduct Terrestrial Wildlife Population Management 

Plan Resources for Non T&E Species 

K2: Develop Species Management Plans for Non T&E Species 

K3: Develop Bird Conservation Plans for Non T&E Species 

Manage Harvest and Take for Non T&E Species 

L2: Develop Bird Regulations 

L3: Manage Migratory Bird Populations 

L4: Manage Harvest for Fisheries 

L5: Manage Marine Mammal Harvest and Take 

L6: Manage Alaska Subsistence Harvest Other Than Marine Mammals 

Monitor Status of Non T&E Species 

M2: Survey, Assess and Monitor Non T&E Aquatic Species 

M3: Conduct Migratory Bird Harvest Surveys 

M4: Conduct Migratory Bird Surveys and Monitoring 

M5: Assess Migratory Bird Populations 

M6: Conduct Migratory Bird Research 

M7: Survey, Assess, Monitor Non T&E Wildlife and Plants Other Than 

Aquatic and Migratory Bird Species 

Prevent, Manage and Control Invasive Species 

N2: Prevent, Manage and Control Non-Native, Invasive, Terrestrial Plants 

N3: Prevent, Manage and Control Non-Native, Invasive Terrestrial Animals 

N4: Prevent, Manage and Control Invasive Aquatic Plants 

N5: Prevent, Manage and Control Invasive Aquatic Animals 

Process Permits 

P2: Process Migratory Bird Permits 

P3: Process Permits for Rights of Way 

P4: Process Refuge Special Use Permits 

P5: Process International Trade Permits, Domestic Permits and Special Use 

Permits 

P6: Process Import and Export Licenses 

P7: Process Designated Port Exception Permits 

Conduct Law Enforcement for Non T&E and Non CITES Listed Species 

Q2: Conduct and Assist with Law Enforcement for Non T&E and Non CITES 

Listed Species 

Q3: Conduct Import/Export Inspections of Non T&E and Non CITES Listed 

Species 

Q4: Conduct Refuge Patrol and Enforcement 

Q5: Provide Forensics Support for Law Enforcement 

Protect Foreign Species 

R2: Implement Provisions of the Western Hemisphere Convention 

R3: Participate in Activities for the Trilateral Committee 

R4: Implement CITES Treaty, Directives, and Related International Obligations 

and Develop Related Policies 

R5: Implement Provisions of Other Bilateral and Multinational Agreements, 

Treaties, Accords and Orders 

Process 2: Protect and Manage Habitats 

Develop Habitat Plans 

S2: Develop Land Protection Plans 

S3: Develop Comprehensive Conservation Plans 

S4: Develop Strategic Landscape Based Plans and Projects 

S5: Develop Habitat Management Plans 

Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Habitats 

T2: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Wetlands 

T3: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Uplands 
151 

T4: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Riparian/Stream Habitats 

T5: Inventory, Assess, and Monitor Marine/Coastal Habitats 

Manage and Protect Lands and Habitats 

U2: Acquire and Manage Real Estate 

U3: Acquire Easements 

U4: Exchange or Dispose of Lands 

U5: Manage Wilderness Areas 

U6: Manage Water Quality and Quantity 

Manage and Protect Habitats 

V2: Manage and Protect Wetlands 

V3: Manage and Protect Uplands 

V4: Manage and Protect Riparian/Stream Habitats 

V5: Manage and Protect Marine and Coastal Habitats 

Restore and Enhance Habitats 

W2: Restore Wetlands 

W3: Restore Uplands 

W4: Restore Riparian/Stream Habitats 

W5: Restore Marine and Coastal Habitats 

Ensure Environmental Compliance 

Ensure Environmental Quality and Safety 

X2: Evaluate and Audit Environmental Safety and Compliance 

X3: Conduct Contaminant Assessments 

X4: Clean up Contaminated Service Lands 

X5: Ensure Air Quality 

Respond to Hazardous Waste Issues and Spills 

Y2: Prepare for and Implement Spill Response Plans 

Y3: Review Hazardous Waste Actions 

Y4: Conduct Natural Resource Damage Assessments 

Conduct Environmental Review for Customers 

Z2: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for Federal Projects, Plans, 

and Permits 

Z3: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for FERC Hydropower 

Projects—Municipal (MUN) 

Z4: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for FERC Hydropower 

Projects—Non-Municipal (PUB) 

Z5: Review and Develop Environmental Provisions for FERC Hydropower 

Projects—Non-Specific (COM) 

Z6: Manage Oil and Gas Activities 

Manage Fire Operations 

2A: Prepare for Wildland Fires 

2B: Prepare Fire Management Plans 

2C: Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Prescribed Fire (Non-WUI) 

2D: Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Mechanical (Non-WUI) 

2E: Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Other Methods (Non-WUI) 

2F: Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Prescribed Fire (WUI) 

2G: Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Mechanical (WUI) 

2H: Reduce Hazardous Fuels—Other Methods (WUI) 

2J: Suppress Wildland Fires (Non-WUI) 

2K: Suppress Wildland Fires (WUI) 

2L: Stabilize Burned Areas 

2M: Rehabilitate Lands Damaged by Wildland Fire 

2N: Monitor and Evaluate Fuels Reduction and Post-Fire Rehabilitation 

Manage and Preserve Cultural Resources and Museum Items 

3A: Manage and Protect Cultural and Heritage Resources 

3B: Manage and Protect Museum Items 

Process 3: Serve People 

Provide Opportunities for Recreation and Community Partnerships 

4A: Provide and Manage Opportunities for Quality Wildlife Dependent Recreation 

4B: Provide and Manage Opportunities for Other Public Uses 

4C: Develop Visitor Services Plan 

4D: Process Litigation for Recreation 

Communicate with Stakeholders, and Inform and Educate Others 

5A: Conduct External Relations—Media, Congressional, and Other 

5B: Develop and Provide Information and Educational Materials and Activities 

5C: Manage Volunteers and Community Partnerships 

5D: Develop and Manage Partnerships 
152 

5E: Consult and Coordinate with Native American Tribes 

Provide Security and Crime Prevention for Off-Service Lands 

6A: Provide Emergency Response and Public Safety Operations 

6B: Conduct Security Activities 

Process 4: Administer Grants 

7A: Administer Endangered Species Act Grants 

7B: Administer Federal Assistance Grants 

7C: Administer Migratory Bird Grants 

7D: Administer Multinational Species Conservation Fund Grants 

7E: Administer Other Domestic and International Grants and Co-operative 

Agreements 

7F: Monitor Grant Programs and Projects 

7G: Monitor Grant Fiscal Processes 

7H: Protect License Fees 

Process 5: Construct and Manage Facilities and Equipment 

8A: Provide Leased Space Operations and Program Management 

8B: Construct Buildings 

8C: Construct Roads, Bridges, Tunnels 4 8D: Construct Dams and Water 

Storage Facilities 

8E: Construct Water Conveyance Facilities 

8F: Construct All Other Structures and Facilities 

8G: Maintain Buildings 

8H: Maintain Roads 

8J: Maintain Bridges 

8K: Maintain Dams and Water Storage Facilities 

8L: Maintain Water Conveyance Facilities 

8M: Maintain All Other Structures and Facilities 

8N: Maintain Equipment 

8P: Inventory DOI Facilities and Assess Facility Condition 

Process 6: Provide Management and Administrative Functions 

Provide Management and Policy Oversight 

9A: Provide Directorate Leadership and Oversight 

9B: Conduct Policies and Directives Management 

Manage Human Capital 

9C: Administer Pay and Benefits 

9D: Administer Employee and Labor Relations 

9E: Administer External Civil Rights 

9F: Administer Internal Civil Rights 

9G: Administer Recruitment, Staffing and Ensure Diversity 

9H: Conduct Workforce Planning 

9J: Evaluate and Counsel Personnel 

9K: Manage Professional Responsibility (Internal Affairs) 

Manage Information Resources 

9L: Plan IT Investments 

9M: Acquire IT Investments 

9N: Secure IT 

9P: Operate, Maintain and Manage IT Investments 

Manage Budget, Finance and Performance 

9Q: Develop and Allocate Budgets 

9R: Perform Financial Management Operations 

9S: Conduct Strategic Planning and Performance Management 

9T: Collect and Analyze Activity Based Costing Information 

9U: Conduct Competitive Sourcing Initiatives 

Provide Other Support 

9V: Administer Occupational Safety and Health 

9W: Manage Purchases, Contracts and Acquisitions 

9X: Provide Office Support 

9Y: Manage Records, Files, Mailrooms and Libraries/Info. Services 

9Z: Process Information Quality, FOIA, Privacy Act and Liability Requests/ 

Claims 

Manage and Attend Training 

92: Develop and Deliver Training 

93: Attend Training 
153 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Historic Preservation Fund 

Question. Please provide a table showing the funding history for Grants-in-Aid to 

States and Territories versus Grants-in-Aid to Tribes, along with the number of 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, for the last ten years. 

Answer. The table below shows appropriated funding for Grants-in-Aid to States 

and Territories, Grants-in-Aid to Tribes, and the number of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices eligible to receive an HPF tribal grant at the beginning of each fiscal 

year from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2006. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND—GRANTS-IN-AID TO STATES AND TERRITORIES AND INDIAN TRIBE: 

FISCAL YEAR 1997–FISCAL YEAR 2006 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal years— 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Grants-in-Aid to 

State and Territories .................. 29,394 29,394 31,394 31,598 46,495 39,000 33,779 34,570 35,500 35,717 

Grants-in-Aid to Indian Tribes ........ 1,896 2,296 2,596 2,572 5,560 3,000 2,981 2,963 3,205 3.941 

Eligible Tribal Historic Preservation 

Offices ............... [17] [19] [22] [27] [29] [35] [45] [52] [58] [58] 

ONPS: Resource Stewardship 

Question. To what extent does research funded through the Natural Resources Research Support Program get published in peer-reviewed literature? What policies 

are in place to ensure that research on National Parks is made publicly available? 

Answer. A small portion, less than ten percent, of funding under the Natural Resources Research Support Program are dedicated to research performed internally 

by the NPS. The majority of Natural Resources Research funding provides research 

support for air quality, Research Learning Centers, Cooperative Ecosystem Studies 

Units, and the National Cave and Karst Research Institute. Internal NPS research 

is limited to specialized air quality and visibility research, a discipline not sufficiently covered by the USGS Biological Resource Discipline or other Federal agencies. In 2005, 13 professional papers were published in peer-reviewed literature, 

while 14 additional papers were submitted for publication and have yet to be published due to the extended period that routinely occurs between submission and 

publication. In addition, NPS researchers chaired six sessions during, and made 

more than 50 presentations to, professional conferences attended by their peers. 

Research on natural resources in units of the National Park System is either 

NPS-conducted or sponsored research designed to assist park managers in achieving 

desired resource conditions provided for in law or approved planning documents, or 

non-NPS research. The importance of peer review to both of these research categories is supported by current NPS policy and program guidance. NPS policy specifies that NPS-conducted or sponsored research is to comply with both professional 

standards, and with general and park-specific research permit conditions. NPS personnel are to make their findings available to the public, such as by publication in 

professional journals or presentation in interpretive programs (2001 NPS Management Policies, 4.2.1). NPS natural resource program guidance states that research 

must be scientifically valid and tested through peer review (1991 NPS–77 Natural 

Resource Management Guideline, 5.5). This guidance also supports publishing the 

results of research in primary scientific literature, noting that the peer review inherent in the publication process is critically important in maintaining the quality 

of research conducted in the National Park System (1991 NPS–77 Natural Resource 

Management Guideline, 5.10.). 

Independent, non-NPS research conducted in parks is performed pursuant to an 

NPS scientific research and collecting permit. Such research must conform to NPS 

policies and guidelines regarding the publication of data and the specific requirements identified in the terms and conditions of the permit. Independent researchers 

must be fully qualified and conform to current standards of scholarship—standards 

that routinely include peer-review requirements on research results. 
154 

Information derived from natural resource research can reach the public through 

interpretive and education programs, Research Learning Centers, various Internetaccessible information resources, and integration with park planning documents. In 

conjunction its renewed commitment to interpretation and education in 2003, the 

NPS established that interpretive programs would be based on sound scholarship 

content, methods, and audience analysis, and were to be informed by the latest research related to natural and cultural heritage (2003 Renewing Our Education Mission). The searchable web-based Investigators Annual Reports contained in the NPS 

Research Permit and Reporting System database span the full range of studies authorized to be conducted in parks (http://science.nature.nps.gov/research/ac/ 

ResearchIndex). 

Applicable NPS policy and standards incorporate by reference those described 

within the Office of Management and Budget’s final guidelines and the Department 

of the Interior’s guidelines on information quality (2002 Directors Order#11B: Ensuring Quality of Information Disseminated by the National Park Service). 

Question. Do the Exotic Plant Management Teams work outside park boundaries? 

If not, why not? How is the work coordinated at a watershed or ecosystem level? 

Answer. The National Park Service does not have authority to expend funds appropriated for the Operation of the National Park System on non-NPS lands. A February 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that the NPS was the 

only major Federal land management agency lacking authority to expend such funds 

outside its boundaries even when a direct benefit would exist to natural resources 

within a park. This lack of consistency among Federal agencies was cited by GAO 

as a barrier to effective control of invasive species on Federal and non-Federal 

lands. 

The Natural Resource Protection Cooperative Agreement Act (HR 4294) introduced in the House, and a similar bill (S. 1288) introduced in the Senate, are designed to remedy this situation by authorizing the NPS to enter into cooperative 

agreements with states, local governments, tribal governments, organizations, 

groups and private landowners. Both of these bills will allow the NPS to participate 

using ONPS funding in collaborative activities on lands both inside and outside the 

National Park System, as long as it ‘‘shall provide clear and direct benefits to park 

natural resources’’. This is similar to existing authorities for other Federal land 

management agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Should this legislation be enacted, it would permit the NPS to participate in cooperative weed management programs at both local and landscape scales, 

so long as there is a clear and direct link to park resources. 

Broad scale cooperation among Federal, State and private interests at the watershed, ecosystem and landscape levels is an important component of invasive species 

management. Currently, the NPS is a recognized national leader in cooperative 

weed management programs due largely to the effectiveness and efficiency of its 

EPMTs. As an example, in the Yellowstone National Park area, invasive plants are 

managed in concert across three national parks, six national forests, two wildlife 

refuges, three states, several counties and numerous private landowners. Likewise, 

‘‘Team Tamarisk’’, a partnership with several Federal agencies, State and local entities, and the EPMT stationed at Lake Mead National Recreation Area, has produced 

effective tamarisk weed management across watershed and agency boundaries. Coordinated early detection and rapid response is a key element in combating the establishment of new invasive plant species. The Alaska interagency cooperative weed 

group is an example of this strategy, with the NPS and other cooperating agencies 

continuously working to identify new exotic plant infestations and remove them before they can become widespread. 

Coordination across Department of the Interior bureaus supports ecosystem and 

landscape level efforts to control invasive species. A key aspect of this inter-bureau 

coordination has been the role of senior level management in the effort. The approach used by ‘‘Team Tamarisk’’ for integrated invasive plant management across 

administrative boundaries is the model for planning and coordinating multi-bureau 

efforts in priority geographic areas to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of 

investments. Direct meetings between four NPS regional directors and their counterparts in other DOI bureaus have either been held or are scheduled in the near 

future to advance this coordination. 

NPS EPMTs have worked cooperatively on National Wildlife Refuge System lands 

under interagency agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on 

invasive plant control projects. These projects were funded with FWS appropriations. NPS EPMTs have also worked on local lands, such as in Clark County, NV, 

when funding was provided by the county government for invasive plant control and 

the control efforts benefited park lands. 
155 

ONPS: Facility Operations and Maintenance 

Question. Please explain how a proposed $10 million reduction in the Repair and 

Rehabilitation Program, coupled with a proposed $93 million reduction in the Line 

Item Construction and Maintenance Program, enables the Service to properly maintain its facilities long-term. 

Answer. The NPS remains committed to addressing the deferred maintenance 

backlog and to properly maintaining its facilities for the long-term. Despite the reduction in the line-item construction and the repair and rehabilitation funding requests, the overall fiscal year 2007 amount requested for line-item construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal Lands Highway is $933 million, which is 

$118 million higher than the 2001 funding level for these programs and more than 

double the amount available in the mid-1990’s. 

In fiscal year 2007, the budgetary emphasis is changing to more long-term preservation and management, however, and the NPS is transforming the agency’s approach to managing its facilities. During the past four years, the NPS has been implementing an innovative asset management program focused on developing a comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of the agency’s asset base. Parks 

have completed, for the first time, a prioritization of their asset inventory. Condition 

assessments on eight industry-standard assets (such as buildings, water systems, 

roads and trails) will be completed at all parks by the end of 2006. This shift in 

emphasis for the agency is based on management reforms and performance measures, and features a state-of-the-art software system. Once these detailed condition 

assessments are completed, the NPS will have a better understanding of the current 

deferred maintenance needs. These new tools will allow NPS to have a better understanding of the true cost of ownership, including recurring operational costs of the 

facilities. 

The NPS continues to make significant progress in completing the numerous 

projects necessary to improve the condition of park infrastructure. Since 2002, nearly 6,000 projects have been undertaken and approximately $4.7 billion have been 

invested using line-item construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal 

Lands Highway dollars. The 2007 budget proposes to protect the Administration’s 

past investments by realigning funding within the NPS asset management program 

to focus on proactive measures that will preclude these resources from slipping to 

poor condition. 

The Cyclic Maintenance Program incorporates a number of regularly scheduled 

preventive maintenance procedures and preservation techniques into a comprehensive program that prolongs the life of a particular asset. The proposed increase in 

cyclic project funding would assist in preventing the continued deterioration of NPS 

assets. Increasing the project funding will afford parks the ability to maintain assets 

on a predictive cycle, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair and ultimately 

adding to the backlog. Funds appropriated for the cyclic maintenance program 

would target those assets that are mission critical and still in maintainable condition, but could fall into poor condition without the proper application of life cycle 

maintenance. With the proposed increase of $10.0 million, the cyclic maintenance 

program now totals $71.5 million. 

The 2007 budget includes $86.2 million for the Repair and Rehabilitation program. Over the past five years, $345 million has been allocated for this program. 

In 2007, NPS will continue to prioritize projects that address critical health and 

safety, resource protection, compliance, deferred maintenance, and minor capital improvement issues. The budget request also includes a proposal to use additional 

recreation fee revenue for facility maintenance projects. For 2007, it is estimated 

that $100 million in recreation fees will be used for deferred maintenance projects. 

Within the total proposed for construction, line-item construction projects are 

funded at $121.9 million. The budget request reflects a shift from new construction 

projects to the up-keep of current facilities. Assuming the President’s budget request 

is funded, the NPS intends to sustain the progress made in the asset management 

program, as measured by the facility condition index. 

Construction 

Question. Please explain how recent trends in energy prices and subsequent building costs have impacted the Service’s ability to implement construction projects. 

Answer. The NPS is making efforts to manage this situation within available 

funds at the national, regional, and park level. With budget constraints in the construction account, it is critical for parks and regions to maximize available dollars 

before requesting additional funds. To improve construction estimates, the NPS has 

updated factors to reflect current market conditions. The scope of some projects has 

been reduced, and the NPS has imposed an internal requirement that projects be 
156 

designed for only 95 percent of available funds. This provides additional flexibility 

to accommodate the volatile construction market. 

Additionally, contractors who provide estimates for the Park Service’s major construction projects have received extensive training from the Denver Service Center 

about the unique governmental factors that need to be considered. These factors include the Davis-Bacon wage rates, remoteness, historic preservation considerations, 

and the need to keep facilities open to visitors and thus limit construction work 

hours. The NPS is also conducting independent validation of construction estimates 

for projects before they go to bid. Based on these validations, the Park Service can 

adjust estimates to ensure viability or propose a reprogramming to shift funds between projects. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES: WOLVES

Background 

Question. I want to thank you again for your assistance in dealing with our recent 

wolf problem in eastern Montana. Wolves have made a tremendous recovery and I’m 

proud of the cooperation by the State of Montana and the Service to draft a management plan that we can all agree on. The next hurdle, of course, is delisting the 

wolves. 

Can you please give us an update on where we are in the process of delisting 

wolves in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming? 

Answer. The States of Montana and Idaho have developed wolf management 

plans that are adequate to maintain their share and distribution of the tri-state wolf 

population above recovery levels. On October 26, 2005, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

published a finding that the petition from Wyoming presented substantial information that the potential Northern Rocky Mountain (NRM) gray wolf population may 

warrant delisting. The Service is currently working on the status review and finding 

based on this petition. On Feb. 8, 2006, the Service announced the intent to conduct 

rulemaking that would establish a distinct population segment of the gray wolf 

(Canis lupus) in the NRM. The NRM wolf Distinct Population Segment, as proposed 

in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, will encompass the eastern onethird of Washington and Oregon, a small part of north-central Utah, and all of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. The comment period closed on April 10, 2006. 

Question. Why is it that all three states have approved wolf management plans 

before management authority can be turned over to an individual state? 

Answer. We use the following five factors to determine whether or not a ‘‘species’’ 

has recovered to the point that it should be delisted: 

—the present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of its habitat 

or range; 

—overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; 

—disease or predation; 

—the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and 

—other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. 

These five factors must be applied to the entity, either species, subspecies, or distinct population segment, as it is listed. In the case of the potential Northern Rocky 

Mountains distinct population segment of wolves, before the Service can delist, the 

fourth factor—inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms—must be satisfied. 

Since the core population of the NRM wolves is found in these three states, all three 

states must have adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to maintain the recovered wolf population. 

FWS LAND ACQUISITION: ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT

Background 

Question. Last year we appropriated $985,000 to begin purchasing easements 

along the front range west of Great Falls, MT. For those of you who don’t know, 

this is the only remaining landscape in the Lower 48 with a complete, intact, and 

functional assemblage of large carnivores, including the grizzly bear, gray wolf, wolverine, and lynx. Moreover, it is my continued hope that this program will become 

a fine example of cooperative conservation by ranchers, conservationists, and the 

Service. Judging from your budget proposal to more than double the funding in fiscal year 2007 (to $1.98 million), the program is a success. 

Can you please provide us with an update of the Rocky Mountain Front program, 

including your plans for the funds in fiscal year 2007? 

Answer. 
157 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT CONSERVATION AREA 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal years— 

2006 2007 Total 

Funding .................................................................................................................. $985 $1,980 $2,965 

Acres Acquired ....................................................................................................... 4,787 6,500 11,287 

The FWS is partnering with the Nature Conservancy and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to implement the Rocky Mountain Front Easement 

Program. This program is part of a landscape conservation strategy to protect the 

unique, highly diverse and unfragmented ecosystem of the Front, which is located 

in north central Montana and encompasses the massive ecotone formed by the intersection of the western edge of the Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. 

Among conservation biologists, the Front is ranked in the top one percent of wildlife habitat remaining in the United States. In 2006, Congress appropriated 

$985,000 for the FWS to acquire 4,787 acres of conservation easements from willing 

landowners in the Front. The FWS is moving forward with the 2006 acquisitions 

(identifying willing sellers and conducting appraisals, etc.) 

The 2007 President’s Budget includes $1.9 million to acquire 6,500 acres of conservation easements from willing landowners. By partnering with the Nature Conservancy and the State of Montana, the FWS is able to leverage Federal funds in 

the efforts to maintain biological diversity and related wildlife habitat values in the 

Front. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES: HURRICANE DEBRIS

Background 

Question. Last year, hurricanes Katrina and Rita leveled whole communities and 

deposited an incredible amount of hazardous waste, appliances, cars, boats, and 

countless other debris on our National Wildlife Refuges. 

What is your timeline for cleaning up the debris? 

Answer. In December, the Service received $30 million in emergency supplemental funding. Funding was not adequate for debris removal, but provided for immediate stabilization on some affected refuges. The President’s $132.4 million supplemental request includes funding for the removal of known hazardous debris on 

multiple national wildlife refuges impacted by the 2005 hurricanes. 

To expedite the process, the Service has entered into an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority to: (1) complete an assessment of hazardous materials and 

debris on all impacted refuges; (2) to complete any necessary environmental compliance documents; and (3) to develop a scope of work for actual hazardous debris removal activities. The Tennessee Valley Authority is used in this agreement because 

they are a support agency to the Environmental Protection Agency for debris removal under Emergency Support Function#3 in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The recently enacted supplemental should allow the Service to quickly issue contracts to 

begin work on debris removal. 

Question. What is the role of the Service’s Environmental Contaminants Program 

in assessing the damage and monitoring such factors as water quality? 

Answer. Impacts to our trust resources from hazardous materials are a significant 

concern being addressed with the help of the environmental contaminants program. 

Biologists from that program are working with refuge managers and biologists from 

across all of our programs on all hazardous materials concerns. Specifically, contaminants staff will assist in the development and review of the assessment, compliance, and scope of work necessary to complete hazardous debris removal on national 

wildlife refuges impacted by the 2005 hurricanes. The Service intends to initiate an 

inventory and monitoring program on the ecological recovery of national wildlife refuges as a result of damages from devastating hurricanes of the past two years. 

Question. Your fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental request includes $24 million for debris removal and hazardous materials clean-up. Will these funds cover 

complete removal and clean-up needs, and, if not, would you use fiscal year 2007 

base funds? 

Answer. The Service believes that the amounts requested are adequate to remove 

known hazardous debris, although they will not cover cleanup of known non-hazardous debris. Costs to complete cleanup of all known debris (both hazardous and 

non-hazardous) may be much higher. The Service has prioritized $20 million for the 

removal of known hazardous debris on four national wildlife refuges in Louisiana, 
158 

and $12 million for these cleanup activities on Sabine National Wildlife Refuge. This 

will be a massive cleanup effort and as additional assessments are conducted, it 

may become necessary to redirect some of this request to provide for additional removal activities. At this time, the Service has not made a decision whether to use 

fiscal year 2007 base funding to cover any additional cleanup needs. 

Question. Are there instances where you are considering leaving some of the debris in place so as to minimize further ecological damage? 

Answer. Yes, the Service will not remove all debris deposited on national wildlife 

refuges as a result of the hurricanes. The Service will focus its priority on the removal of all known hazardous materials on refuge lands, but it is not feasible or 

cost-effective to remove all of the debris. As with all management activities, the 

Service will rely on experts, good science, and its historical knowledge to ensure 

that debris removal focuses on hazards and that impacts are minimized to these 

sensitive coastal marsh ecosystems. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: CONSTRUCTION

Background 

Question. You propose to cut $25 million (–56 percent) from the Fish and Wildlife 

Service construction budget. Furthermore, the meager $19 million request includes 

more funds for salaries and overhead than for on-the-ground projects. 

Given the relatively few projects in the request, how can you justify the budget 

for personnel and other overhead costs—particularly when you assess each project 

for additional overhead costs? 

Answer. An adequate engineering staff is critical for the FWS to properly maintain and replace its facilities. Recent appropriations levels for the Construction program have totaled more that $40 million per year. In many cases these are multiyear projects that require involvement of the engineering staff over the course of 

several years. 

In addition, supplemental funding for hurricane recovery totaled $30.0 million in 

2006 and an additional $132.4 million is included in the current supplemental budget recently signed by the President. Many of these proposed hurricane recovery 

projects will be continued into or initiated in 2007. If FWS were to reduce the personnel associated with its engineering staff, it would not be able to complete these 

recovery activities in a timely fashion. FWS also needs additional staff to manage 

the additional funds in the recently enacted highway reauthorization bill 

(SAFETEA–LU). Over the five-year life of the SAFETEA–LU program, $145 million 

will be dedicated to refuge roads. 

Question. Does the request includes a $7 million reduction in Refuge deferred 

maintenance? 

Answer. Within construction, there is a $6.7 million reduction in refuge projects; 

however, we are focusing funding on Klamath and hatchery repair and rehabilitation projects. The 2007 budget focuses funding for deferred maintenance through the 

refuge operations maintenance program and the additional funds received in 

SAFETEA–LU. The FWS will carefully target deferred maintenance funds to address the highest priority needs. Since 2001, the Refuge Maintenance program has 

increased by $9.4 million, or 12.6 percent. The recently enacted highway reauthorization bill (SAFETEA–LU) includes $29 million in 2007, a 30 percent increase over 

2004. Over the five-year life of the SAFETEA–LU program, $145 million will be 

dedicated to refuge roads. 

Question. How is the Service tracking deferred maintenance and what has been 

the trend in the last 5 years? 

Answer. The refuge system prioritizes maintenance needs through data used to 

develop five-year budget plans, including the Asset Priority Index (API) and the Facilities Condition Index (FCI). APIs help assess each asset’s contribution to the refuge mission, allowing the refuge manager to estimate the annual operation and 

maintenance cost of each individual asset. The FCI helps determine whether replacement is more appropriate then repair, tracks the performance of the maintenance program, and provides the maintenance performance metric under the DOI 

strategic plan. 

The refuge system’s Condition Assessment Program, established in fiscal year 

2001 to systematically evaluate the condition of real property and itemize costs for 

maintenance needs, measures the state of refuge properties with replacement values 

of more than $50,000 every five years. At the end of fiscal year 2005, half of all 

assets with current replacement value over $50,000, (11,097 out of 22,226) have 

been assessed through the field inspection stage. The refuge system expects to complete the first cycle of comprehensive condition assessments by the end of 2006. 

After that point the refuge system will cyclically complete condition assessments as 
159 

20 percent of field stations each year, assuring that every field station undergoes 

condition assessments every five years. 

Since 2001, the Service has invested $618 million in its refuge maintenance program. During the five-year period including fiscal years 2002 through 2006 the refuge maintenance budget increased approximately 12.6 percent. The Refuge System 

utilized maintenance funding to complete 2,382 projects through 2005. These 

projects have included the rehabilitation of critical facilities including administrative offices, and other facilities supporting refuge maintenance, visitor services, and 

habitat conservation. 

Question. What is the Service doing to ensure that deferred maintenance doesn’t 

get out of control? 

Answer. Because the refuge system will complete the first five-year cycle of condition assessments this year, we are in a much better position to understand how to 

best prioritize limited resources. The refuge system prioritizes maintenance needs 

through data used to develop five-year budget plans, including the Asset Priority 

index (API) and the FCI. FCIs help determine whether replacement is more appropriate than repair, track the performance of the maintenance program in improving 

asset condition, and provide the means to compare performance across the Department and within the FWS. APIs reflect the priority of each asset’s contribution to 

the refuge mission. The refuge system can now estimate the annual operational and 

maintenance cost of each individual asset. 

We expect that the use of these tools will help the FWS refine its five-year construction and deferred maintenance plans to ensure that funding is going to the 

most critical deferred maintenance needs. This way we can ensure safe work environments for our staff, safe visits for the general public, and the creation of new 

facilities that protect the resources under our stewardship while providing necessary 

visitor services. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION

Background 

Question. Madam Secretary, the total request for maintenance and construction 

is $622 million, including a $93 million (43 percent) reduction in the line item construction and maintenance budget. The budget justification states that the $122 million request will focus on deferred maintenance. 

Given our mutual commitment to reducing the maintenance backlog over the last 

several years, what safeguards have you put in place to ensure that reductions like 

these won’t lead to further backlog problems down the road? 

Answer. Despite the reduction in the line-item construction and the repair and 

rehabilitation funding requests, the overall fiscal year 2007 amount requested for 

deferred maintenance activities is $933 million, which is $118 million higher than 

the 2001 funding level for these programs and more than double the amount available in the mid-1990’s. The 2007 budget proposes to protect the Administration’s 

past investments by realigning funding within the NPS asset management program 

to focus on proactive measures that will preclude these resources from slipping into 

poor condition. 

The Cyclic Maintenance Program incorporates a number of regularly scheduled 

preventive maintenance procedures and preservation techniques into a comprehensive program that prolongs the life of a particular asset. The proposed increase in 

cyclic funding would assist in preventing the continued deterioration of NPS assets. 

Increasing funding will afford parks the ability to maintain assets on a predictive 

cycle, rather than allowing them to fall into disrepair and ultimately adding to the 

backlog. Funds appropriated for the cyclic maintenance program would target those 

assets that are mission critical and still in maintainable condition, but could fall 

into poor condition without the proper application of life cycle maintenance. With 

the proposed increase of $10.0 million, the cyclic maintenance program totals $71.5 

million. 

The 2007 budget includes $86.2 million for the Repair and Rehabilitation program. Over the past five years, $345 million has been allocated for this program. 

In 2007, NPS will continue to prioritize projects that address critical health and 

safety, resource protection, compliance, deferred maintenance, and minor capital improvement issues. The budget request also includes a proposal to use additional 

recreation fee revenue for facility maintenance projects. For 2007, it is estimated 

that $100 million in recreation fees will be used for deferred maintenance projects. 

Within the total proposed for construction, line-item construction projects are 

funded at $121.9 million. The budget request reflects a shift from new construction 

projects to the up-keep of current facilities. Assuming the President’s budget request 
160 

is funded, NPS intends to sustain the progress made in the asset management program, as measured by the facility condition index. 

The NPS also continues to make significant progress in completing the numerous 

projects necessary to improve the condition of park infrastructure. Since 2002, nearly 6,000 projects have been undertaken and approximately $4.7 billion have been 

invested using line-item construction, repair and rehabilitation, fee, and Federal 

Lands Highway dollars. 

In addition to investing significant levels of funding, the NPS is transforming the 

agency’s approach to managing its facilities. During the past four years, the NPS 

has been implementing an innovative asset management program focused on developing a comprehensive inventory and condition assessment of the agency’s asset 

base. Parks have completed, for the first time, a prioritization of their asset inventory. Condition assessments on eight industry-standard assets (such as buildings, 

water systems, roads and trails) will be completed at all parks by the end of 2006. 

This shift in emphasis for the agency is based on management reforms and performance measures, and features a state-of-the-art software system. Once condition assessments are completed, the NPS will have a better understanding of the current 

deferred maintenance needs. These new tools will allow NPS to have a better understanding of the true cost of ownership, including recurring operational costs of the 

facilities. 

NPS HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Background 

Question. Your fiscal year 2007 request proposes to create a new umbrella program—America’s Heritage & Preservation Partnership Program—as the new home 

for Save America’s Treasures, Preserve America, and Heritage Partnership Programs. In the process, you propose to increase Preserve America (∂$5 million) at 

the expense of Save America’s Treasures (¥$10 million) and Heritage Partnership 

Programs (¥$6 million). 

How will the proposed budget reorganization help local communities gain access 

to these programs, as described in your budget justification, particularly if there is 

no change in the delivery of these programs? 

Answer. The Department continually strives to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its programs and services. The Department identifies areas of synergy 

among programs and look for ways to leverage those commonalities in the pursuit 

of its mission of preserving nationally significant historical and cultural resources. 

The American Heritage & Preservation Partnership Program (AHPP) was established with that exact effort in mind. It combines the synergistic elements of Save 

America’s Treasures, Preserve America and Heritage Partnership Programs and 

leverages them in an effort to achieve the goals of preserving and increasing awareness of our National cultural resources. This new structure will allow local communities to determine which strategies best suit their heritage needs; apply to the most 

appropriate programs for repairing historic buildings, conserving museum resources, 

and promoting heritage development; effect better coordination; and generate greater efficiencies in enhancing and expanding opportunities for cultural resource preservation throughout the Nation. 

Question. Considering that Grants-in-Aid to States, Save America’s Treasures, 

and Preserve America all rely on identical performance measures, how are these 

programs not duplicative? 

Answer. Grants-in-Aid to States, Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America 

are three distinct programs used by the National Park Service to promote distinct 

local preservation goals. Grants to States and Territories are used primarily to support State Historic Preservation Offices. State offices use this funding to survey and 

inventory historic properties, manage the National Register process at the local 

level, and develop and implement preservation programs and compliance review. 

Funding requested for the America’s Heritage and Preservation Partnership Program, including Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America, allows local communities to determine which strategies best suit their heritage needs and apply directly for Federal aid. Save America’s Treasures funding is used to support restoration projects to preserve irreplaceable historic sites or collections of national significance for future generations. The Preserve America program does not fund ‘‘bricks 

and mortar’’ restoration projects, which are covered under Save America’s Treasures 

grants. Instead, it complements the Save America’s Treasures grants program by offering one-time ‘‘seed money’’ in the form of competitive 50:50 matching grants to 

help local communities develop sustainable resource management strategies and 

sound business practices for the continued preservation of heritage assets. Such ac-
161 

tivities include planning and feasibility studies, heritage education curricula, and 

heritage tourism business cases. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Question. How much of the Interior Department’s budget goes toward the costs 

of litigation to defend the regulations and laws under your purview? 

Answer. Within Interior, the BLM has made the greatest advancement in capturing the costs of its activities. Using its costing data, BLM was able to provide 

an estimate of litigation costs. In fiscal year 2004, BLM spent approximately $14.3 

million on litigation activities including the costs of gathering information, preparing documents and records, preparing and giving testimony, and working with 

solicitors and attorneys on specific legal cases. The only other estimates on costs of 

litigation for other Interior agencies are those reported by the Office of the Solicitor. 

The fiscal year 2006 enacted operating budge for the Office of Solicitor (Office) is 

$54.6 million and includes the costs of litigation. The Office provides the principal 

support to the Secretary for defense of laws and regulations under the purview of 

the Secretary of the Interior. The primary role of the Office is to provide high quality legal advice regarding the goals, objectives, and responsibilities that are given 

to the Secretary by the President and Congress. The Office coordinates with the Department of Justice regarding litigation involving the Department of the Interior. 

The Office performs the critical task of communicating the Department’s legal position to the President, Congress, other executive branch agencies, and the public. 

The majority of the Office’s resources are devoted to the defense of a wide range 

of litigation against the United States, both administrative and judicial, and to 

other legal services, ensuring that the Department’s bureaus carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the law. In most judicial litigation, attorneys actively 

assist or are co-counsel with attorneys from the Department of Justice. In some judicial litigation and all administrative litigation, attorneys represent the Department without assistance from DOJ. 

The Office provides everyday legal service assistance in drafting and reviewing 

legislation, proposed and final regulations, contracts, memoranda of agreement, decisions, agreements, leases, rights-of-way, title documents, and other legal instruments, as well as providing both written and oral legal advice on legal questions. 

In addition, the Office provides critical legal support for the Department’s key initiatives, assists the bureaus in responding to congressional direction in appropriations 

and substantive legislation, and advises the bureaus on legal options for streamlining processes and improving program management and implementing plans to 

carry out departmental goals. The Office assists the bureaus in responding to Inspector General, congressional, judicial, and public (FOIA) requests, as well as subpoenas for documents. 

Question. How do you plan to work with Congress to provide more control over 

the implementation of laws and regulations, for example the ESA, to states? 

Answer. The Department continues to work with Congress to ensure that laws 

and regulations pertinent to the mission and programs of the Department of the Interior are carried out as effectively as possible. The Department also continues to 

strive to find collaborative efforts and partnerships that enhance opportunities to 

foster a culture of responsibility in implementing legislation. 

Interior agencies also continually strive to improve regulations and policies to ensure that they are explicit, well defined, and consistent with current laws. For example, the recent Program Assessment Rating Tool review of the Endangered Species program found that FWS can make improvements in endangered species-related regulations and polices. This may include revising the definition of adverse 

modification, issuing critical habitat guidance, and explicity characterizing the benefits of critical habitat designations. FWS is currently working on these improvements as well as developing a process for regularly scheduled independent evaluations of the program. 

The Department is also focusing resources on cooperative conservation programs, 

such as the Private Stewardship Grant, Landowner Incentive, and Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife programs, that foster a non-regulatory approach to solving conservation 

problems at the local and state level. 
162 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

NATIONAL STREAMFLOW INFORMATION PROGRAM

Question. In December I sent a letter with eight of my colleagues to the Secretary 

of Interior and to the Office of Management and Budget strongly supporting the 

State Cooperative Program and the National Streamflow Information Program 

(NSIP), programs that fund stream gauging and water analysis across the nation. 

My analysis shows that these two programs are the most efficient and most effective 

ways to provide our nation with essential information on floods, water supplies, our 

international water obligations and impacts on regional hydrologic changes. 

The administration has provided a minimal increase in the NSIP program, well 

below the national requirements, but in the same proposal dramatically decreased 

the State Cooperative Program. This approach to stewardship of our water resources 

must be reversed. 

Can you explain how these cuts to the State Cooperative Program are going to 

be offset by NSIP, and which New Mexico programs or projects will be cut? 

Answer. The two proposed program changes are not related. The Cooperative 

Water Program reduction is targeted at interpretive studies that are ending and 

should not affect streamgages or other basic data collection. The proposed increase 

for the NSIP will help to stabilize and augment the national streamgaging network, 

and thus will not offset the reductions proposed for the Cooperative Water Program. 

The USGS does not plan to stop any ongoing projects in New Mexico or in any other 

State. The reduction will target only those projects that were already planned to 

conclude by the end of 2006. 

Question. Will you commit to providing my office a strategy for meeting all our 

high-priority water monitoring needs as articulated in the USGS description of the 

goals for the NSIP and State Cooperative Programs, along with a description of the 

expanded budget needs to meet these goals by July of 2006? 

Answer. The USGS has performance measures and 5-year plans for high-priority 

monitoring activities, which comprise the bureau’s strategy for monitoring activities. 

By July 2006, the Department can deliver the 5-year plans, the written analysis and 

summary of results from review of Water information and dissemination activities 

using the Program Assessment Rating Tool, and a budget summary of the monitoring activities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS—REPLACEMENT SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Question. The budget request proposes to reduce funding for replacement school 

construction by $37 million. That’s a cut of 43 percent from the current enacted 

level, and 74 percent from the 2004 level. According to the budget justification, the 

reason for the cut is so that BIA can ‘‘focus on building schools that have already 

been funded.’’ 

How many replacement school projects is BIA currently managing? 

How many staff are assigned to the replacement school program? 

How many more years will it take BIA to catch up with the backlog? 

Answer. During this Administration, we have obtained a total of over $1.3 billion 

for BIA school construction projects. With the 2007 budget, we will have provided 

over $1.5 billion in six years. 

By the time we have completed the work proposed in our 2007 budget, 65 percent 

of BIA schools will be in good or fair condition. This will reverse the status of 

schools from four years ago when 65 percent of BIA schools were in poor condition. 

Of the 37 replacement schools funded between 2001 and 2006, 10 have been completed and another 19 are scheduled to be completed in 2006 and 2007. BIA is currently managing 27 replacement school projects. 

The BIA has 112 employees working on the construction program. Although the 

replacement school program is the largest program within construction, these employees also work on other programs such as major and minor facility improvement 

and repair. In addition to BIA employees, the Army Corps of Engineers and the 

General Services Administration also provide technical expertise and assistance on 

replacement school projects. The construction program also works closely with the 

Tribes through Public Law 638 and Public Law 297 contracts to plan, design, and 

build the replacement schools. Successful coordination with the Tribes is integral to 

reducing the backlog. 
163 

In 2007, we are proposing a program of $157 million for Indian school construc- tion. As recently as 1999, spending on BIA school backlog needs was only $60 million a year. 

Funding at higher levels than requested for 2007 would get us ahead of our ability to prudently manage the construction program. The requested 2007 funding will 

support replacement of the Muckleshoot Tribal School in Washington and the 

Dennehotso Boarding School in Arizona. 

BIA released the new replacement school list in February 2004. The list contains 

14 schools which have the greatest health and safety concerns in the BIA school system. The 2007 budget will provide funding to complete the fourth and fifth schools 

on the list. There are an estimated 27 schools in need of replacement subsequent 

to the completion of the current priority list; however cost estimates are not available for these schools. The time it takes to fund these schools is dependent upon 

construction cost estimates and outyear funding levels, both of which are changing 

or unknown at this time. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS—JOHNSON-O’MALLEY EDUCATION GRANTS

Question. The budget proposes to eliminate the $16.3 million currently in the BIA 

Education account for the Johnson-O’Malley Assistance Grants. According to the 

budget justification, ‘‘the elimination of the JOM program will allow the Bureau to 

focus on its primary mission requirement of providing basic education to Indian children in Bureau-funded elementary and secondary schools.’’ That statement infers 

that the Bureau is moving money from a program that supports Indian children 

who attend non-Bureau schools to those who go to Bureau schools. Yet, as I look 

at the budget, there isn’t one non-administrative programmatic increase in the Education account for a Bureau funded school. In fact, the only real programmatic increase is the $630,000 being put in the Juvenile Detention Education program. 

Please identify the program or programs that provide ‘‘basic education to Indian 

children in Bureau-funded elementary and secondary schools’’ to which the $16.3 

million in Johnson-O–Malley funding was transferred. And if the money was transferred outside of BIA, please identify the agency and program where these funds 

were moved. 

Answer. The Johnson-O’Malley program provides funding to meet the needs of Indian children in public school systems. Tribes fund Johnson O’Malley grants out of 

Tribal Priority Allocations. Johnson-O’Malley grants are proposed for elimination in 

2007 because they are duplicative of funding available in the Dept. of Education and 

because there is a lack of accountability from the Tribes on the utilization of the 

funding and the benefit to Indian students. 

The Department of Education has two programs that provide funding for purposes 

similar to JOM grants. Together, these programs are funded at $667 million in 

2007. The Indian Education Grant program funds competitive grants to improve 

education opportunities for Indian students. The activities funded under this program are similar to those funded by the JOM program, and tribes as well as schools 

are eligible to apply for the grants. The type of programs/services JOM and Indian 

Education Grants support include tutoring, counseling, cultural activities, summer 

education programs, and career days. The 2007 request for this program is $119 

million. Impact Aid is directed to local school districts that have Federal and Indian 

land because property taxes cannot be collected on this land. The school districts 

decide how to use the funds. We estimate that 2007 impact aid payments to districts 

with Indian students will be $548 million. 

Johnson O’Malley funds have not been transferred to other BIA school operations 

programs. However, the 2007 request does include a $4.8 million increase in the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) to fund the Department of Defense comparability pay increase for teachers at BIA-funded schools and $2.5 million to implement management aspects of the BIA Indian school system Program Improvement 

and Accountability Plan. The increase in ISEP funding will provide about $100 more 

per student in activities directly related to education programs at BIA-schools. Management improvements will help improve the effectiveness of the education services 

provided in the Bureau funded school system which are struggling to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress goals. The BIA budget dedicates other increases to contract 

support, law enforcement, and trust services and also includes additional funds for 

tribes to develop energy resources, all of which are priorities to Tribes on a nationwide basis. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS—TRIBAL COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY OPERATING GRANTS

Question. For fiscal year 2007, the administration is asking for $54 million for the 

support of the 24 Tribal Colleges nationwide. That’s the same amount as was pro-
164 

vided for 2006. Despite the fact that enrollment is growing at these institutions and 

that students are taking more classes, which raises the Indian Student Count, the 

administration didn’t ask for an increase in the amount provided for operating 

grants. Under this budget request, the 2 colleges run by BIA would receive $413,000 

to cover their fixed costs. But the 24 colleges run by the Tribes are left to fend for 

themselves. The budget says that ‘‘the basic operations and technical assistance line 

items are fully funded.’’ If the colleges have to absorb increases in utilities or employee pay costs, how can the administration say that those institutions are being 

‘‘fully funded?’’ 

Why were the tribal colleges not given any fixed cost increases? 

Answer. Tribal Colleges and Universities are vital contributors to improved quality of life in native communities. These schools, which address the needs of the most 

economically depressed regions of Indian Country, significantly strengthen community economic potential. Tribal education is one of the key fact ors to providing a 

brighter future for these communities. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs strongly supports these institutions, and in the 2007 President’s Budget requested $54 million for tribally controlled colleges and universities operating grants, the highest amount ever requested. This is 22 percent higher than the $42.3 million requested in the 2006 President’s Budget. These funds will 

provide the faculty, facilities, and instructional programs for these schools to provide 

tribal members with skills and knowledge necessary for economic development. 

Based on student count estimates, TCUs will receive about $5,100 per student in 

the 2006–07 and 07–08 school years, and increase of $500, or 11 percent, per student over the 05–06 school year. Actual funding will depend on actual student 

counts. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS—UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Question. For the 5th year in a row, the administration has proposed eliminating 

the BIA funding for United Tribes Technical College in Bismarck, ND. The budget 

justification says that ‘‘UTTC receives funding from a variety of other Federal, state, 

program partnerships, and other private sources. Therefore, the Bureau is not requesting additional funds.’’ 

Is the criteria of not funding projects which receive funds from other sources being 

applied solely to UTTC, or are all other projects and programs within the Department’s budget being treated similarly? 

Do any of the Line-Item Construction projects included in the National Park Service budget receive outside funding? 

Answer. Funding decisions for UTTC in the 2007 budget reflect distinctions 

drawn in underlying authorizing legislation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is authorized to administer operating grants to Tribal colleges and universities that meet the 

criteria established in the Tribal Colleges and Universities Act of 1978, as amended. 

UTTC is not eligible for funding under the Act and therefore is not included in the 

BIA budget. UTTC, along with Crownpoint Institute of Technology, are the exclusive 

recipients of $7.365 million in tribal college operating grants authorized in the Carl 

Perkins Act administered by Dept. of Education. Colleges and universities funded 

by BIA under the 1978 Act are not eligible for these grants. 

In formulating the Department’s budget, priority is given to the programs which 

carry out the mission of the Department. The Department does consider the availability of other funds in decision making. For example, the NPS state assistance 

program is reduced partially because states can use funds available to them from 

other sources for the same purposes as the grants. 

With respect to whether Line-Item Construction projects included in the NPS 

budget, in some cases NPS cost-shares with private or state partners. This reduces 

the cost to the Federal Government. 

OPERATIONS FUNDING FOR FEDERAL LANDS AND PROPERTIES

Question. I am concerned that once again the President’s Budget has not addressed the steady erosion of Interior bureaus to maintain and operate its parks, 

refuges, and other lands. For over 100 years, past Presidents and Congresses have 

designated lands for the perpetual enjoyment of the American public with the expectation that future generations would do their part to maintain this heritage. 

Since fiscal year 2001, DOI has ‘‘absorbed’’ more than $400 million in fixed costs 

including annual pay raises, health insurance premiums, workers and unemployment compensation, GSA rent, and the working capital fund. The idea that agencies 

have the magical ability to ‘‘absorb’’ inflationary costs year after year is an illusion. 

I think it is time for us all to recognize that years of ignoring inflation is having 

a detrimental effect on parks, refuges, and rangelands. I think we need to be more 
165 

forthcoming about the costs to federal lands for increases in grants and other programs that benefit non-federal lands. 

I notice that travel, fuel, employee relocations, supplies, and equipment are not 

even considered in Interior’s fixed cost calculations. These are goods and services 

that a park or refuge have pay to keep the gates open. Interior has not requested 

or received an increase for general inflation in over 15 years. This has led to a 

steady erosion of the base budgets for parks, wildlife refuges, public lands, and facilities. Just about everything has gone up in cost, but the Department has not received a cent to cover those costs. 

How much in fixed costs do you expect Interior bureaus to absorb in fiscal year 

2007? 

Answer. The budget proposes that Interior bureaus absorb about 70 percent in 

pay and health costs and fully funds all other fixed cost items. The budget includes 

$125.9 million for fixed costs and proposes an absorbtion of $43.5 million. These figures assume the pay raise is enacted at the budget request level of 2.2 percent. 

Question. Based on commonly accepted inflation factors, how much did Interior 

agencies lose to inflation in 2005? 

Answer. The fixed costs budget request provides increases for general schedule 

pay raises based on Presidential pay policy, health benefits based on anticpated increased rates, rent increases for space costs under the terms of existing leases, and 

payments to other agencies for workers and unemployment compensation payments 

based on anticipated billings from the Department of Labor. In 2005 the budget requested $70.9 million for fixed costs and proposed Interior absorb about 40 percent 

of the fixed costs or $56.7 million. The enacted budget included a higher than proposed pay raise. Based on these factors Interior absorbed $103.3 million in fixed 

costs. There was also an across-the-board reduction of $149.2 million. 

Question. Based on commonly accepted inflation factors how much do you expect 

in 2006 and 2007? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2006 the budget request included full funding for fixed 

costs, or $157.1 million, but the pay raise was enacted at a higher level than the 

budget proposal and as a result interior absorbed $29.3 million. The across-theboard reduction was $156 million. In 2007 the fixed cost request totals $125.9 million for fixed costs and proposes an absorption of $43.5 million. 

LANDOWNER INCENTIVE AND PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP GRANTS

Question. The administration budget does propose increases for a variety of grants 

programs for private landowners, localities, and states. 

Two programs that fared extremely well in the budget request are the Landowner 

Incentive Grant program and the Private Stewardship grant program. The Landowner Incentive Program is increased 11 percent and Private Stewardship grants 

are increased 29 percent above the enacted level. These increases are out of line 

with the overall decrease in spending for the Department funded by this subcommittee. 

What justifies the high priority and large funding increases for these private 

lands programs, especially when many other tested programs have been cut? 

Answer. The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP) and the Private Stewardship 

Grants Program (PSGP) offer complementary approaches to enhance relationships 

with our partners and address important habitat needs for imperiled species. 

LIP provides competitive grant funds to State and territorial fish and wildlife 

agencies and Tribes to establish or supplement their own landowner incentive programs and to provide technical or financial assistance to private landowners for the 

protection, restoration, and management of habitat to benefit federally listed or 

other species determined to be at risk. By helping, rather than regulating, the Service has found LIP to be a cost effective way to build public support for wildlife conservation in rural communities, stretch existing conservation dollars to achieve the 

greatest possible benefit, and prevent the need for more drastic, and costly, regulatory actions later on. So far, over 50 States and one territory (the U.S. Virgin Islands) have used Landowner Incentive dollars to either initiate or enhance their efforts to work with private landowners. Dollars are being used to implement important conservation actions identified in the State’s Wildlife Action Plan, thereby addressing issues impacting multiple species of conservation need 

The PSGP provides grants and other assistance on a competitive basis directly to 

individuals and groups engaged in voluntary conservation efforts on private lands 

that benefit federally listed, proposed or candidate species or other at-risk species. 

In contrast to other grant programs, which usually support projects of third parties, 

groups and individuals themselves use the funds provided through PSGP for on-theground projects to conserve species on their property. Interest from private land-
166 

owners in this program remains high. For example, in fiscal year 2005, private landowners submitted 191 eligible proposals requesting approximately $21,625,279; of 

those, the Service was able to fund 72 projects that provided benefits for 120 unique 

listed species and an additional 19 unique candidate species. 

AMERICAN WHITE PELICANS

Question. After several decades of recovery, populations of American white pelicans have been declining in the 21st century. As you know, American white pelicans 

breed in several large colonies in north central states, including Chase Lake, North 

Dakota. An interagency, multi-state white pelican workshop was conducted in 

Jamestown, North Dakota in January 2006 to examine the white pelican situation 

across the major pelican nesting areas in North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, 

and Minnesota. Scientists at the conference identified West Nile virus as a potentially serious threat to the species, and recommended that a continent-wide pelican 

population survey is key to answering many of the questions we have about the future of white pelicans. No survey has been conducted since the early 1980s. I know 

the white pelican is not endangered, at least not yet, and is not a game bird, but 

it is a species of concern. None of us wants to see white pelicans put on the endangered species list. 

How much base DOI funding do you plan to dedicate to white pelican research 

in fiscal year 2007? 

Answer. Although certain local colonies have been declining, the overall continental population of American White Pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhyncos) appears 

to be stable or increasing. Pelicans are long-lived birds that can probably withstand 

multiple years of reproductive failure while maintaining a relatively stable population size. While the Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned and would like to have 

a better understanding of factors that led to problems observed in 2004 and 2005 

with the pelican colony at Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, on a continent-wide 

basis these birds are abundant compared to many higher priority migratory birds. 

The Service’s migratory bird priorities are documented in the 2002 Species of Conservation Concern List and in a list of 139 Focal Species of migratory birds. The 

American White Pelican is not currently a species of nationwide concern, although 

it is listed as a regional concern in Bird Conservation Region 26 (the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley). 

There are no funds dedicated to specific research projects concerning the white 

pelican. However, we continue to monitor the different colonies in the Northern 

Great Plains for deaths, adult abandonment of nests and young, predation, and general colony health. This monitoring can be accomplished with existing funds. 

Question. What will your Department do in 2006 and 2007 to address the declining pelican populations? 

Answer. As stated above, continent-wide American White Pelican populations are 

in general not declining. They are in fact increasing in some geographic areas, and 

otherwise largely maintaining stable populations (making them a low priority concern nationally from a migratory bird management perspective). However, we are 

concerned about certain local colonies declining, such as the Chase Lake colony. We 

continue to monitor the different colonies in the Northern Great Plains for deaths, 

adult abandonment of nests and young, predation, and general colony health. 

OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION ON PUBLIC LANDS

Question. The budget increases Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and gas 

management by $26.3 million, an increase of 30 percent over 2005. I applaud your 

decision to increase environmental inspection, monitoring, and enforcement of drilling operations with an additional $4.9 million. Also included in the increase is $4.3 

million to ‘‘keep pace with the growing demand for APD’s’’. Opponents of speeding 

up approvals for oil and gas companies to drill on public lands point out that you 

have already approved thousands of applications that have not been put to use. 

Exactly how many approved APD’s have not been exercised? 

Answer. The BLM does not track the number of APDs that have not been drilled. 

However, BLM does track the number of wells spudded, or originally drilled. In 

2004, drilling activity lagged behind BLM’s rate of APD approval; however the number of new wells now exceeds the BLM’s rate of approving APDs, indicating that 

industry is adding capacity to utilize APDs and is drilling APDs approved in prior 

years. 

Industry has now ramped up to meet the national demand for energy and is utilizing a high percentage of the APDs that are approved. Industry has more than 

doubled its drilling since 2004. The number of wells spudded since the beginning 

of the fiscal year now nearly matches the number of APDs approved in 2006. The 
167 

table below displays APDs approved and wells spudded for the period October 1 to 

April 1 in fiscal year 2006 and for the comparable period during the prior two years: 

2004 2005 2006 

APDs Approved 10/1–4/1 ....................................................................................... 2,382 2,722 3,373 

Wells Spudded 10/1–4/1 ....................................................................................... 1,446 2,728 3,298 

Question. Is it really necessary to speed up APD approvals in light of the number 

that have already been approved? 

Answer. Section 366 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains processing 

timelines that BLM is working to meet. The timely processing of pending APDs represents perhaps the Nation’s best near-term opportunity to provide additional domestic energy supplies. 

APPROVAL OF APDS

Question. The Bureau of Land Management has hired an industry association to 

review and approve APD’s from the industry they represent. This truly looks like 

the fox is guarding the henhouse. I can imagine the uproar that would have greeted 

the Clinton administration if it had chosen the Wilderness Society to process the 

paperwork for timber sales. At a minimum, this gives the appearance of a conflict 

of interest. 

How can you to assure this Committee that abuses are not taking place? 

Answer. The BLM has not hired an industry association to review and approve 

APDs. The BLM has utilized industry employees in the past, under volunteer agreements, to prepare supplemental information such as maps used in the processing 

of APDs. BLM does not utilize industry employees currently. In fiscal year 2005, the 

oil and gas industry offered the services of several employees in order to assist BLM 

to be able to process additional APDs in a few offices that were unable to keep up 

with the pace of new APDs. BLM’s staffing has since been increased to handle this 

workload. 

The scope of work undertaken by these ‘‘hosted workers’’ was limited to resource 

input and scientific analysis in subject matters they had expertise in. All decisions 

are made by BLM managers. The BLM uses volunteer labor in several of it programs throughout the bureau and provides specific guidance on how this work force 

is to be used and supervised. The guidance for the use of such workers is found in 

BLM Manual 1114.2.22(C) (Volunteers). This policy states that hosted workers may 

provide advisory services, but may not make substantive recommendations and decisions that are appropriately made by BLM employees, supervisors, and managers. 

Work assignments for hosted workers were made by BLM supervisors and managers, not the sponsoring organizations. Prior to the arrival of hosted workers at a 

BLM Office, BLM identified the projects that hosted workers would be assigned to 

work on. Neither the hosted workers nor the consulting firm that recruited the 

workers had any role in setting work priorities. 

Hosted workers do not have access to BLM proprietary information and data. Access to data by volunteers is limited, carefully monitored, and controlled. 

Question. What other options did you consider before making this choice? 

Answer. As noted above, the BLM is not currently using ‘‘hosted workers.’’ As a 

short term measure, taken in order to respond to the unplanned increase in requests for APDs in 2005, BLM used the services of hosted workers. BLM considered 

options such as requesting additional appropriations, reprogramming and reassignments of staff from other offices. The hosted worker arrangement, under the BLM 

Manual policy for volunteers, provided the skills needed while BLM prepared a 

longer term response to the demand for APDs. BLM does not plan to use hosted 

workers to assist with APD processing in 2006 and 2007. 

Question. If Congress approves this budget increase, will you agree to stop using 

industry people to review APD’s? 

Answer. The BLM is not currently using industry employees to review APDs. 

Using the 2007 budget increase, together with the Pilot office funding in 2006, BLM 

has the capability to add staff and hire contractors with the skills provided by these 

‘‘hosted workers’’ in 2005. BLM does not plan to use hosted workers to assist with 

APD processing in the future. 

ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Question. Your budget adds $12.4 million for Alaska North Slope energy activities, 

including $8 million to prepare for oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 
168 

Congress has not authorized oil exploration in ANWR, and even if it does, the 

first lease sale would not take place before 2008. Considering how many other programs are being cut or neglected in this budget, I believe we should put this $8 million to use in a more practical manner. 

Where would you suggest Congress redirect this $8 million that will not require 

new legal authorization? 

Answer. The Department’s budget proposal supports the environmental analyses 

needed to explore and develop the area within the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge 

(ANWR), where the U.S. Geological Survey estimates a mean expected volume of 

10.4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil if Congress acts to lift the ban on 

development. If Congress does not lift this ban, but still provides the Administration’s funding request, up to $8.0 million of the funds requested would be used to 

respond to a significant and costly set of response and cleanup projects caused by 

accelerated shoreline erosion in Alaska. The erosion of the shoreline threatens government-owned legacy wells and other facilities. Proper abandonment of these government-owned legacy wells is important to prevent contamination of the oceans 

and lakes in the area. 

The 2007 BLM Budget Justification referenced a preliminary cost estimate of $24 

million for emergency response and remediation activities that may be needed at 

various sites over the next five years. The BLM and Department will have a better 

cost estimate when the ongoing studies and the preparation of a long-term systematic plan for responding to the sites are completed. 

In 2005, shoreline erosion exposed the well casing and breached the reserve pit 

at the JW Dalton well, initiating a highly visible winter emergency site characterization. BLM’s initial remediation response was successful and the State of Alaska’s 

formal acceptance for the removals at the former reserve pit was received. In 2005, 

the Department provided $7.5 million in emergency funding to address the J.W. 

Dalton Well site issue and begin assessments and characterization of other sites 

that are at risk of inundation. The portion of the funding used specifically for the 

Dalton well has been used for the emergency response actions to plug and abandon 

the well; and to remove and manage the reserve pit contents in constructed temporary stockpiles. 

Transportation and final disposal of the wastes remain to be done before the J.W. 

Dalton project is complete. The disposal options study was completed January 30, 

2006. The least-cost scenario is roughly $6.5 million for contracting, with an additional $0.2 million needed for administrative costs to complete this final phase of 

the JW Dalton response. 

The stockpiles are located at the Air Force’s Pt. Lonely DEW–Line site and the 

Air Force agreement stipulates that the stockpiles must be removed by 2008. The 

State of Alaska is allowing only a one-year extension to the temporary stockpiles. 

Funding is now needed to complete the removals. Completing the J.W. Dalton disposal is the highest priority. 

After the Dalton disposal, the next priorities, as identified by the 2005 NPR–A 

erosion inventory are: 

1. East Teshekpuk Legacy (USGS research) well and reserve pit 

2. Atigaru Legacy (USGS research) well and reserve pit 

3. Drew Point Legacy (USGS research) well and reserve pit 

A fourth priority site, the North Simpson (Navy) Legacy well, has no reserve pit 

associated with it and the BLM oil and gas staff have assessed the risk of the well 

itself as low. However, the wellhead has valves and is inundated in 4 feet of seawater. Although the risk to the marine environment is currently low, the wellhead 

valve can be expected to eventually deteriorate, presenting a hazard to the marine 

environment from the diesel fuel in the well case. In addition, the wellhead presents 

a navigational hazard to any watercraft which are near shore in the area. For these 

reasons, the local Native communities, the State of Alaska, and the North Slope 

Borough could be expected to strongly oppose lack of action to plug, abandon, and 

cut off this well. 

HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA

Question. Many employees of your Department distinguished themselves by their 

heroic efforts to rescue stranded people and feed those left with nothing along the 

Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They are to be commended. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service devoted over $10 million worth of support for the recovery efforts. This is in addition to over $160 million in damages to Service lands and property. The President has requested sufficient funding for necessary repairs and reconstruction which I support. However, he has not requested money to reimburse the 

agency for its emergency response costs. Last year you covered the $10 million in 
169 

emergency response costs by moving funds from the Fish and Wildlife Service construction account. Some of the construction funds came from leftover balances from 

completed projects. I’m glad to see those funds being put to good use. However, you 

also took funds from planned or uncompleted projects that are priorities of this 

Committee. These priority projects cannot be resumed unless funding is restored. 

Question. Will you use a portion of the pending supplemental to restore funds to 

these projects? 

Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service does not plan to use a portion of the recently enacted supplemental to restore funds to these projects. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Question. The National Fire Plan was intended to establish a unified, seamless, 

interagency wildfire management program. The budget presents disconcerting evidence of a lack of coordination between the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. 

The Interior Department’s budget for Wildland Fire Management is strangely at 

odds with that of the Forest Service. You propose elimination of rural fire assistance 

grants to small communities. The Forest Service budget, on the other hand, proposes an increase for their comparable volunteer fire assistance grants program. 

Your budget reduces funding for hazardous fuels reduction by $8 million. The Forest 

Service budget proposes a $10 million increase for fuels reduction. 

On the other hand, the administration is holding joint USDA–Interior fire research funding steady, but the Forest Service is proposing to cut their share. Perhaps most surprising is that you are increasing fire preparedness funding while the 

Forest Service reduces theirs. 

Would you please explain how the administration came up with such an inconsistent budget? 

Answer. There are programmatic reasons for differences in the two agencies’ 

budgets, and having a unified and coordinated program does not necessarily mean 

that funding for individual activities will always move in tandem. Wildland fire 

management, including fuels reduction, rural fire assistance, and preparedness, remains a top priority for both Departments. The Department of Interior and USDA 

Forest Service plan to treat approximately 3.0 million acres of hazardous fuel in fiscal year 2007. The Department of Interior alone expects to conduct hazardous fuels 

treatments on 1,052,000 acres, of which approximately 43 percent are in critical 

Wildland Urban Interface areas. Overall fuels treatment funding for the Federal fire 

community (including the Forest Service) is level with 2006. 

Though the 2007 budget does propose to eliminate the pilot RFA grant program 

at DOI, the request does continue to fund the Ready Reserve program. This DOI 

pilot program began in fiscal year 2006 with $1.9 million in Preparedness funding. 

The purpose of this program is to strengthen initial attack and extended capabilities 

of rural fire departments (RFDs) that provide firefighting assistance on DOI lands. 

In 2006, firefighter training will be repackaged for delivery at local fire facilities 

around the country. Additional training will be developed that bridges existing 

training in both the structural and wildland fire sectors, and training delivery will 

begin. With these funds, a supplementary workforce of 1,000—2,000 RFD personnel 

would be trained each year. This enhancement of local capacity will reduce the Department’s reliance on the more expensive alternative of transporting Federal and 

contract firefighters from other regions of the country. 

Furthermore, the Department will continue ongoing efforts to work with the Department of Homeland Security to meet the needs of rural fire departments for basic 

training and equipment through the much larger DHS Assistance to Firefighters 

Grant program. The Department recently updated the existing agreement with DHS 

that will ensure a greater role for the wildland fire agencies in reviewing grants to 

departments through programs they administer. As part of this enhanced collaboration, the two Departments now link websites to better direct those seeking grants 

to rural fire departments to available funding. 

DOI currently plans and budgets all predictable firefighting expenses within the 

Preparedness account, including all firefighters and aviation resources. The $6 million increase requested for Preparedness would fund fixed costs for this firefighting 

force. 

The Department and the Forest Service are currently engaged in the development 

of Fire Program Analysis, an innovative system that will inform fire management 

planning and budgeting across ownership and jurisdictional boundaries. Beginning 

with the 2008 budget request, this effort is designed to provide efficiencies through 

common and unified planning and budgeting in the future for both Departments. 

Question. Why don’t your Departments coordinate your efforts and provide a coherent budget to Congress? 
170 

Answer. The Department of the Interior and USDA Forest Service do coordinate 

budget activities regarding wildfire management. However, this does not mean that 

funding for specific activities will always move in unison because each agency has 

unique factors to consider in developing its budget request. Both agencies are engaged in the development of Fire Program Analysis (FPA), an effort designed to provide efficiencies through common and unified planning and budgeting in the future. 

Although the DOI and Forest Service wildfire budgets and budgeting processes 

are separate, the agencies collaborate and cooperate closely in all aspects of fire 

management, fire response, hazardous fuels reduction and public wildland fire education. 

RURAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

Question. Rural fire departments successfully respond to thousands of fires every 

year on federal lands—saving taxpayers many millions in federal emergency response costs. Your budget asserts that you will coordinate with the Department of 

Homeland Security to see that Interior’s rural neighbors will have access to federal 

funding. 

Why are you proposing to cut assistance grants to rural fire departments that respond to wildfires on Interior’s public lands? 

Answer. As explained above, the Department continues to fund the Ready Reserve 

program at $1.9 million. In 2007, this program will train and provide safety gear 

for about 1,000–2,000 local firefighters. 

The Ready Reserve program was appropriated $1.9 million in fiscal year 2006; 

awards are not yet complete. Those funds will be spent for the following: 

Amount 

Training Repackaging .............................................................................................................................................. $250,000 

Training Development .............................................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Personal Protective Equipment ................................................................................................................................ 585,000 

Training Delivery ...................................................................................................................................................... 789,000 

In fiscal year 2007, the program will direct all funds to training. 

Question. And how can you claim that DHS will help when the administration is 

also proposing to cut DHS firefighter grants from $648 to $293 million? 

Answer. DOI’s Rural Fire Assistance grant applicants are eligible to apply for 

DHS Assistance to Firefighters (AFG) grants and may also be eligible for Forest 

Service grants. To better coordinate all available grant resources, the Department 

recently updated a Memorandum of Understanding with DHS and the Forest Service that will ensure a greater role for the wildland fire agencies to participate in 

the AFG grant evaluation process. As part of this enhanced collaboration, the two 

Departments now link websites to better direct those seeking grants to rural fire 

departments to available funding. 

The AFG web page (http://www.firegrantsupport.com/stories/afglstories.aspx) details grants that funded such things as wildland urban interface type II and III engines (California), wildland fire training (Tennessee), and a brush truck (Alaska). 

Though the DOI program does not fund rolling stock, these communities were able 

to successfully compete for wildland fire equipment and training in this much larger 

grant program. Through our enhanced collaboration and cooperation, the Department expects to continue to educate our DHS partners about the wildland fire community and their specific needs to enhance their future capability to compete for 

scarce assistance. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Question. The Administration claims that it is requesting $533 million from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am not persuaded that this really the case. 

Your budget only requests $85.1 million for federal land acquisition, and grants to 

states for land acquisition and development of recreational opportunities. Federal 

land acquisition was $573 million in 2002 and it has gone down every year in the 

Bush administration. The state assistance side of the LWCF—which provides funds 

to states for acquisition of open space and development of parks would be eliminated. The Department’s budget points to 10 other non-LWCF programs being 

counted as LWCF. 

Can you please explain how you say you are funding LWCF at $533 million when 

it seems that all you are playing a shell game by renaming other programs so you 

can count them as LWCF? 
171 

Moreover, how can you justify requesting such low levels for LWCF land acquisition when there is a significant backlog of inholdings in our national forests, wildlife 

refuges, parks, and BLM lands, with sellers willing to sell their property for the 

benefit of our natural resources? 

Answer. Recognizing that a number of programs contribute to meeting America’s 

conservation and recreation needs, the Congress over the past decade has appropriated nearly $1.5 billion from the Land and Water Conservation fund for programs other than Federal land acquisition and State recreation grants. Specifically, 

in 2001, $456 million was appropriated from the Fund for other programs. In 2006, 

Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, $156 million was 

appropriated for other programs. 

The 2007 proposal would use LWCF funding for the following programs that were 

funded from LWCF beginning in 2001: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation fund, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, and State and Tribal Wildlife grants. The 2007 proposal also includes LWCF funding for the following two programs that have been funded from the LWCF each year since 2002: Landowner Incentive program and Private Stewardship grants. 

The 2007 budget focuses LWCF funding on achieving high-priority conservation 

and related goals. Linking cooperative conservation on public lands to nearby private lands enhances conservation, intensifies community participation and leverages 

the funding dedicated to these activities. Conservation partnerships that transcend 

Federal boundaries create opportunities to tap into the knowledge and resources of 

neighboring communities and enlist their support in long-term conservation and 

recreation goals. In addition these partnerships leverage funds through partnerships 

that yield at least a one-to-one match. The proposed 2007 funding level of $533 million includes $147.3 million for the Forest Service and $386 million for DOI. 

With respect to the backlog of inholdings and willing sellers, as stated in the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture National Land Acquisition Plan of February 2005, that was submitted to the Appropriations Committees, the conservation 

of lands does not necessarily require Federal acquisition. Our agencies have systematic processes for selecting the appropriate tools to manage lands, ensuring that acquisition is used with discretion, extensive public input, and only where acquisition 

appears to be the best alternative. In addition, the concept of a ‘‘backlog’’ for land 

acquisition can be misleading for several reasons. First, conservation of lands does 

not necessarily require Federal acquisition. Second, in contrast to facilities maintenance, there are not objective criteria for what must be done. Third, many 

inholdings do not need to be acquired. The key conclusion of the Land Acquisition 

Plan is that land acquisition is only one of a suite of tools to reach the Departments’ 

conservation and other land management objectives. Cooperative conservation programs provide alternative tools to protect and manage land and resources. These 

tools significantly leverage Federal funds and often broaden the ways in which lands 

are managed and conservation goals are achieved. 

USGS NORTH DAKOTA ENERGY REPORT

Question. A USGS scientist named Dr. Leigh Price researched the potential for 

billions of barrels of untapped oil reserves in the Williston Basin, which includes 

North Dakota, in 1999 and 2000. Unfortunately, Dr. Price died more than six years 

ago—before he had the chance to publish two studies that he was working on. The 

studies include a manuscript, ‘‘Origins and characteristics of the basin-centered continuous-reservoir unconventional oil-resource base of the Bakken Source System, 

Williston Basin,’’ and a detailed data set. I understand that USGS is currently reviewing Dr. Price’s research for possible release. Since this research could be very 

important to both the scientific and energy development communities in my state, 

I am concerned that USGS has been abnormally slow in its decision about whether 

to make the information public. This research may be especially relevant since 

USGS is scheduled to do its next assessment of energy resources in the Williston 

Basin in 2007 or 2008. 

Do you plan to make this information publicly available? 

What is your timeline for making a decision about whether you will release this 

information to the public? 

Why has it taken the USGS six years to consider publishing this research? 

Answer. The scientist, Leigh Price—now deceased—submitted a draft manuscript 

for scientific peer review in 1999, just before his death, for publication as a ‘‘USGS 

E–Bulletin.’’ Only one reviewer returned any comments in the scientific peer review 

process. Therefore, the manuscript has not had peer review and has not received 

approval for publication by the Team Chief Scientist and the Director. In its current 

state, USGS cannot release the draft or any of its contents without violating policies 
172 

relating to scientific merit, integrity, objectivity, impartiality, non-advocacy, and 

public benefit. 

The USGS is currently evaluating the information in the unpublished manuscript 

and locating the author’s raw data that serve as the foundation for his interpretations. The USGS is also taking into consideration information presented in recent 

publications regarding the Williston Basin. In addition, USGS is required to determine whether the unpublished manuscript contains any proprietary information. 

Upon completion of all these evaluations, USGS will make a determination whether 

any information in this unpublished manuscript merits consideration for approval 

and publication and then the most appropriate means to disseminate that information, if appropriate. 

The last USGS assessment of petroleum resources in the Williston Basin was released in 1995. The results of this assessment are available at http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/index.htm. The next formal USGS study and reassessment of petroleum resources of the Williston Basin is slated for winter 2007/2008, 

with the publication and release of those findings shortly thereafter. 

STATESIDE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF) GRANTS

Question. Your budget request eliminates stateside assistance grants through the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. The National Park Service budget justifies this 

cut by saying ‘‘Paying for improvements to State and local parks is a decision better 

left to State and local taxpayers rather than to Federal taxpayers.’’ This rationalization is hard to understand when you propose a $2.1 million increase for private 

stewardship grants for voluntary conservation efforts on private lands and another 

$2.7 million increase for landowner incentive program grants to states and tribes 

for financial assistance to private landowners. 

Please explain why these FWS grants are more appropriate for federal funding 

than conservation grants to states? 

Answer. The Private Stewardship Grants and the Landowner Incentive Program 

Grants are critical elements in the conservation and recovery of the nation’s endangered and threatened species and other species of concern, and the habitats that 

support them. Recent studies have indicated that 75 percent of the species currently 

listed as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act rely 

on privately owned habitat for part or all of their lives. Likewise, the recently completed Wildlife Action Plans (also known as State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans) identify thousands of other species of concern that cannot be conserved 

without the habitats found on private lands. For example, in Tennessee, a state 

where 92 percent of the land is privately owned, landowner grants are being used 

to protect habitats in high priority rivers and streams. Projects funded by these 

grants are expected to benefit over 40 threatened or endangered species and provide 

improved water quality for all downstream users. Likewise in eastern Wyoming, 

where almost all the land is privately owned, conservation grants to landowners will 

be used to enhance or restore 10,000 acres of prairie and prairie stream habitats. 

This work will benefit dozens of species identified in the Wyoming Wildlife Action 

Plan while also providing financial benefits to the landowners. 

Given the importance of private lands to wildlife and the conservation opportunities they represent, the Private Stewardship Grants Program and the Landowner 

Incentive Program provide habitat for wildlife while simultaneously helping landowners maintain the economic viability of their property. By helping, rather than 

regulating, the Service has found these programs to be cost effective mechanisms 

to build public support for wildlife conservation within rural communities, stretch 

existing conservation dollars to achieve the greatest possible benefit, and prevent 

the need for more drastic, and costly, regulatory actions later on. 

The elimination of funding for LWCF State grants in the fiscal year 2007 budget 

request is an example of the difficult choices that were made to propose a budget 

that could support the Administration’s effort to cut the budget deficit in half by 

fiscal year 2009. In recognition of the need to constrain the budget, this was one 

area that could be reduced without affecting operations of the National Park System, which is the core responsibility of NPS. The fiscal year 2007 budget request 

increases operations funding by $23.4 million. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget does not include funding for new LWCF State grants 

but does include $1.6 million for State Grants Administration which will be used 

to review the accounting, billing and performance of grants provided in previous 

years. Nearly $3.9 billion has been appropriated through fiscal year 2006 for the 

State grant program including $312 million in the last four years. 

Question. How will the President fulfill his promise on the LWCF without the 

stateside program? 
173 

Answer. The annual budget requests for 2002—2005 upheld the President’s firstterm commitment to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Throughout 

the first term, the Administration requested $900 million for Interior and Forest 

Service programs within the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congress did not 

appropriate funds at the request level. 

Beginning in 2006, the budget began to reflect the need to constrain funding with 

the goal of reducing the deficit. Despite the constraints, the 2006 budget request 

still included $496 million for the LWCF programs just within Interior. The Congress funded $264.5 million. The 2007 budget maintains a robust funding level for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The 2007 request includes $386 million for 

Interior LWCF programs, an increase of $121 million over the 2006 enacted level. 

This funding level is achieved with a focus on high-priority conservation partnership programs. Linking cooperative conservation on public lands to nearby private 

lands enhances conservation, intensifies community participation and leverages the 

funding dedicated to these activities. Conservation partnerships that transcend Federal boundaries create opportunities to tap into the knowledge and resources of 

neighboring communities and enlist their support in long-term conservation and 

recreation goals. These cooperative conservation programs also have the significant 

benefit of leveraging federal dollars, sometimes by a ratio of four to one or more. 

They capitalize on community engagement, collaboration, and cooperation in working toward shared goals of healthy lands and thriving communities. Four-fifths of 

the land in this country is in private ownership. Local communities and landowners 

are in the best position to help in efforts such as providing habitat for the protection 

of endangered species. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Question. 2005 statistics show there are 79 million acres of national parks in the 

United States. Alaska has approximately 51 million acres, or 65 percent of the country’s national parks. Compared to the entire National Park System, the Alaska Region consistently receives less than 5 percent of operations funding each fiscal year. 

Can you explain to me why the Department spends such a small percentage of 

operations funds for the National Park System in Alaska when Alaska has over half 

of the nation’s parkland? 

Answer. Many factors affect the funding level necessary to operate a park unit 

in a manner that is consistent with the National Park Service mission. Among the 

most important of these factors is the number of visitors a park receives, the nature 

of a park’s cultural and natural resources, the prevalence of threats to visitors and 

resources, and the number of facilities and roads that must be operated and maintained. Most of the park units in the Alaska region are expansive and home to invaluable natural resources. However, due to their remote locations, Alaska parks 

have fewer facilities in comparison with parks in the lower forty-eight States and 

receive less than one percent of the overall visitation to national park units. 

The current funding level for Alaska parks reflects a balance between the need 

to protect resources over a large area and the relatively small number of visitors 

for whom the NPS must provide interpretive programs, safety and security, and facilities. However, as a result of needs identified by the NPS, Alaska national park 

units received funding increases at a rate faster than the average for all park units 

over the last ten years. From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2006, Alaska parks had 

operations budget growth of 70 percent, greater than the 46 percent average for all 

parks. The NPS will continue to assess the needs of all parks to ensure that natural 

and cultural resources are protected and adequate services are provided to visitors. 

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request eliminates funds for the Regional 

Mark Processing Center. These funds are used by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to maintain the coast-wide coded-wire tag database for anadromous fish produced in U.S. hatcheries, as required by the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

The Fish & Wildlife Service justifies this cut on grounds the project is not directly 

related to its performance goals under the Department of Interior’s strategic plan. 

How does this project not fit into the Department’s performance goals? How will 

the United States meet its obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty if funds for 

this project are eliminated? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries and the States have primary responsibility of managing 

the fisheries covered by the Treaty. As a result, the Regional Mark Processing Cen-
174 

ter’s management of fishery harvest is not captured in the Service’s Strategic Plan. 

Almost half of RMPC’s operational budget of roughly $530,000 comes from the Service annually. For the U.S. to meet its obligations under the Pacific Salmon Treaty, 

the agencies currently involved in the financial support of the RMPC will make 

every effort to identify other base funding sources to cover a portion of the proposed 

reduction. 

Question. The Marine Mammal Act is that marine mammal populations and the 

marine ecosystems on which they depend be maintained at, or returned to, healthy 

levels. This mandate is particularly important to Alaska given the number of types 

of marine animals in the State and the need to ensure sustainable use of marine 

mammals for subsistence purposes. 

What is the Department’s justification for eliminating funding for the Alaska Marine Mammals Program—almost $2 million was appropriated for this program in 

fiscal year 2006? 

Answer. The earmark provided in 2006 is targeted to two areas: (1) $969,000 for 

cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations, and (2) $990,000 for marine mammal surveys in Alaska. Although the elimination of the $969,000 earmark 

will reduce the scope and number of joint efforts pursued under cooperative agreements, the Service will maintain essential agreements through base funds in fiscal 

year 2007. The scaled-back agreements, many of which are predicated on a longterm approach, will still play an important role in maintaining partnerships with 

Alaska Natives, which provide key management tools for understanding marine 

mammal population trends and managing subsistence harvest. 

The 2006 Appropriation of $990,000 will be targeted towards 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. For example, we have developed and are implementing an innovative 

survey technique to estimate the Pacific walrus stock. The Service will continue to 

seek ways to meet our management responsibilities for northern sea otter, Pacific 

walrus, and polar bear conservation that also recognizes current budget limitations. 

We anticipate that the tasks and projects funded with the marine mammal earmark will be completed in 2006. 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. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request eliminates funding for the Alaska 

Minerals Program. The BLM justifies this cut on grounds the mineral survey function is more appropriate for the State and other entities. Section 1010(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) directs the Secretary of Interior to assess the oil, gas, and other mineral potential on all public lands in the 

State of Alaska in order to expand the data base with respect to the mineral potential of such lands. There are 73 mining districts in Alaska. 30 of these have been 

identified as high priority for assessments under ANILCA. The U.S. Bureau of 

Mines (through 1995) and BLM (since 1995) have completed the mineral assessments of 15 of the high priority mining districts. 

ANILCA directs the Secretary of Interior to assess the mineral potential on public 

lands in Alaska so I do not think the BLM’s stated justification for eliminating the 

program is adequate. How can the Department justify this cut when assessments 

have been completed on only half of the high priority mining districts? In addition, 

there are 43 remaining districts that have yet to be scheduled for assessment. 

Answer. The Department is focusing its available funding to meet its highest priorities, including responding to the Nation’s demand for energy. The Alaska Minerals program provides mineral assessments which may provide some long term economic benefit, but which are not clear Federal priorities. The Department believes 

that industry or other entities with an interest in Alaska’s long term mineral potential will invest the funds needed to continue assessments where needed. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BURNS. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will 

stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 6, in 

room SD-124. At that time we will hear testimony from the Hon. 

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 
175 

[Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., Thursday, March 30, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, April 

6.] 

(177) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Burns, Domenici, Craig, Allard, and Dorgan. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

MARCUS PEACOCK, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

LYONS GRAY, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

MICHAEL W. S. RYAN, DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

DAVID A. BLOOM, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET 

ANN R. KLEE, GENERAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

BILL RODERICK, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

WILLIAM WEHRUM, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF AIR AND RADIATION 

GEORGE GRAY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

WATER 

GRANTA NAKAYAMA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE 

SUSAN HAZEN, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

SUSAN BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID 

WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

LUIS LUNA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

LINDA TRAVERS, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We’ll call the committee to order. Sorry—well, I 

guess we’re about on time. Murphy’s Law took over this morning. 

You know, the old law of anything that can go wrong, will. It did. 

Then I got to looking this over, Mr. Director, and I’m going to make 

this flowery statement here that’s been written by a very able per-
178 

son. Of course, I can’t read, and that doesn’t help things, but, nonetheless, I was just going to tell you, gather everything you’ve got 

up, go back downtown, and rework it, and come on back when 

you’re ready. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’re ready, sir. 

Senator BURNS. All right. Well, good morning, and thank you 

very much for coming this morning. 

We will hear the budget on the Environmental Protection Agency. I’d like to welcome our good friend, Steve Johnson, the administrator down there, who’s with us, and it’s a pleasure to have you 

and—as we make this discussion and try to come up with some— 

a meeting of the minds, as far as EPA is concerned. 

Let me begin by saying, EPA has one of the most important and 

difficult missions of all the Federal agencies. There’s no question 

about that. You’re torn in 65 different directions. How you keep it 

all together is—takes a man of great talent, and I think you are 

a man of great talent. The jurisdiction ranges from the responsibility of the cleanup of Superfund sites, such as the Libby asbestos 

site in Montana, to funding clean water and drinking infrastructure programs, to the enforcement of a long list of environmental 

laws. 

BUDGET REQUEST

The administration has requested $7.3 billion in a total budget authority for fiscal 2007. This is $310 million below fiscal year 

2006. That’s a 4-percent reduction. That sort of concerns a lot of 

us on this committee. While the EPA has only been under the jurisdiction of this committee for the past year, the enormity of the 

clean water and drinking water infrastructure needs across this 

country has continually been impressed upon me. The administration has requested funding, $842 million, for the Drinking Water 

SRF, but it has recommended a large reduction in funding the 

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund. The administration is requesting $688 million for the Clean Water SRF, which is $199 million below the fiscal year of 2006. In the Clean Water, the $688 

million is just not enough. Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis published in 2002 indicates we still have a 

substantial gap in funding, which could help develop the country’s 

clean water and drinking water systems to maintain the spending 

levels—or the current spending levels, I should say. The Gap Analysis estimates the United States will need to spend $540 billion for 

both clean water and drinking water capital needs in the next 20 

years. I’m not certain yet what our subcommittee allocation will 

allow us to do, but I intend to try to fund by the State Revolving 

Loan Funds at the highest level. 

Despite the 4-percent reduction in the President’s budget request, EPA has a few programs receiving substantial increases. 

The budget includes the following notable increase, $50 million for 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program. I can do that in one 

single swoop. If you’ll just let me turn all that coal into diesel, I 

can take care of all that. 

And $20 million—and do it with private money. Now, that ain’t 

a bad deal. I think that’s kind of the way America works—$20 million above the enacted level for the Great Lakes Geographic Pro-
179 

gram and $55 million above the enacted level for homeland security initiatives at the Agency. 

But we also face significant challenges in cleaning up the 1,238 

active Superfund sites—1,238 Superfund sites on the National Priorities List, and 62 sites proposed to make the NPL. The administration is requesting $1.259 billion for Superfund Programs, which 

is $17 million above fiscal year 2006. 

Now, there’s no question that the Superfund Program could use 

increased funding to clean up sites currently on the NPL and those 

waiting to make the list. Libby asbestos site, in Montana, was 

added to the National Priorities List in 2002. The folks in Libby 

have suffered greatly, and I would like nothing more than to see 

this site cleaned up as soon as possible. That’s why I included it 

in the language of last year’s bill directing the EPA to issue a 

Record of Decision for Libby no later than May the 1st of this year. 

I understand that there is some discomfort at the Agency about 

moving forward with the final ROD for Libby, but I want the ROD 

issued swiftly, because folks in Libby deserve to know both the 

timeline and the details of the cleanup process, and I do not want 

the quality of the ROD to suffer. Most importantly, Mr. Administrator, I would like your word that the community will be involved 

in the greatest extent possible as that process moves forward. 

Now, there’s many issues that I could raise at this point, ranging 

from the proposed funding increase for homeland security initiatives to the newly configured Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant 

Program, but I’ll save my comments for the question part of the 

round of this hearing. 

So, again, I want to thank you for coming this morning. We appreciate your hard work down there, understanding it’s probably 

one of the toughest jobs in this 17 square miles of logic-free environment in which we have to do business. 

So, I will—I don’t have any colleagues to turn to. 

So, I’ll turn to the administrator. Mr. Johnson, thank you, this 

morning, very much, and we’ll look forward to your testimony. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thanks, I appreciate being here. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to be here to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The President’s budget reflects his continued commitment to providing the critical resources needed for our Nation’s highest priorities: fighting the war on terror, strengthening our homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our economic recovery. 

The President’s pro-growth economic policies, coupled with spending restraint, will keep the Government on track to cut the deficit 

by more than half by the year 2009. 

EPA is responsible for being a good steward of our environment 

and a good steward of our tax dollars. In keeping with the need for 

spending restraint, the President has included $7.3 billion to support the work of EPA and our partners nationwide in his budget. 

This budget fulfills every presidential environmental commitment and maintains the goals laid out in EPA’s strategic plan, 

while spending less. When I accepted the position of EPA adminis-
180 

trator, President Bush charged me with accelerating the pace of environmental protection while maintaining the Nation’s economic 

competitiveness. 

BUDGET REQUEST: PRINCIPLES

As we prepare for tomorrow’s environmental challenges, EPA 

will meet the President’s charge by focusing on three principles: 

The first is results and accountability. This budget includes three 

programs that have been delivering some of the longest-standing 

and greatest environmental results. The President requested nearly $1.3 billion for the Superfund Program, a $17 million increase 

over last year’s enacted budget, $841.5 million for the Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund, and $688 million for the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund. 

In order to continue our Nation’s steady march toward cleaner air, the President requested $932 million for the Clean Air and 

Global Climate Change Goal. In order to meet this goal, last year 

EPA implemented a suite of clean air rules that dramatically cuts 

power plant emissions of soot, smog, and mercury in the Eastern 

United States. However, we continue to believe that Clear Skies, 

a permanent legislative approach, is a more efficient, effective, and 

long-term mechanism to provide certainty and achieve large-scale 

emission reductions across the country. 

The second principle is innovation and collaboration. The Great 

Lakes Program is an excellent example of regional and international collaboration. In his budget President Bush requested over 

$70 million to clean up and protect the lakes. This includes $50 

million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act cleanup program, which is 

an increase of over $20 million over last year’s enacted budget. 

As the President said, breakthroughs in new technology are 

powering our economy and dramatically improving our environment and nowhere is this more apparent than in the administration’s investment in energy innovation. EPA plays a substantial 

role in this effort through the implementation of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005. The President’s budget includes over $100 million, to 

support the development and implementation of the renewable fuel 

standard rulemaking to strengthen preventive measures for underground storage tanks and to support the Agency’s National Clean 

Diesel Campaign to reduce diesel emissions from existing engines. 

The third principle to accelerate environmental protection is best 

available science. The President shares this commitment to sound 

science. His budget request includes $7 million for a Water Infrastructure Initiative, as well as additional funding to study manufactured nanomaterials, for the Integrated Risk Information System, and for the Computational Toxicology Research Program. 

Before I conclude, I need to mention EPA’s responsibility in supporting the President’s top priority: The safety and security of the 

American people. For 2007, the President requested $184 million 

for EPA’s Homeland Security efforts, which is an increase of $55 

million over last year’s enacted budget. By reaffirming our commitment to results and accountability, innovation and collaboration, 

and the best available science, the funding in the President’s budget will allow EPA to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st 

century and beyond. 
181 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Last, I also want to thank the committee for significantly reducing the amount and number of congressional projects included in 

this year’s appropriation bill. 

That concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to 

discuss the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request of $7.3 billion reflects the 

Administration’s strong commitment to carrying out EPA’s mission of protecting 

human health and the environment. The request demonstrates the President’s continued commitment to providing the resources needed to address our Nation’s highest priorities which include: continued support of homeland security, fighting the 

war on terror, and sustaining the recovery of our economy. At the same time, there 

is a need for discipline in our federal budget, and this request shows such discipline 

through its results-oriented approach. 

EPA’s programs can work even more efficiently than they do today. We expect to 

be held accountable for spending the taxpayers’ money more efficiently and effectively every year. To assist you, the Administration launched ExpectMore.gov, a 

website that provides candid information about programs that are successful and 

programs that fall short, and in both situations, what they are doing to improve 

their performance next year. I encourage the members of this Committee and those 

interested in our programs to visit ExpectMore.gov, see how we are doing, and hold 

us accountable for improving. 

This fiscal year 2007 budget incorporates the Administration’s vision of a resultsoriented and market-based approach to environmental protection while focusing on 

achieving measurable outcomes in the form of cleaner air, purer water, and better 

protected land. EPA will implement an environmental philosophy based on three 

principles in order to better fulfill its mission of protecting human health and the 

environment. 

The first principle is results and accountability. EPA must focus on environmental 

outcomes, not environmental programs. This budget request includes three programs that have delivered some of the greatest environmental successes. These 

three programs include: Superfund, for which $1.3 billion is requested, the Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund for which $841.5 million is requested, and the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund, for which $688 million is requested. 

The second principle is innovation and collaboration. This means the Agency will 

focus on collaborating with its state, tribal, local, and private enterprise partners. 

EPA will work with these partners to promote market-based strategies, advance 

stewardship opportunities, and invest in new and innovative technologies. The 

Great Lakes Program is an example of regional and international cooperation, and 

this budget requests over $70 million to clean and protect the Great Lakes. This 

request includes $50 million for the Great Lakes Legacy Act program, a $20 million 

increase, which will accelerate the cleanup of contaminated sediment that has accumulated for many years in the Great Lakes as a result of historical industrial 

sources. 

Using the best available science is the third principle which the Agency will utilize to fulfill its mission. Strong science and data are integral to making decisions 

about environmental issues. This budget supports the use of science and data by requesting $7 million for a Water Infrastructure initiative. These funds will provide 

EPA with the resources needed to conduct a major research effort which will reduce 

the cost of operation, maintenance, and replacement of old drinking and wastewater 

systems. The focus on the best science is also demonstrated in the request to fund 

the study of nanomaterials and their effect on human health. Additionally, our request supports the Integrated Risk Information System and Computational Toxicology programs to promote the best available science. 

Mr. Chairman, the Agency has accomplished a great deal in its past efforts to 

clean the water, improve our air quality, and protect our lands. The environmental 

challenges that we face are enormously complex and expensive but by relying upon 

what we have learned from our accomplishments and by incorporating the Adminis-
182 

tration’s environmental philosophy with its focus on results, I believe we can meet 

the challenges that lie ahead in an efficient and productive manner. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Homeland Security is a top priority for the Administration and an integral component of this budget. For fiscal year 2007, the President requests $184 million for 

Homeland Security. This is an increase of $55 million over fiscal year 2006 enacted 

levels. EPA plays a leading role in protecting U.S. citizens and the environment 

from the effects of attacks that release chemical, biological, or radiological agents. 

Following the cleanup and decontamination efforts of 2001, EPA has focused on ensuring we are prepared to detect and recover quickly from deliberate incidents. The 

emphasis for fiscal year 2007 is on a few key areas: decontamination of threat 

agents, ensuring trained personnel and standardized lab capabilities to be called 

upon in the event of an emergency, and working with the drinking water utilities 

to protect our water supplies. 

Secure drinking water supplies are imperative and this budget requests $42 million for improved water security including the WaterSentinel pilot program. The 

WaterSentinel pilot program demonstrates how EPA has a critical role in protecting 

the citizens of this Nation. This program is designed to monitor and help secure the 

Nation’s drinking water infrastructure and will provide early warning of intentional 

drinking water contamination. WaterSentinel consists of enhanced physical security 

monitoring, water quality monitoring, routine and triggered sampling of high priority contaminants, public health surveillance, and consumer complaint surveillance. In fiscal year 2007, EPA will establish, in selected cities, additional pilot contamination warning systems with water utilities through increased water monitoring and other surveillance. The addition of water utilities in fiscal year 2007 will 

allow for more comprehensive and diverse testing of contaminant warning systems. 

By the end of fiscal year 2007, EPA expects to begin disseminating information 

learned from the pilots to other water utilities. 

Clean Air and Global Climate Change 

The fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget requests $932 million for the Clean Air 

and Global Climate Change goal. EPA implements this goal through its national 

and regional programs which are designed to provide healthier air for all Americans 

and protect the stratospheric ozone layer while also minimizing the risks from radiation releases, reducing greenhouse gas intensity, and enhancing science and research. In order to carry out its responsibilities, EPA utilizes programs that include 

many common elements, including: setting risk-based priorities; facilitating regulatory reform and market-based approaches; partnering with state, Tribal, and local 

governments, non-governmental organizations, and industry; promoting energy efficiency; and utilizing sound science. 

In March 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which will reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides in 28 eastern 

states and the District of Columbia by 70 percent and more than 60 percent respectively from 2003 levels when fully implemented. This will go a long way to help 

many areas attain the fine particle standards and the ozone standards. We will continue to move forward with implementation of this and our other clean air rules in 

fiscal year 2007. However, we have received 14 Petitions for Review and 12 Petitions for Reconsideration for the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA has also received two administrative stay requests (1 has been denied, 1 is pending); two judicial stay motions have been filed (both have been denied). While we are confident 

that we will prevail in the litigation concerning CAIR, there is always some uncertainty regarding the outcome of any litigation. We would much prefer to reduce 

emissions from power plants with the President’s Clear Skies legislation. The authority provided by the Clean Air Act to put CAIR in place is limited. Regulations 

do not provide enough certainty—that is why the President has been urging Congress to pass a permanent, nation-wide solution. 

EPA’s Climate Protection Programs continue to assist in reaching the President’s 

goal of reducing greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by the year 2012. The 

United States has joined five other countries (Australia, China, India, Japan, and 

the Republic of Korea) in the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and 

Climate. In 2007, EPA requests $5 million to support this partnership which will 

focus on deploying cleaner technologies in partner countries in order to reduce poverty, enhance economic growth, improve energy security, reduce pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas intensity. 

This fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $50 million for the new Diesel Emission Reduction Grants Program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The program will provide grants for projects that reduce diesel emissions from existing en-
183 

gines by using cleaner fuels, retrofitting them with emissions reduction technology, 

or replacing them with newer, less-polluting engines. 

Clean and Safe Water 

The fiscal year 2007 President’s Budget requests $2.7 billion to implement the 

Clean and Safe Water goal through programs designed to improve the quality of 

surface water and drinking water. EPA will continue to work with its state, Tribal, 

and local partners to achieve measurable improvements to the quality and safety 

of the Nation’s drinking water supplies as well as the conditions of rivers, lakes, 

and coastal waters. 

Also in fiscal year 2007, EPA will continue to work with states and tribes on implementing core Clean Water programs, including innovations that apply programs 

on a watershed basis. Water quality monitoring is a top priority in protecting and 

improving water quality and will provide the scientifically defensible water quality 

data that is necessary to defend our Nation’s waters. Additionally, the Agency will 

support the protection and restoration of wetlands through its own programs such 

as Section 319 and State Revolving Fund, as well as other Federal programs such 

as those administered by Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Budget also continues the Administration’s commitments to the Clean Water 

and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). The Budget provides $688 million for the Clean Water SRF, keeping the program on track to meet the cumulative 

capitalization commitment of $6.8 billion for 2004–2011. This funding level will 

allow the Clean Water SRF to provide $3.4 billion in loans annually, even after Federal capitalization ends, and will ensure communities have access to capital for their 

wastewater infrastructure needs. 

The Budget proposes $841.5 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, 

a $4 million increase over the 2006 enacted level. This request keeps the administration’s commitment to provide sufficient capitalization grants to allow the Drinking Water SRF to provide $1.2 billion annually, even after Federal capitalization 

ends. 

LAND PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION

The Agency’s fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress implements the Land 

Preservation and Restoration goal through EPA’s land program activities which promote the following themes: Revitalization, Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Energy Recovery; Emergency, Preparedness and Response, and Homeland Security. 

In fiscal year 2007, this goal will include new responsibilities as EPA takes on 

an important role in implementing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and it is reflected 

in the 2007 budget request. This budget includes $38 million for State and Tribal 

Assistance Grants to support EPA’s underground storage tank (UST) program. This 

is a $26 million increase over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels. The UST program will 

continue working with states to implement the base UST program as well as the 

new provisions of the EPAct. The EPAct provisions focus on preventing future releases from USTs and include inspections, operator training, delivery prohibition, 

secondary containment, and financial responsibility. 

Revitalized land that was once contaminated can be used in many proactive ways, 

including creation of public parks, the restoration of ecological systems, the establishment of multi-purpose developments, and the establishment of new businesses. 

EPA uses its cleanup programs (including Superfund, RCRA, Corrective Action, 

Brownfields, Federal Facilities, and Underground Storage Tanks) to facilitate the 

cleanup and revitalization of contaminated properties. In fiscal year 2007, the Agency will continue to promote the minimization of waste. EPA’s municipal solid waste 

program will implement a set of coordinated strategies, including source reduction 

(also called waste prevention), recycling (including composting), combustion with energy recovery, and landfilling. The Agency will work with other Federal Agencies 

within the National Response System to respond to incidents which involve accidental or intentional releases of harmful substances and oil. 

Enforcement activities are a significant component of the Land Preservation and 

Restoration goal which support the Agency’s ability to clean up the majority of the 

most hazardous sites in the Nation. Enforcement allows the Agency to collect funding from Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to finance site-specific cleanup. 

These accounts segregate site-specific funds obtained from responsible parties that 

complete settlement agreements with EPA. The Agency will continue to encourage 

the establishment and use of these Special Accounts within the Superfund Trust 

Fund in order to finance cleanups. These funds create an incentive for other PRPs 

to perform cleanup work they might not otherwise be willing to perform and the 

result is that the Agency can clean up more sites and preserve appropriated Trust 

Fund dollars for sites without viable PRPs. 
184 

HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND ECOSYSTEMS

In fiscal year 2007, EPA’s Budget carries out the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal via a combination of regulatory, voluntary, and incentive-based programs. A key component of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal is to reduce risks to human health and the environment through community and geographically-based programs. Some of these community and geographically-based 

programs include: Brownfields, Wetlands Protection, and programs that concentrate 

on our nation’s large bodies of water such as the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Community and Geographically-based programs comprise one of the most important components of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal. In fiscal year 

2007, the Agency requests $163 million for the Brownfields program to restore abandoned contaminated properties. This is a slight increase over the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level for Brownfields. The Chesapeake Bay program also supports the 

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal. This program protects the Bay which 

needs improved water quality, overall protection, and restoration. This budget requests $26 million for cleaning up and protecting the Chesapeake Bay. This request 

is $4 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. Community Action for a Renewed Environment (CARE) is another program which is vital to achieving the goal 

of Healthy Communities and Ecosystems. This program offers many communities 

the opportunity to improve their environment through voluntary actions. 

Another major focus of the Healthy Communities and Ecosystems goal is identifying, assessing, and reducing the risks from chemicals and pesticides. In fiscal year 

2007, EPA will continue identifying and assessing potential risks from pesticides. 

In addition, EPA will set priorities for addressing pesticide and chemical risks, 

strategize for reducing such risks, and promote innovative and alternative measures 

of pest control. Also related to reducing pesticide and chemical risk, EPA will continue its Homeland Security activities which focus on identifying and reviewing proposed pesticides for use against pathogens of greatest concern for crops, animals, 

and humans in advance of their potential introduction. EPA will work closely with 

other Federal agencies and industry in order to carry out these activities. 

COMPLIANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

EPA’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request of $540 million for the enforcement program helps realize the Compliance and Environmental Stewardship goal through 

programs that monitor and promote enforcement and compliance with environmental laws and policies. In fiscal year 2007, EPA will continue with its strong commitment to compliance and enforcement through collaborating with its state, Tribal, 

and local government partners. The Agency also will support stewardship through 

direct programs, collaboration and grants for pollution prevention, pesticide and 

toxic substance enforcement, environmental information, and creation of an environmental presence in Indian Country. 

Compliance assistance and enforcement are critical components of the Compliance 

and Environmental Stewardship goal and EPA supports these components by assuring requirements are clearly understood and by assisting industry in identifying 

cost-effective compliance options. In fiscal year 2007, EPA will use a two-part approach in ensuring compliance assistance and enforcement. First, EPA will help 

clarify environmental laws and regulations for regulated communities. The second 

step is for the Agency to reduce noncompliance through inspections, monitoring, and 

via enforcement when needed. 

In fiscal year 2007, EPA also will focus on promotion of Environmental Stewardship. Environmental Stewardship is a concept that seeks more than just minimal 

compliance with environmental regulations. Instead, it promotes voluntary environmental protection strategies in which states, Tribes, communities, and businesses 

are invited to participate. EPA will promulgate stewardship by educating, providing 

incentives, tools and technical assistance to states, Tribes, communities, and businesses. EPA will implement a performance-oriented regulatory system that allows 

flexible strategies to achieve measurable results. 

In fiscal year 2007 EPA will continue to work with industrial sectors to set pollution reduction goals, provide tools and technical assistance, and identify innovative 

strategies to reduce risks. In the tribal GAP program, the Agency will support approximately 517 federally recognized Tribes in assessing environmental conditions 

on their lands and building environmental programs tailored to their needs. 

Also in fiscal year 2007, the agency will continue to fortify the Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network). In fiscal year 2007, EPA, states, 

Tribes, and territories will continue to re-engineer data systems so that information 

previously not available or not easily available can be exchanged using common 
185 

data standards. By the end of 2007 all fifty states and approximately ten Tribes will 

have established nodes on the Exchange Network and will be mapping data for 

sharing with partners and submission to EPA. 

In 2007, EPA also will continue its work with Performance Track by recognizing 

and rewarding private and public facilities that demonstrate strong environmental 

performance, beyond current requirements. To provide incentives to business to participate, EPA continues to implement and develop new regulatory incentives at the 

state level. It will support and leverage state environmental leadership programs by 

aligning Performance Track with at least 20 state programs and double the measurable environmental improvements achieved to date. 

In summary, this budget will enable us to carry out the goals and objectives as 

set forth in our strategic plan, to meet challenges through innovative and collaborative efforts with our state, tribal, and private entity partners, and to focus on accountability and results in order to maximize environmental benefits. 

The requested resources will help us better understand and solve environmental 

problems using the best available science and data, and support the President’s 

focus on the importance of Homeland Security while carrying out EPA’s mission. 

CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Senator BURNS. Well, I thank you. 

Let’s just—let’s talk about this clean water infrastructure funding, Mr. Administrator. How does the—I’d just like to—for you to 

justify reducing that fund, at Clean Water SRF. In face of the 

above-mentioned funding estimates, we know we’re about—over 

$500 billion over the next 20 years. We have no chance at all of 

ever making a dent in that unless we fully fund what we’re supposed to be doing now. Now, we can shift funds, and we can delay 

funds, and something like that. The bad thing here are construction costs. Everything costs more every year. And so, we slip back 

and back. It’s not that you cut those funds, but you increase the 

costs for the next time around. 

So, I—give us an idea. Where does local and rural areas go for 

seed funding on any project that they might have? Where do they 

go? Where are we headed? I guess that’s my question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you correctly point out, 

the needs of our Nation are great when it comes to water infrastructure. I believe we have laid out an approach that attacks that 

really massive problem in a number ways. One is that the $688 

million that the President is requesting in this budget fulfills his 

commitment to have the Revolving Loan Fund for the Clean 

Water—State Revolving Loan—revolve at $3.4 billion. So, the 

amount of money that’s in our budget that he’s requesting fulfills 

that obligation to achieve that kind of revolving. But that is not the 

only approach. 

Second is that we need to be looking at innovative technologies, 

because, whether it is a large system or a small system, we need 

to be investing in research and development. In fact, the President 

includes $7 million to look at new technologies. In fact, we’ve already evaluated 14 technologies that will be very helpful in helping 

small systems achieve various water compliance issues. 

Then the third is a multi-pronged approach that looks at this 

problem of ensuring that there is full-cost pricing. We need to be 

looking at this in a watershed approach, because what we do in a 

watershed in one area affects the others. We also need to be looking at conservation. What are things that we can do to help reduce 

the burden? Then, lastly, better management. There are opportunities across the Nation where systems are doing a much better job 
186 

than others. We want to try to take those lessons learned and have 

them apply. So, we’re really looking at it in a multi-pronged way. 

TECHNOLOGY

Senator BURNS. You know, one of these days—I know you don’t 

get into this area, but most of us in the West do—and you have 

nothing to do with it, but—I don’t know how technologies is going 

to—is going to help new—help a shovel out. 

I mean, this is—what we’re talking about here, if you’ve got—if 

you’ve got a virtual shovel that’s—that shovels virtual dirt to put 

a virtual pipeline in the ground, that’s still not going to get any 

water on the other end. So, I don’t know what new technologies 

does for you. 

But I would suggest, when you’re in California the next time, you 

give me a call, and we’ll go down, and we’ll show you a—an irrigation area that’s in the west-end farmers. You know, they lost about 

10 percent of their water—irrigation water. They also lost about 8 

percent of their land that they couldn’t irrigate anymore. When 

you’ve got a little area down there that produces a $3.5 billion of 

agricultural products in that system, and then you want to cut 

them back, does not make a lot of sense to me. But they went 

through a series of underground laterals—mains and laterals on 

the irrigation system. Figure they saved about 20 percent of their 

water that they were losing just to evaporation. They—and that— 

I think that is a model that we—we’ve got to follow, one of these 

days, about how we do things. So, if you ever get down in California, you want to go and have them give you a tour of what they 

did there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Environmentally, is to get away from big sprinklers, and went to drip technology that Montana State worked out 

with—with Israel, by the way—it is something to behold. So, I 

think we’ve got to look around outside this thing. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

Homeland security. The administration has requested $184 mil- lion for homeland security activities, $55 million over 2006. The 

largest increases, for a water security program, included $30.5 million in Water Sentinel pilot projects. Give me an idea of what these 

projects are, and what criteria the Agency is using to select those 

projects, and also how those projects will be evaluated. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Water Sentinel Program is intended to address the homeland security issue with our Nation’s water systems. It is a series 

of pilot studies that would look for contaminants of concern, realtime contaminants of concern—weapons of mass destruction, if you 

will. We are looking at technologies that would enable water systems to be able to detect a variety of these kinds of agents. 

With regard to the specifics, I would like to inform you, Mr. 

Chairman and members of the committee, that we are arranging 

a secure briefing, a classified briefing for you, so that you can have 

the details of the numbers of pilots, the rationale for this. I would 

encourage—and, in fact, urge—all the members to attend, because 

this is an area of critical need. 
187 

Senator BURNS. I would suggest that we do that. I’d try to round 

up all the committee to do that, just members only—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator BURNS [continuing]. If that’s the way you want to go. We 

can get that done for you. We can facilitate that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’d appreciate that. 

Senator BURNS. Because I happen to believe that you’re on the 

right track. Give us some idea on what you’re going to do, where 

you’re going to do it, and how you evaluate it. That’s what I’m looking for now. 

Let’s—I’m going to turn to my friend from Colorado, Senator Allard, who just arrived. Have you got a statement, Senator? If so, 

you can put it in the record. It’s your turn to ask questions. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a 

statement. I would ask unanimous consent that it be made a part 

of the record. 

Senator BURNS. Without objection. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. The EPA oversees the 

many environmental regulations and requirements, some of which can be far reaching and have a disproportionate effect on small communities. I think that this fact 

makes it very important that Congress exercises close oversight of the Agency and 

its funding. 

I cannot stress enough the need to utilize sound, peer-reviewed science when making decisions about increasing regulations. I also believe that the cost-benefit analysis of regulations should be given more weight in many situations. 

Finally, I remain concerned about the climate within the EPA. I mentioned this 

last year at our EPA budget oversight hearing, and it seems that little—if anything—has changed since that hearing. From communications I have had with constituents, it seems that EPA no longer has an interest in assisting communities with 

complying with regulations set by EPA, but rather just in heavy-handed enforcement. Often small communities do not have the expertise to develop a plan to meet 

new regulations. The EPA should be willing to help those communities, rather than 

refuse assistance until they are able to take enforcement action. 

I look forward to working with the Administrator, and my colleagues in the Senate, to see that EPA is able to reasonably carry out their mission; and working with 

the Committee to ensure that activities at the Environmental Protection Agency are 

funded in a manner that is responsible and sufficient. 

SUMMITVILLE MINE SITE

Senator ALLARD. I understand you’re sort of streamlining this 

hearing, because we’re going to have votes coming on, and we’re 

going to have—so, I’ll try not to abuse my privileges here, as far 

as time is concerned. 

Senator BURNS. It doesn’t bruise very easily. 

Senator ALLARD. Yeah. I am interested, also, in some continued 

monitoring of water systems, particularly in some of those areas 

where our risks may very high. But, aside from that, I want to talk 

a little bit about the Summitville Mine site there in Colorado. I 

think you’re aware of the cleanup there, what’s been going on. 

The question I have—can you tell me what level of priority this 

is for the Environmental Protection Agency, and kind of give me 

an update on the cleanup work at the site, where we are right 

now? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, it is a priority area for us. The site is a 

result of sodium cyanide that was used to extract metals, and the 
188 

metal leachate that is getting into and causing the problems. We’ve 

been working very closely with the Colorado Department of Health 

and Environment, and looking at it from a number of ways. One 

is, the existing water treatment plant is going to need some improvements. We’re working with them both on the design and how 

that would be improved. In addition, there is work that’s currently 

ongoing to consider the design of a new plant. In fact, some of the 

design work has already now been done, and we are now actively 

looking at that. We’re working very closely with Colorado to determine what are those best remedies, given the contamination of the 

mine. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, in those—in working with Colorado—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. I assume you’ve made some commitments as to what you plan on doing, and that Colorado’s made 

some commitments on what they plan on doing. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’re—— 

Senator ALLARD. How are you on your commitments? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As far as I know we’re on track. The funds that 

are available to work on this are through a settlement account. 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Through the EPA Summitville Settlement Account. There are monies that are there to help this work. My assessment is that, we’re still very much trying to assess what is the 

appropriate technology and the most cost-effective technology to address this. 

EPA COLORADO COMMITMENTS

Senator ALLARD. So, as far as you know, you’ve met all the commitments to Colorado, at this point? 

Mr. JOHNSON. As far as I know, yes. If you’re aware of something 

we haven’t—— 

Senator ALLARD. Well—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. I’d be happy to follow up. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I’ve been asked to ask that question. I 

think there might be some concern there as to whether all the commitments have been made. So, maybe we need to visit—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. A little bit about that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would be happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

COLORADO COMMITMENTS

The 2001 Record of Decision (ROD) envisioned construction of a two-stage water 

treatment plant to remove copper and aluminum. EPA committed to funding a 

water treatment plant. EPA and the State of Colorado agree that the State aluminum water quality standard should be revised so that a one-stage plant would 

meet water quality requirements. The State staff is preparing to ask the State 

Water Quality Control Board to make the needed revision to the aluminum water 

quality standard for the Alamosa River. 

The State has the lead for managing the construction of the treatment plant. At 

issue is whether a one or two stage treatment plant will be funded. An alternate 

proposal is to provide added building space for a second stage should the Colorado 

Water Quality Control Board choose to not revise the current water quality standard. This option would add more than $1 million to the cost of a one-stage treatment 

plant. 
189 

EPA has offered to waive the aluminum standard under its Superfund authority 

if it is not revised by the State Water Quality Control Commissioners. This approach has not been supported by the State. The State and EPA have agreed to wait 

until the Colorado Water Quality Control Board meets in 2007 on whether to revise 

the aluminum water quality standard in the Alamosa River to a level attainable 

with a one-stage plant. 

EPA and the State continue to fund the on-going operations of the existing water 

treatment plant. EPA and the State are also funding the necessary improvements 

at the existing water treatment plant in order to meet OSHA safety requirements. 

Senator ALLARD. Now, can you provide me with the status of the 

settlement funds that were earmarked for cleanup costs at 

Summitville? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t have that number off the top of my head, 

but I’ll be happy to provide it for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

SUMMITVILLE MINE SITE, SETTLEMENT FUNDS STATUS

EPA and the State maintain separate settlement fund accounts. EPA’s settlement 

balance is approximately $4.6 million. The State of Colorado has estimated that it 

has $8 million in its settlement balance. The State is using this funding for site operation and maintenance costs. 

Senator ALLARD. That’s another thing I’ll be interested in. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. All right. 

Senator ALLARD. I think that there—I mean, it’s progressing 

along. My understanding is that now fish are beginning to show up 

in the river below the Summitville. Somebody reported that to 

me—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Good. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Which is the sign that, you know, 

we’re at least moving through some recovery there. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good. 

Senator ALLARD. I realize it’s a complicated—it’s a serious problem there, complicated, and has some long-term effects that are 

going to take us a while to work through. I just wanted to make 

sure that continues to be—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. An important priority. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is, very much. Senator, I might just add, although not directly applicable in this situation, what we find across 

the United States is that there are over 500,000 abandoned mines 

where there aren’t responsible parties, there aren’t—— 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Opportunities—— 

Senator ALLARD. Yeah. 

GOOD SAMARITAN PROJECT

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. For settlement accounts, and that we 

have launched a product—or a project administratively with Trout 

Unlimited, called the Good Samaritan Project, where we have organizations that want to get in and clean up these mine tailing areas, 

but, for fear of liability, have not—— 

Senator ALLARD. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. For many, many years. So, we 

have—— 

Senator ALLARD. That’s the Good Samaritan Law, which—— 
190 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’re very interested in and we’re moving forward 

administratively, and we’ll also be talking with you more about the 

legislation. 

Senator ALLARD. Yeah, well, I think I have some legislation—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. On the Good Samaritan Law—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. That we’re working on. We’re trying to get it through committee. I think it’s something that needs 

to be dealt with so that individuals can pick up these and—like you 

say, they would like to clean up the environment, and they’re willing to make some personal commitments to do that. So—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. We need to give ’em that opportunity without having ’em incur a huge liability that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Was no fault of their own. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Exactly. 

Senator ALLARD. There’s a debate about, ‘‘Well, are we letting off 

the big polluters when we do this?’’ and all that. But my view is 

that we’d do more good than harm, and that’s—we simply need to 

do something in that area, and I’m glad to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Good. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Hear you state that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator ALLARD. Also, with regard to Summitville, has the Agency considered any alternative treatments for the site? Could you 

please update me on the status of any alternatives that may be 

considered? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There is technology, from an organization called 

Arcadius, that we have seen in a pilot phase, which shows some 

promise. We are encouraging them to submit a more fulsome proposal that moves it beyond the pilot stage. We’re encouraged that, 

at least in a pilot way, it appears to be a workable new technology. 

We’re encouraging them to send us something that expands that. 

Senator ALLARD. Okay. Well, if you’d just get back to my office, 

give us—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Answer some of these—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. Questions, we brought up and kind 

of visit the staff, we’d appreciate that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Senator ALLARD. And—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is my pleasure. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. We want to stay on top of it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

SUMMITVILLE MINE SITE, ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS

EPA Region 8 and State of Colorado staff have met with ARCADIS, an engineering consulting firm, a number of times over the last twelve months, most recently 

March 6, 2006, to discuss a pilot test to use their cleanup technologies at the 

Summitville Mine Superfund Site. 
191 

On April 21, 2006, ARCADIS submitted a plan to EPA Region 8 and the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment to perform a pilot test of their proposed technologies. The pilot test would involve the injection of carbon dioxide, a 

carbon source such as alcohol, as well as other nutrients into the primary mine pool 

in an attempt to reduce the generation of acid mine drainage and metals loads. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Craig? 

Senator CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Administrator Johnson, welcome before the committee. A couple 

of questions. Mr. Chairman, I’d ask that my full statement be a 

part of the record. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Without objection. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

Administrator Johnson, thank you for coming today. I have several concerns, and 

I am glad to have this opportunity to share those concerns with you and ask you 

some questions. 

My first concern is the arsenic standard. I, along with many of my Western colleagues, have been concerned for some time about the tremendous burden this 

standard is putting on small and medium-sized communities. There is not one of 

these communities that doesn’t WANT to be in compliance. The issue is they can’t 

get there. They simply can’t afford it. There are approximately 175 communities 

that probably do not meet the current arsenic standard, which for small communities creates some very large problems. For instance, one rural community in my 

State of Idaho that was hit hard by the arsenic standard not only passed an expensive bond, but also laid off their only city police officer to try to afford to get into 

compliance. To me, this poses a greater public safety risk than the naturally occurring arsenic. 

I have heard rumblings that EPA may propose new internal regulatory guidance 

to allow for affordability criteria as it relates to future contaminants. As I understand it, this would give rural communities under 10,000 people an option of how 

they want to address expensive contaminant issues without economically crippling 

the community. While arsenic may not be one of the contaminants included in this 

guidance, we have to work harder to find solutions for these communities. The situation for some of them is getting desperate. 

I also have some concerns about pesticide application and EPA discharge permits. 

As you know, recent court decisions have contradicted long-standing federal policy 

that the application of agricultural and other pesticides in compliance with labeling 

requirements do not require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits. This has created ambiguity for pesticide users like farmers, fire 

fighters, irrigators, and mosquito abatement districts who must have access to the 

tools necessary to manage pests and maintain public health. 

Gem County, Idaho is currently defending itself against a court case alleging that 

even though they applied a pesticide as directed by the EPA-approved label, the 

County has to have a NPDES permit. This is a major problem, and one that has 

the potential to set a wrongful precedent unless the EPA takes more decisive and 

effective action to protect your own rule. 

I believe the EPA-proposed rule you issued in February of 2005 is a step in the 

right direction, but it is not fully consistent with the Agency’s longstanding policy 

that if you apply a pesticide in accordance with its label, you are not required to 

have an NPDES permit. Your proposed rule does not protect users from citizen’s 

lawsuits when they are simply performing long-practiced, approved and heavily regulated pest management and public health protection activities. We have an established process that tests chemicals extensively and regulates their use. Requiring 

NPDES permits for application is redundant, unnecessary, and ill-suited to agriculture. It is an attempt to redefine current law through lawsuits, rather than the 

legislative process, and we must say enough is enough. 

I have co-sponsored legislation, S.1269, with EPW Chairman Inhofe that would 

provide further clarity by ensuring that NPDES permits would not be required if 

a pesticide is used to, near or over a waterway in accordance with its labeling and 

other federal regulations. But this legislation shouldn’t even be necessary. 

My third concern is regarding air emissions from confined cattle feed operations 

(CAFOs) and Superfund. You know I have been working to clarify the applicability 

of the Superfund and EPCRA programs to agriculture, particularly as it relates to 

livestock operations. To think that a dairy operation or a beef cattle feedlot should 
192 

be regulated identically to a weapons dump, an abandoned mining site, or an oil 

spill is simply ridiculous. 

Yet again, we have environmental lawsuits attempting to tell Congress what WE 

intended to do when passing the Superfund Act in 1980. The EPA is currently implementing the ‘‘Air Consent Agreement,’’ where a small sampling of producers have 

voluntarily agreed to have the EPA gather air emissions data on their farms to 

more intelligently understand how fugitive air emissions should (or should not be) 

regulated by the Superfund and EPCRA. 

I believe that agriculture was never intended to be regulated just like mines, 

weapons dumps, etc. And lawsuits like these are really a backdoor attempt to shut 

down the livestock industry in this country. 

I will address these issues further in my questions, and look forward to working 

with you on these problems. Thank you. 

ARSENIC STANDARDS

Senator CRAIG. My first inquiry is about arsenic standards. I’ve 

heard rumblings that EPA may propose new internal regulatory 

guidance to allow for affordable criteria as it relates to future contaminants. As I understand it, this would give rural communities, 

under 10,000 people, an option of how they would address expensive contaminant issues without economically crippling their communities. In other words, that’s the general concept. 

In Idaho—and Idaho is not alone in this, because of western geology—the arsenic standard has caused considerable problems in 

small-to medium-sized communities. There are approximately 175 

communities that probably do not meet current arsenic standards, 

which, for some small communities, creates huge problems. One 

community, their entire community budget, or city budget, would 

be committed to that, alone, even though they’ve been drinking 

that water for 100 years. 

For instance, one of our rural communities is—was hit hard by 

the arsenic standard, not only passed an expensive bond, but also 

laid off their entire city police force—or city police officer—no, their 

only city police officer—I guess that’s the way I should word it— 

which is their entire police force—to try to afford the compliance. 

To me, this poses, I think, a greater public risk than the issue of 

arsenic, based on historic records. 

If, in fact, EPA is planning on this new regulatory guidance, will 

arsenic be included as a contaminant under the affordability criteria? And will these communities get a waiver? Or, if arsenic is 

not, why? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, you’ve asked a number of questions. 

Let me try to work—— 

Senator CRAIG. Have at it. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. My way through. 

First, the arsenic standard, as you correctly point out, is a new 

standard, a health protective standard of 10 parts per billion. We 

are aware that for some of the small and rural communities, there 

are challenges in meeting that. We’ve been working to address the 

challenges by both technology and our research and development. 

As I mentioned a little while ago, we’ve evaluated or are now evaluating 14 technologies that deal with arsenic contamination. We’re 

continuing to evaluate new technologies specific to arsenic. 

Second is, with regard to waivers or exemptions, the standard is 

the standard. What we do have under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

is the authority, working with the State, to extend the compliance 
193 

period. Of all the systems that I and Ben Grumbles, the head of 

our water program, has been working with, the issue is not whether you’re going to comply or not, the issue is, how do we get them 

into compliance, and over what time period? So, our focus has been 

providing compliance assistance. 

BILATERAL COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS

We’ve been encouraging an approach called Bilateral Compliance 

Agreements between the State and the utility to work out the specifics so that the small water systems can get in compliance, but 

it may take them more time. 

With regard to the affordability—— 

Senator CRAIG. Let’s talk—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. About compliance. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator CRAIG. In other words, if there is a good-faith effort and 

clearly a path forward is being demonstrated by the community in 

relation to the State and EPA, I mean, is that part of all of that 

picture—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is part of all—— 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Timelines? 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Of that picture, yes, sir. That is part 

of that picture. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’ve been working, I think, very constructively 

to try to work through that. 

Second, with regard to the affordability guidance the Agency has 

the methodology that the Agency has used for years to determine 

whether something is affordable or not? We have recently released 

draft guidance. That draft guidance is for prospective contaminants, with the exception of, as we note, in the proposed guidance 

document, that it also applies to the disinfectant byproducts rule 

that I had signed just a couple of months ago. 

Senator CRAIG. But does not include—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But—— 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Arsenic. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It does not include arsenic. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s correct. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, I know you’re working at flexibility. 

That’s obviously appreciated. In some instances, I suspect—and I’m 

glad you’re looking out at new technology—there is a rush toward 

that approach by many in the private sector to see if we can’t get 

technology down to an affordable, workable, sustainable way. You 

know, there isn’t any community out there that doesn’t want to 

comply. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. There is the reality of compliance, some of these 

small communities I’ve just mentioned. So, you lay off your police 

force, one or two. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG. That community is simply not going to tax itself 

beyond its capability, especially when it’s drinking water it’s drunk 
194 

for so long and has found no side effects, that they know of, anyway. 

Why is the EPA not more actively defending their own rules and 

authority on the pesticide application and EPA discharge permit 

issues? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I believe that we are. In fact—— 

Senator CRAIG. So, it’s in the eye of the beholder. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So—perhaps it’s in the eye of the beholder—— 

Senator CRAIG. Your eye tells me what? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, my eye tells me that we recognize that this 

is an issue of uncertainty between the pesticides law, FIFRA, and 

the Clean Water Act. What we did was issue some guidance to say, 

if, in fact, a pesticide is used in accordance with its label directions, 

then an NPDS permit is not required. We are in the process of 

going through the rulemaking process to make sure that is embodied in regulation. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’re very active. We have guidance. We’re working on the regulation—— 

Senator CRAIG. Well, we’ll stay tuned. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So, that’s for my eye. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. We’ll stay tuned with you. It’s an—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, good. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Important issue to be resolved, and 

effectively, responsibly—second-guessing doesn’t work here very 

well for any of the parties involved. Trying to understand—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Where they need to be. 

Last, Mr. Chairman—Administrator Johnson, since I’ve become 

engaged in the issue of confined herds, large herd operations, air 

emissions, and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Superfund issues, as it relates to 

large dairies and feed lots, EPA has not been consistent in their 

position, in my opinion, on this issue. Could you give me the status 

of the Air Consent Agreement, and talk about what direction you 

see this going? 

COMBINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. The Combined Animal Feeding Operation, CAFO, as it’s known. The issue of air emissions was one that 

there was great uncertainty in the science. The National Academy 

of Sciences, in a report, noted that we needed additional science, 

that there wasn’t science to really discern, ‘‘Is there a problem? 

Isn’t there a problem? What is there, what isn’t there?’’ Their 

strong recommendation was that you needed to do research to understand what is going on. 

Well, the research that we need is from those CAFOs. So, we entered into consent agreements with a number of operations, now 

well over 2,000 operations. As part of that agreement, these CAFOs 

are collecting and monitoring information, per our design, which 

will then be brought together. In the next year or so, as we gather 

all that information, then we’ll be able to actually assess the 

science, and then say, ‘‘Is there a problem?’’ If there is, here are 
195 

the steps that need to be taken to address it. If there isn’t a problem, then so be it. This CAFO agreement is, we believe, a very effective means of gathering the information so that we can base our 

decisions on sound science. 

Senator CRAIG. What kind of timelines do you have as it relates 

to gathering information and then what might follow from that information? 

[The information follows:] 

CAFO AGREEMENTS

EPA expects the nationwide AFO air emissions monitoring study to begin later 

this year and it will last two years. This two-year timeframe is necessary for the 

scientific purpose of allowing the monitoring study to take into account variable factors such as weather throughout the different seasons and between the different 

years. Data will start to become available to EPA the first year of the study, and 

will undergo extensive validation and quality assurance by the Agency. Data will 

be published on a rolling basis. No later than 18 months following the monitoring 

study’s conclusion, EPA will then publish emission-estimating methodologies, also 

on a rolling basis. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are continuing to sign up additional farming 

operations. In fact, the specific number is probably close to 2,700 

operations, to date. The monitoring is beginning. I think it’s going 

to take some 9 months to a year to gather the information. Then, 

once we gather that, it’s going to take us some time to assess it. 

Senator CRAIG. It’s got to run through a—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. So—— 

Senator CRAIG [continuing]. Variety of seasonal and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are seasonal and geographic dimensions. We 

want to make sure that we do proper peer review. We want to do 

this in an open and transparent way. A lot of people are very interested in it. I would be happy to get back to the record for you on 

the specific—— 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Schedule. 

Senator CRAIG. It is very important to my State, and, frankly, it’s 

very important to the future of American agriculture, that we get 

this right and we don’t make it impossible, at the same time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. You know, large animal operations have impacts, 

and we all know that. Nobody wants not to do it well. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. We simply need the tools to do it with. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Dorgan. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Johnson, thank you. I’m sorry I was delayed at another hearing. But I’ve looked at your testimony, and 

appreciate your being here. 

CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

Let me ask you, first, about the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund. As you know, EPA’s Gap Analysis shows that there’s about 

$120 billion gap between what we’re currently spending and what 

we need to spend on the infrastructure. The administration has re-
196 

quested $687 million. That’s $700 million below the 2004 level, 

$400 million beneath the 2005 level, $200 million beneath the 2006 

level. Let me ask, if I can, why the 22-percent cut in this account? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Senator, you’re absolutely correct when you say 

that the needs are great. The needs assessments are literally in the 

hundreds of billions of dollars for both clean water as well as the 

drinking water. The President’s budget reflects what the President’s commitment was for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan 

Fund. That commitment was that, over a period of time, the loan 

fund would revolve at $3.4 billion. The monies that have been requested fulfill that presidential commitment to have the loan fund 

revolve at that $3.4 billion. But that’s only a piece of the pie. 

The other piece is that we really need to be working on trying 

to help water systems, particularly the small water systems. We 

believe that there are four pillars to that to address that. One is 

conservation. Another is full-cost pricing; ratepayers have a responsibility, as well. Third is, we need to be looking at this problem not 

just facility by facility, but by watershed because that’s where the 

contaminants and the issues and the availability all need to be considered. Then, last, the issue of better management is the fourth 

pillar. 

We know of the importance of better management from other 

systems. The chairman just mentioned some things on water lines 

of one particular area in California. What we’re trying to do is 

gather those good experiences, these success stories, that could be 

used by other systems. 

The last piece included in the President’s budget is $7 million for 

innovative technologies. We know that the need is great. We’re seeing innovative technologies that could address some of the issues. 

So, for example, rather than replacing a pipe, having to dig up the 

pipe, we’re seeing some liner technology that might be a more costeffective and better option for dealing with some of the issues. 

So—— 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Johnson, what was the recommendation 

from your agency with respect to this year’s budget, as you sent it 

up the line? Can you tell me that, for this account? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t—— 

Senator DORGAN. Did your agency—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t—— 

Senator DORGAN [continuing]. Recommend—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t—— 

Senator DORGAN [continuing]. A 22-percent cut? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t remember what the discussions were within the administration. My goal was to make sure that we honored 

the President’s commitment. This budget reflects that. 

Senator DORGAN. All of the—most of the pillars he described, 

however, are made more difficult by these budget cuts, I would expect. I mean, we—your own gap analysis would suggest that your 

budget should reflect the ability to respond to that. But I under- 

—it’s really not your budget. I was trying to see if I could figure 

out what you had requested, but I understand it’s OMB and now 

the President’s budget. You’re duty bound to come here and put on 

a suit and be aggressively supportive of it. And I respect that view. 
197 

CENTER FOR AIR TOXIC METALS

Let me just say, the President’s budget zeros out $33 million that 

Congress provided through the Science and Technology account for 

specific research projects. Two million dollars of that went to the 

Center for Air Toxic Metals at the University of North Dakota. 

That goes back to 1992. The center is to develop information on 

trace elements and—so that pollution prevention strategies could 

be developed and implemented and so on. There’s no discussion 

anywhere in this budget about why the administration chose to 

zero out that $33 million of research projects. There’s no information about the specific projects that were funded previously and 

would now be defunded. Can you tell me what the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I’d have to look at the $33 million. The specific project referred to is, as are a number of projects, congressional special projects, called earmarks. The administration doesn’t 

carry over those earmarks as part of the next budget. In fact, as 

you know, I’ve been at EPA 25 years, and no administration carries 

over those earmarks. So—— 

Senator DORGAN. I understand that, but normally—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. But on the specific one—I’m not sure 

about the $33 million. I’d be happy to get back to you, for the 

record. 

Senator DORGAN. Yeah. I mean, that’s the Science and Technology account. In fact, this particular center, the Center for Air 

Toxic Metals, was actually created by the EPA. So—at any rate, if 

you would get back to me on that, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’d be happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

The Center for Air Toxic Metals (CATM) at the Energy and Environment Research Center (EERC) of the University of North Dakota (UND) was established in 

1992 to perform research on toxic trace element emissions. EPA will support the 

center in 2006 through a $2 million congressional add-on to the President’s fiscal 

year 2006 budget request—part of a larger set of 37 congressional additions totaling 

$33,275,000 for EPA’s science and technology account. EPA expects fiscal year 2006 

funding for CATM will support research and development concerning mercury’s 

transformation in coal-combustion flue gases; sampling and analytical methods; control technologies; and mercury’s interaction with selenium. Consistent with Agency 

policy and prior president budget requests, the fiscal year 2007 budget does not include funding for congressional add-ons provided in previous fiscal years. 

PESTICIDE HARMONIZATION

Senator DORGAN. Pesticide harmonization under NAFTA, we 

passed NAFTA—of course, I didn’t support it—but on the floor of 

the Senate and during debate, the contention was, we’re going to 

harmonize pesticides between the two countries. We just had a 

study by North Dakota State University that shows that if North 

Dakota consumers—I should say farm producers—paid the same 

price as the Canadian producers just across the border, for virtually identical chemicals, they’d pay $41 million less. They expect, 

and I would have expected, that we would have harmonized, because that’s what NAFTA promised. And yet, there’s been almost 

no effort at all to harmonize these chemicals so that you could do 

joint labels and farmers across the border could essentially buy the 

chemicals and bring them back if they’re the identical chemical, or 

virtually identical. 
198 

So, tell me, where are we on the harmonization? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is an issue that you and I have been talking 

about for some time. I am pleased to report that, on the harmonization front, that we have made great strides. We do not control, 

and have no authority to control, prices, and our focus is on human 

health and environmental assessment, and making sure that the 

products that end up on the market comply with those health and 

environmental protective statutes. 

What we have done as part of the NAFTA agreement is work on 

pesticide harmonization. In fact, we have now, between Canada 

and the United States, jointly registered 20 new active ingredients. 

We have been working cooperatively with our Canadian counterparts in trying to sort through all the data requirements, making 

sure that they are not only consistent, but to do everything we 

could to have joint registrations. As I said, I’m pleased to report 

that we have actually jointly registered 20 new active ingredients. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m aware of—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Clearly, there are opportunities to do more, more 

work to support harmonization. 

Senator DORGAN. Can you give me a timeline with respect to 

your agency’s work on this, so we can expect a time when the requirements of NAFTA will be met, generally? If you would give me 

a report on that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will. 

[The information follows:] 

PESTICIDE HARMONIZATION

While EPA’s existing programs are fully consistent with our obligations under the 

NAFTA, we are continuing to work toward the NAFTA goal of harmonization of regulatory standards whenever possible, without lowering the level of health and environmental protection afforded under U.S. laws. We meet formally with our NAFTA 

counterparts at least two times a year (the next meeting is set for May 24, 2006) 

and maintain frequent contacts with our Pest Management Regulatory Agency 

(PMRA) colleagues. The EPA does not have authority over pesticide pricing, but we 

are continuing to work with state officials, stakeholders, and our international trading partners to explore remedies under existing authorities and through cooperative 

approaches. EPA has been working to break down trade barriers and promote a 

level playing field through our harmonization efforts under the NAFTA Technical 

Working Group on Pesticides (TWG). Under the TWG, the United States and Canada have established a successful Joint Review Program to share the work of evaluating pesticides being marketed in both countries. To date, over 20 new pesticide 

products have been simultaneously registered under the Joint Review program. 

While the United States and Canada have been open to NAFTA labels, and actively 

encouraged pesticide producers to submit candidates, agricultural pesticide producers have been reluctant to apply for NAFTA labels. We have put the structure 

in place but in order for the process to work, pesticide producers will need to participate. EPA, Canada, and Mexico have initiated a stakeholder process involving representatives from government, industry, and growers, to explore solutions related to 

pesticide joint labeling as a way of addressing price disparity. EPA and its Canadian 

counterpart agency plan to hold a meeting with these stakeholders later this year. 

EPA remains committed to providing growers access to pesticide products and continuing our pesticide harmonization efforts with Canada and other international 

partners which have already led to more consistent regulatory and scientific requirements, risk assessment procedures, and improved regulatory decision-making. EPA 

will also continue to provide technical assistance to support Congress, as necessary. 

RED RIVER

Senator DORGAN. One other question. Today’s not a good day to 

raise this, because the Red River is running north, and it’s flooding 
199 

the entire Red River Valley, and we’re trying to run it through 

three communities, with dikes. It’s the third highest flood in the 

history of the Red, so it’s not a good time for me to raise questions 

about the need to replenish the water system of the Red River. 

But, as you know, the Red River does run dry. When the Red 

River dries up, as it has done in the past, it’ll destroy the economies of Fargo and Grand Forks and so on. So, we’ve had this work 

going on, under the Dakota Water Resources Act, that would evaluate the ability to have an assured supply of water for the Red River 

Valley. The Bureau of Reclamation has been doing its studies. It 

is now almost done. It’ll be done this December, 4 years behind the 

date in which it was supposed to have been done, but, nonetheless, 

you know, 4 years later, it’ll be done. Now they’re indicating that 

this is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bureau 

of Studies. EPA plays a part in that. The comment period was now 

extended by the Bureau, after consultation with the EPA. The EPA 

was not yet ready to sign off on the project, and asked for an extension because you want to compile a record. 

I can well understand wanting to compile a record, but I want 

you to understand, the Bureau has fallen behind 4 years. Our hope 

would be that we—you know, with 4 years’ delay, we could certainly have a record out there someplace that somebody could glean 

and use and begin to digest. I hope that, if you have some issues, 

that you will understand the urgency that we have, and that, because it’s 4 years delayed, you’ll work with us and with the Bureau 

to try to move expeditiously on this. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You have my commitment. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Again, I say, it’s not a great time to 

raise the question of needing water in the river, because we’ve got 

way too much at the moment. We’re trying to send it to Winnipeg, 

to get it through our cities, so that Winnipeg gets all of it. 

But, at any rate, let me thank you for your work. 

CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

Senator DORGAN. But, you know, I’m concerned about the 22-percent cut in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. I don’t think 

that helps our communities. I think that hurts us as we’re trying 

to address these issues. I recognize, as I said before, you come here 

supporting a budget that may or may not be your recommendations, but, nonetheless, you’re part of the team, and you’ve got to 

support this. I happen to think that it’s going to shortchange the 

communities. It’s not going to address the gap that we know exists, 

of 120 billion. It’s going to leave us farther back than we should 

have been. But, you know, we’ve got serious—we’ve kind of driven 

in a ditch in fiscal policy here, for a lot of reasons, and we’ve got 

serious problems, so I’m not particularly surprised by all these recommendations, but I think the recommendations hurt, rather than 

help. 

Senator BURNS. We always have a good, friendly competition between North Dakota and Montana. We can never figure out how 

the North Dakotans can flood out and burn out in the same day. 

That was a pretty good trick you pulled that time, you know. It 

really was. 
200 

I’ve got a couple of questions left, also, Mr. Johnson. The Libby 

asbestos site, as I mentioned in my opening statement, could you 

please give us a status report on the Record of Decision, if we could 

get that done by May the 1st, if we can. I think we should talk 

about that. 

LIBBY SITE RECORD OF DECISION

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, yes, sir. On the Libby site, we appreciate all 

the work and your assistance and leadership in this area. We’ve actually cleaned up 595 properties. This year our plan is to clean up 

an additional 200. We have, in the Libby area, about 1,300 properties, and then, in the Troy area, probably 200 to 300. We have 

been working on a number of issues, and trying to work through 

the Libby, as well as the Record of Decision. I would love to have 

a few moments to talk to you about our status on the Record of Decision. We’re going to be a little bit late on that date, but we’re 

working on it. 

Senator BURNS. We would—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I—— 

Senator BURNS. We would like to have a visit, if we possibly 

could—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Senator BURNS [continuing]. Because folks up there are very 

nervous about that. 

We’ve already talked about feed lots and confined feeding. Eighty 

million dollars was rescinded from the Agency’s budget in fiscal 

year 2006 in order—in an effort to offset the need for new appropriations. Give us an update on the Agency’s progress of identifying 

that $80 million, expired grants, contracts, and agreements. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’ve made very good progress. The GAO was 

technically correct, and we have gone back and looked at, and continue to evaluate, our contracts and grants. I expect that within 

the next few weeks, that we’ll actually have what our plan is. It 

has taken a lot of very extensive work to go back and look through 

each of these agreements, both from a legal and from a financial 

standpoint. And so, as I said, we’ll have our roadmap in the next 

few weeks, and then we’ll meet our obligation. Obviously, we can’t 

do the necessary steps on these contracts and grants until the September timeframe, but we’re on target, and look forward to sharing 

that with you. 

Senator BURNS. You might bring us up to date on your Diesel 

Emission Reduction Program. Give me a thumbnail report on that. 

DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. It’s an exciting program. We’ve made 

great strides. In the President’s budget, there is $49.5 million requested. Based on our experience to date, from funds that have 

been used to both replace engines and to retrofit engines, we expect 

to leverage not only that $50 million of Federal taxpayer dollars, 

but another $100 million, to get $150 million invested in diesel 

emission reductions. What that equates to, in terms of environmental benefit, is about 7,000 tons of reduction of particulate matter. If you want to look at that in terms of health benefits, that’s 
201 

about $2 billion in health benefits. So, it’s a wise investment, both 

from an environmental standpoint, and certainly from a public—— 

Senator BURNS. Tell me about—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Health standpoint. 

Senator BURNS. Have you done any work on any—any research 

on the use of turbochargers on diesel engines? They tell me— 

there’s some work being done, and I’m wondering if you have monitored any of that work or—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Personally, I’m not aware of any—— 

Senator BURNS. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. But I’d be happy to check—— 

Senator BURNS. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. With our engineers. 

[The information follows:] 

USE OF TURBOCHARGERS ON DIESEL ENGINES

The EPA’s Clean Diesel Combustion (‘‘CDC’’) technology provides a lower-cost approach for making fuel-efficient diesel engines clean. EPA’s CDC strategy, controlling the diesel engine’s NOX emissions to EPA’s Tier 2 levels without NOX

aftertreatment, increases the turbocharger’s performance requirements to levels 

which are beyond levels required in the market place today. 

On April 18, 2006, EPA Administrator Steve Johnson joined BorgWarner, Inc’s 

Chairman and CEO Tim Manganello to celebrate a joint Government-Industry collaboration in this area of turbocharger technology. Through this collaboration, EPA 

invented turbocharger technologies are being evaluated and commercialized by 

BorgWarner (U.S. based corporation, with turbocharger manufacturing in Asheville, 

NC). 

Under the partnership, EPA is providing prototype turbochargers and proprietary 

insight to improve turbocharger efficiency at low temperature. BorgWarner has supplied modified production hardware to accelerate the commercialization and technology transfer process, as well as to support EPA’s CDC industry partnerships with 

Ford and International Truck to continue their commercialization evaluations of 

CDC. A fact sheet and Press Releases from BorgWarner and EPA are also attached. 

This EPA-Industry partnership in the area of diesel engine combustion and 

turbochargers is one of several focused on enabling near-term energy conservation 

through the use of clean automotive technologies. EPA’s innovative program has 35 

engine and hybrid drivetrain related patents with 20 more underway. 

CLEAN AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY—INNOVATION THAT WORKS

EPA AND BORGWARNER TO DEVELOP FUEL EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY

A new technology partnership known as a Cooperative Research and Development 

Agreement (CRADA) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and 

BorgWarner, Inc. was announced on April 18, 2006. The partnership will evaluate 

and determine the commercial viability of newly advanced turbochargers, air management, and sensors for use with diesel and high-efficiency gasoline engines. 

The initial efforts of the CRADA calls for EPA and BorgWarner to evaluate the 

technical and market potential of advanced turbocharger technologies designed to 

preserve and extend the diesel engine’s efficiency, as these engines achieve the next 

generation of diesel emissions requirements. 

The technical challenge has been to make these high-efficiency engines clean and 

cost-effective, while maintaining or improving efficiency. These advanced 

turbocharging technologies are an extremely attractive part of a suite of technologies that enable both diesel and high-efficiency gasoline engines to reduce U.S. 

dependence on foreign oil and to reduce emission of greenhouse gases. 

Through the partnership, EPA and BorgWarner will evaluate these advanced 

automotive components that can allow the automotive and trucking industry to utilize EPA’s Clean Diesel Combustion (CDC), as well as Homogeneous Charge-Compression Ignition (HCCI) gasoline combustion technologies. 

Broad industry interest in EPA’s Clean Diesel Combustion has accelerated the 

need for more advanced air-boosting systems than are used in today’s diesel. 
202 

In order to meet the progressive requirements for advanced turbocharging and 

boosting systems, BorgWarner and EPA have been working jointly on innovative 

systems for use with CDC and other clean combustion engine technologies. 

These advanced air management systems provide the technical approaches and 

hardware necessary for ultra-clean diesel engines and gasoline engines to become 

as efficient as diesel engines. 

The advanced enabling technologies, along with CDC and other clean high-efficiency gasoline combustion technologies are being created in EPA’s Ann Arbor Laboratory. BorgWarner and EPA will work to quickly evaluate and develop these concepts into commercially viable advanced turbocharger, air management, and sensor 

hardware. 

Successful commercialization of these advanced components will result in the use 

of more diesel and high-efficiency gasoline vehicles in the United States—which will: 

—Reduce emissions... thereby helping to clean up the environment 

—Save consumers money at the pump . . . by reducing fuel consumption 

—Reduce U.S. dependence on Middle East... increasing national security 

—Reduce record U.S. trade deficit... keeps money in United States—grows 

economy 

PARTNERSHIP GEARED TOWARD NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE FUEL CONSUMPTION

Cleaner engines mean cleaner air thanks to a partnership to develop advanced 

automotive components for cleaner, more fuel efficient engines and vehicles. The 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and BorgWarner will examine the commercial viability of newly advanced turbochargers, air management, and electronic sensors for use with clean diesel and high efficiency gasoline engines. Commercialization of these technologies will result in lower emissions and reduced fuel consumption, which in turn saves Americans money at the pump, improves environmental 

protection and lessens dependence on foreign oil. 

‘‘By advancing the technologies that are good for the environment, good for our 

economy, and good for our energy security, together with BorgWarner, EPA is meeting the president’s call to get our nation off the treadmill of foreign oil dependency,’’ 

said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. ‘‘For the past century, diesel engines 

have been America’s economic workhorse—reliable, fuel efficient, and long lasting. 

Through innovations in technology, this economic workhorse is expanding into an 

environmental workhorse.’’ 

Diesel powered passenger vehicles have significantly better fuel economy than 

their gasoline powered counterparts. Through the partnership, BorgWarner will 

build and evaluate unique turbochargers that will help maintain fuel economy in 

clean diesel combustion systems. The company also will develop air management 

and combustion sensor technologies. Partnering with BorgWarner allows this ‘‘made 

in the USA’’ technology to also support manufacturing jobs in the United States 

through their turbocharger manufacturing and engineering facilities in Asheville, 

NC. 

The EPA—BorgWarner partnership was established through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, which is a tool Congress established to facilitate technology transfer from National Laboratories to industry and the marketplace. 

More information about the partnership and clean fuel efficient technology: 

epa.gov/otaq/technology 

DIESEL HYBRID TECHNOLOGY

Mr. JOHNSON. We’ve done some very interesting work on diesel 

hybrid technology that uses hydraulic hybrid systems. So, instead 

of using a battery to store the energy that comes from braking, 

EPA’s unique patented hybrid system stores the energy in a hydraulic system. In fact, we have a partnership with UPS where we 

are demonstrating this technology in their delivery trucks. You’re 

going to begin seeing some trucks actually being used to deliver 

packages which have diesel hybrid hydraulic technology. The fuel 

savings for the hydraulic hybrid trucks is significant. So, we’re very 

excited about the work that we’ve been doing with the Department 
203 

of Energy, the hydraulic industry, and some of the engine manufacturers, to advance these kind of technologies. 

Senator BURNS. Good. 

Senator Domenici, thank you for coming this morning. 

Senator DOMENICI. Who owns that patent? Whose patent is that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It’s actually an EPA patent. 

Senator DOMENICI. Terrific. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Researchers from our Ann Arbor, Michigan, laboratory are the ones that—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Terrific. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Have the patent. 

Senator DOMENICI. Are they out there trying to get it into the 

market and— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It is actually a joint partnership effort with 

a number of auto and truck manufacturers. UPS is going to be the 

first one in the market with this technology. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, how do you come about that? Do you 

have a laboratory that does that work? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, we have a laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 

that invented the technology and is part of the technology transfer 

partnerships helping to move this technology to the market. This 

is the same laboratory that deals with, you know, the window 

stickers that everybody sees on the windows of new cars. 

Senator DOMENICI. Yeah. 

Mr. JOHNSON. This is the laboratory that actually does the emissions and fuel economy testing of new cars to validate and verify 

testing that is done by the automobile manufacturers, so that the 

consumers can know the fuel economy of new vehicles. The engineers in this laboratory did the research and development of the 

unique hydraulic hybrid technology. 

Senator DOMENICI. Interesting. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now we have 35 patents granted and 20 underway 

covering engine and hybrid technologies. 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of issues in this 

appropriations, but I’m only going to deal with a very small one 

that has been befuddling New Mexicans for a long time. 

I’m so grateful to you, Mr. Johnson, for helping us on arsenic in 

the small communities. We still are—still can’t get it worked out 

with the State of New Mexico. I don’t like to get you in the middle 

with the environmental people in the State, but I have no alternative. I—you have a different approach than they do, and I just 

must continue to push hard as to why they can’t see fit to do what 

you think is possible to help the small users, those small arsenicladen water systems. 

ARSENIC STANDARD

First, we want to thank you for the help—you’ve detailed responses to my questions—and your willingness to come and personally meet with me and others, and a number of Senators. You did 

that for us. You asked—I asked that the State use the minimum 

documentation necessary to meet your guidance on exemption applications—you’re aware of that—to implement existing State policy and the EPA guidance so that communities can receive exemptions from economic hardships, which are—is in quotes—that’s 
204 

works of art—and adjust for New Mexico’s relatively low median 

household income, and use alternative approaches to issuing formal 

exemptions in order to use the full flexibility provided by the EPA 

to buffer—excuse me—to offer bilateral agreements for time extensions for the individual water systems that meet general financial 

or concentration criteria. Do you believe that these suggestions are 

permissible under existing regulations? And, if so, do you think it 

justifiable for a State to permit these to be used by the water systems in the State? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, Senator, you raise a very important issue 

with regard to the revised arsenic standard. We are very supportive of these bilateral compliance agreements between the State 

and the individual utilities. We see that as an effective mechanism 

to provide the necessary window of time so that an individual utility can come into compliance with the 10-parts-per-billion arsenic 

standard. In all the discussions that I’ve had, it’s not been whether 

they will or will not. Everyone wants to come in compliance with 

that. It’s, How do we do that, and do we have sufficient time to do 

that? What we’ve been doing, and, certainly, as an agency, focusing 

on compliance assistance. How can we assist the communities? As 

I said, the bilateral compliance agreement is, we believe, an effective mechanism to be able to do that. 

In addition, as I believe I mentioned earlier, we have been actively continuing to research new technologies that help—— 

Senator DOMENICI. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That particularly—help all communities, but particularly help small communities. 

Senator DOMENICI. But we’re not there yet. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. Some of them aren’t right behind 

the eight ball. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we’re—— 

Senator DOMENICI. We’re almost there, but the State is saying, 

‘‘Do it,’’ and you’re on the outside, saying, ‘‘Maybe you can get extensions, and here are some ways to do it,’’ if I—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And—— 

Senator DOMENICI [continuing]. If I read it right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. We’re committed to work with our State partners 

to help provide whatever we can do. The flexibility is given. As you 

appropriately point out, there are flexibilities within the statute so 

that—again, they need to meet the standard, but flexibilities in 

time, so that they have an opportunity to meet it. 

Senator DOMENICI. Now, you’re going to continue to expeditious 

and fair reevaluation, as I understand it, and, if appropriate, repromulgation of arsenic standards, in light of the new scientific— 

any new scientific data, as—that would indicate that the science 

relating to arsenic might be changed. You’re still working in that 

arena. It’s a—day-by-day, scientists are still working at that. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, it’s true. It’s true for a number of chemicals. 

As an agency, we always need to be open to what the new science 

tells us. Whether it’s arsenic or some other contaminant of concern, 

we have to be open to that. So, both for arsenic, as well as a num-
205 

ber of other compounds, as the science continues to evolve, as additional research, then we, as an agency, need to be open. 

INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM

We do have, as part of the President’s budget, a $9 million request to support IRIS, which is our Integrated Risk Information 

System, which is the principal system and the support of the scientists, to make sure that we’re keeping up with the evolving 

science for contaminants. 

So, yes, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. What is that called? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The Integrated Risk Information System, also 

called IRIS—— 

Senator DOMENICI. IRIS. 

Mr. JOHNSON.—I-R-I-S. 

Senator DOMENICI. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator DOMENICI. You’re part of that team. You have $9 million 

to spend in that activity? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That’s correct. 

Senator DOMENICI. I want to thank you, personally, for what you 

do in your job. You don’t get—people don’t know what kind of job 

you have. I knew your predecessor very well, Paul Gilman. He’s— 

he was—worked for me for a long time. I guess you know that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Well, thank you, sir. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. 

ARSENIC STANDARD

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Yes, sir. 

Senator Allard? 

Senator ALLARD. Well, I—you’re going to get a little bit on arsenic from me, too. 

I mean, all—— 

Senator BURNS. We’ve all got it out there. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. We all have this arsenic concern. 

What is the—strictly from a health risk standpoint—I’m not talking about what’s in the law, but I’m talking about from a health 

risk standpoint, what is generally the level that is acceptable? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the maximum—— 

Senator ALLARD. It’s somewhat higher than what we have in law. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, the maximum contaminant level, set at 10- 

parts-per-billion, is health protective. I know that the National 

Academy of Sciences and a variety of other people have opined on 

that particular issue. It’s not one on which I am particularly an expert, myself. Let me—I’ll turn to Ben Grumbles or—do you have 

any additional information? Ben Grumbles is the head of our Water 

Program, our Assistant Administrator for Water, Senator. 

Senator ALLARD. Thank you. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, I don’t have the specifics on the science, 

but, based on the National Academy of Sciences report, when the 

Agency went through the rulemaking process to set the MCL and 

to move from the 50-parts-per-billion, which had been the previous 

standard, down to the 10-parts-per-billion, that, based on the 
206 

science in that report, the Agency went through a process where 

the standard would have been even more stringent than the 10- 

parts-per-billion. It was somewhere in the 5- to 8-parts-per-billion. 

The administrator used the flexibility—the new flexibility provided 

in the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996, taking costs 

into account, and feasibility, and ended up with the 10-parts-perbillion standard, which is the current standard. So—— 

Senator ALLARD. Set by, basically, the Congress—isn’t that correct? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, the—— 

Senator ALLARD. Isn’t that set in—— 

Mr. GRUMBLES [continuing]. The Congress didn’t specify the 10- 

parts-per-billion, but the Congress provided for a process to go 

through for setting a standard, and the Congress did direct that 

the Agency set a standard. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, you know, I was always under the understanding that that 10-parts-per-billion was a much lower level than 

what historically has been accepted as a level where you would impact a life-threatening situation, as far as the human population is 

concerned. Now, there’s—if you talk about arsenic levels, and you 

want to talk about other parts of the environment—you know, fish 

or birds or something—they might be much more sensitive to levels. But I was trying to get out of you about where the human risk 

level would be, where we have the increased. I have always been 

under the assumption it was higher. Now, I was formerly a health 

officer, and we had a higher level than that, that we considered before you actually concerned about just health risk. That’s the figure 

I was trying to get on the record here. I thought it was somewhere 

around 50-parts-per-billion, which you threw out, which was our 

original standard that we had there. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That’s correct. 

Senator ALLARD. I guess if we’re trying to protect birds, which 

tend to be very sensitive to these kind of things, and fish and all 

this, then that—maybe we have to go down to 10-parts-per-billion. 

I mean, the struggle that we’re going with is, I have communities 

in my State, too, that have actually—they’re not as low as the 10- 

parts-per-billion, but they’re—it’s not at a level that creates a 

health problem for the human population in that community. It 

seems to me—and Senator Craig also alluded to this, that people 

in my community have been drinking this water for decades and 

not had a problem, and all of a sudden they’re faced with this challenge. It seems to me, in setting priorities, we look at the health 

risk. Right now the standard is so tight that this is a naturally occurring level in these communities, in that river that they get their 

water out of, is higher than 10-parts-per-billion, and you’re asking 

that small community to clean up that river, and they didn’t cause 

the problem. It was there by nature. Nature put it there. 

It seems to me that if we’re going to be providing an exemption, 

and they are a struggling community that doesn’t have a lot of 

money, it seems to me that there’s—you can provide them some 

economic relief and not create a problem for them economically. If 

that level is higher than 10-parts-per-billion, and it’s been there for 

hundreds of years, there’s probably not many birds or fish that are 

surviving in that area right now, anyhow, because they haven’t— 
207 

they wouldn’t be able to, if that’s affecting them, at this particular 

point. 

Now, those communities where arsenic is added in, because of 

manufacturing operations or—that’s a different story. But so many 

of us are at the top of the heap, from Montana and Colorado and 

Idaho. That’s just a naturally occurring product—chemical that you 

find in drinking water. It’s been there for hundreds of years. Now 

these communities are expected—and it seems to me that—and I 

guess my question is, Do we have the—do you have the flexibility 

to look at that, in a small community that’s struggling, and not 

having any health effects to the human population, saying, ‘‘Well, 

you know, this is a community that we can—we don’t have to press 

them so hard to get it done, until we get our technology developed?’’ 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, a couple of things. When the 10-partsper-billion number was established, a definite factor involved in 

that was the threat to public health. Now, as the administrator 

said, we need to continue to review the science behind all our regulations. The Water Office doesn’t—it’s not currently on our agenda 

to revise—to go through a process to revise that 10-parts-per-billion 

standard, but what is extremely important is to continue to gather 

the science, and to use the 6-year review process, under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, for regulations that have been promulgated, 

to ensure we revisit, over time. 

On the extensions part—— 

Senator ALLARD. Let me—if it is a threat to human health, why 

do you let ’em drink it? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. If it is—I’m sorry—if it—— 

Senator ALLARD. You said the 10-parts-per-billion was a threat 

to human health. So, why do you let ’em drink it? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, it’s a factor. It’s one of the factors that’s involved in the risk, in the health assessment. 

Senator ALLARD. I—— 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right. 

Senator ALLARD. The point is, though, is that 10-parts-per-billion, on and by itself, it might be—— 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right. 

Senator ALLARD [continuing]. A factor in accumulating—a number of accumulating factors. But, you know, if this is such a public 

health problem, you shouldn’t let ’em ever drink the water, even 

now. You shouldn’t ever let ’em drink the water. But the point is, 

is that this has been there for hundreds of years. These communities have been suffering—they’ve been dealing with this. There 

hasn’t been an unusual death rate in these communities. It seems 

to me, in trying to provide—you know, you can give these communities a little relief, economically, and—it seems to me like you can 

have the science to support that, at least historically, and not have 

to force this economic burden on ’em until we get some technology 

that’s developed that can actually work on it. It seems to me 

there’s some common sense that we’re missing here. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Your points are well taken. That’s one of the reasons why the administrator has ensured that our office maximize 

the flexibility that’s provided. The statute calls them ‘‘exemptions.’’ 

It’s really extensions of time to reflect the priorities and the econo-
208 

mies of scale. That’s why we point to the fact that small communities can have up to 9 years to comply with that standard as we 

develop more effective technologies, and funds are available under 

the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and other mechanisms 

to make it affordable, over time. 

Senator ALLARD. Well, in my State, these small communities 

may not be increasing in population. Now, they may be, and may 

be in a better financial position in—9 years from now, but I don’t 

see their economic situation improving, frankly. Do you, Mr. Chairman? I don’t—you know, they’re struggling. In some cases, they’re 

actually losing population. Being able to deal with—and I don’t see 

the cost of developing this technology really coming down, unless 

you really mass produce it. 

It just seems to me that we’re really getting ourselves into kind 

of a—an area that we’re just going to say to these people, ‘‘Well, 

you know, your community’s going to die, and the river arsenic level’s going to stay the same, because the community won’t be there 

to treat the water.’’ And it seems to me we’ve lost focus on some 

common sense here, somehow or the other. I’d just encourage you, 

if you have the latitude there in the law, to give this some serious 

thought. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Allard. 

Well, I thank you, Mr. Director, for coming down this morning. 

I have no more questions, although there will be some, and then 

we’ll have our visit, and then we’ll meet—somewhere, we’ll meet 

and iron all of our difficulties out. There’s not that many of ’em. 

I will—I want to congratulate you. You’ve done a good job down 

there, and under very difficult conditions and circumstances, because I know what your job would be, and I don’t think I could 

keep all those balls in the air if I were trying to do it. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will stand in recess 

subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 10:37 a.m., Thursday, April 6, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 
(209) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS

Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior supporting fiscal year 2007 funding for 

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a restored level of $170 million. At 

the end of this statement we will also touch on a special one-time request for $5 

million for the NEA in the next Gulf Coast emergency package, separate from its 

regular fiscal year 2007 funding. 

The requested fiscal year 2007 funding of $170 million 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; 

and 

—cover increased administrative and grant-making costs. 

My statement focuses on the core programs of the NEA: Access to Artistic Excellence, Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth, and Challenge America: Reaching Every Community. I would like especially to explain how local arts agencies use 

these programs to serve their communities. 

Local arts agencies are Americans for the Arts’ key constituency, and advancing 

full and affordable access to the arts is at the heart of their mission. Local arts 

agencies meet community needs by using the arts to address social, educational, and 

economic development issues as well as by supporting ‘‘art for art’s sake.’’ 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, of which many are designated official arts agencies for their communities and entrusted with granting government 

funds. The remaining quarter are government agencies. 

Turning to the core programs of the NEA: 

First, the Access to Artistic Excellence core program of the NEA helps local arts 

agencies build infrastructure, pool resources, and coordinate local partnerships and 

coalitions, with the aim of extending the reach of artists and arts organizations to 

new audiences. A few examples of recent fiscal year 2006 grants include: 

—The Arts Council in Stuart, FL, received a grant to support a needs assessment 

and cultural inventory as preliminary steps toward the development of a cultural plan, including a comprehensive catalogue of the county’s cultural assets. 
210 

—In Broward County, FL, a grant from the NEA supports an e-marketing program, a regional shared calendar database, and electronic advertisements for 

cultural events and organizations in a multi-county area. 

—South Dakotans for the Arts received a grant to support the Prairie Arts Management Institute, which provides intensive training for staff of small and midsized arts organizations from the ‘‘prairie states’’ of Middle America. 

The second of the NEA’s core programs is Learning in the Arts for Children and 

Youth. To cite the NEA’s applications guidelines, this program ‘‘achieves its support 

of arts education through a focus on children, teachers, artists, arts organizations, 

and school leadership that will model best practices in arts education, disseminate 

those practices to the field, and build the case for quality arts education across the 

country. Critical to this strategy is the rigorous application of national, state, or 

local arts education standards.’’ 

Grants to local arts agencies from the Learning in the Arts core program typically 

support collaborations among teaching artists, local arts institutions, and providers 

of educational services to students in school and after-school. These grants play to 

the strengths of local arts agencies, which often maintain rosters of teaching artists 

and facilitate multi-party partnerships. 

Recent examples include: 

—The Fulton County Arts Council in Atlanta, GA, received a grant for afterschool visual arts workshops and open studios for stained glass, clay, furniture 

making, glass blowing, and printmaking. The teenage participants are referred 

by the Fulton County Juvenile Court probation officer or a judge. 

—In Lafayette, LA, the Acadiana Arts Council received a grant for an after-school 

and summer program featuring workshops in the visual and performing arts, 

emphasizing job-building skills. Participants work with artists on projects including public mural, web design, and theater production. 

—In Tennessee, Allied Arts of Chattanooga is supporting local teaching artists 

who team with classroom teachers to develop and implement a curriculum that 

promotes reading and writing through dance, theater, and visual arts. 

The third core program of the NEA is Challenge America: Reaching Every Community. To quote the NEA once again: 

‘‘[T]his category offers $10,000 grants, primarily to small and mid-sized organizations, for projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved populations— 

those whose opportunities to experience the arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, 

economics, or disability. Projects that are supported in this category generally are 

smaller in scale and shorter in duration than those in the Access to Artistic Excellence or Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth categories.’’ 

Grants are limited to four specific uses: special events with guest artists; professionally developed public art projects such as murals or sculptures that are developed with community engagement; civic design activities; and planning projects that 

address cultural tourism or economic revitalization. 

With a simpler application process and expedited review, these grants are especially valuable to arts organizations that lack the administrative staffing and expertise to compete with larger, better-funded organizations. Challenge America is a key 

component of the NEA’s drive, which we praise, to ensure that direct federal support for the arts is spread broadly and fairly across the country. Our research shows 

that in fiscal year 2005, 114 congressional districts received direct NEA grants solely through this program. 

Recent examples of grants to local arts agencies include: 

—In Aliceville, AL, the Rural Members Association received a grant to support 

the Freedom Creek Blues Festival, which showcases Alabama blues artists. 

—In Idaho Falls, ID, the Arts Council received a grant to promote the Idaho Falls 

Cultural District, supporting the production of brochures, advertising, and banners for the district. 

—The Iowa Trails Council received a grant to support the design and installation 

of public art on the Cedar View Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Bridges in Jefferson County, IA. 

Unfortunately, the administration’s requested budget includes a cut of $3.46 million from the Challenge America core program of the NEA. The funds would be 

shifted to the other core grant programs as well as to cover increased administrative 

costs. As noted at the beginning of my statement, we are requesting that the NEA 

receive an appropriation that can accommodate these needs without taking funds 

from an existing program that is effective, popular, and essential to accomplishing 

the NEA’s goal of distributing federal funds fairly across the country. 
211 

Finally, I would like to address our special request for $5 million in disaster recovery funds for the NEA as part of the next relief package of reprogrammed or supplemental appropriations. 

As soon as Hurricane Katrina hit, the arts community stepped forward with open 

hearts and helping hands, in common with the rest of the nation. In the immediate 

aftermath of the storm, national arts organizations collected and disseminated information including damage reports, requests for help, and offers of aid. National organizations also solicited, coordinated, and/or provided assistance. For example, by 

Monday, September 5, the board of directors of Americans for the Arts had approved 

the release of $100,000 from our reserve funds. In 30 days, we disbursed the entire 

amount in emergency grants to local arts agencies and other arts organizations in 

the affected areas. Finally, national arts service organizations asked for federal relief funds to be provided to the NEA to address specific, unique needs, and that 

would not duplicate other federal programs. 

The NEA’s expertise is unmatched among federal agencies with respect to the internal operations of arts organizations, their public services, and their relationships 

to the broader community. Therefore, several national arts organizations have developed a proposal for $5 million in NEA funds that would provide technical assistance and planning for nonprofit arts organizations. In view of the immense shock 

that the storm delivered to a regional economy, arts organizations must come up 

with plans to withstand several years of reduced funding and smaller audiences. 

Many that have been forced to suspend operations must figure out how, when, 

and—unfortunately—even whether to reopen. Regrettably, these organizations as 

nonprofits are ineligible for Economic Injury Disaster Loans from the Small Business Association. Most similarly cannot qualify for help in any form from FEMA. 

Finally, other federal funds, especially the Community Development Block Grants, 

which normally can be used at the discretion of city governments to assist the arts, 

are now being directed almost solely to assistance for homeowners. We certainly do 

not begrudge the help to these individuals—they need it. My points are simply that 

first, almost no federal help is currently available for the nonprofit arts, and second, 

the arts need help because they are key to the recovery and rebuilding of devastated 

communities. Third and finally, as I indicated, private groups and individuals from 

around the nation stepped forth and helped at a moment’s notice. I understand that 

the arts could not be at the top of the list for federal help when a million people 

were displaced and an entire infrastructure was destroyed. Eight months later, however, it seems appropriate to begin investing in their recovery. To its credit, the 

NEA scraped together $700,000 in fiscal year 2006 funds to dispatch in discretionary grants. More funding, more broadly disbursed, is needed as quickly as possible. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY, AUDUBON, DUCKS

UNLIMITED, AND THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

We are writing to express our support for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program in fiscal year 2007. We appreciate your past support 

of this extremely effective matching grant program that coordinates and funds the 

conservation of neotropical migratory birds and their habitats throughout the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. We urge your continued support 

in the current funding cycle. 

Each spring, some 5 billion birds from 500 different species make their spectacular migration from their winter habitats in Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, 

and northern parts of South America to their breeding grounds throughout North 

America. These species comprise a vast array of many well known birds, such as: 

ducks, geese, and other waterfowl; raptors; warblers; thrushes; shorebirds such as 

sandpipers and plovers; hummingbirds; orioles; and many others that fly in this annual ritual. 

Unfortunately, the survival rate for many migratory birds is relatively low, due 

in part to natural predation and general hazards along their migratory route. Exacerbating these challenges, however, is the continuing loss of habitat in the breeding 

grounds, staging areas, and wintering grounds of these species, particularly 

throughout the Caribbean, Latin America and Canada. Through the establishment 

of a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

these birds in the United States, Latin America, and Caribbean, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program provides a comprehensive approach 

to address the varied and significant threats facing the numerous species of migratory birds as identified in the North America Bird Conservation Initiative. 
212 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program has provided 

an effective framework for nations, states, local governments and other entities to 

work together cooperatively for the protection of neotropical migratory birds in the 

Western Hemisphere. It has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss and degradation and of advancing innovative management and habitat restoration strategies for the broad range of neotropical birds. Grants have gone to conservation programs in 31 states and 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries for projects that 

protect, research, monitor, and manage neotropical migratory bird populations and 

their habitats. Partner funds have contributed $80 million since fiscal year 2002, 

far exceeding the 3:1 federal match requirement to nearly 4:1. In fact, for the 37 

projects approved in fiscal year 2005, partners leveraged $17.6 million in funds 

against the $3.9 million appropriated by Congress. 

We urge the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to prioritize fiscal year 2007 

funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program at $5 

million, the currently authorized level, an increase of $1 million from the appropriated amount in fiscal year 2006. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS BASIN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Gerald H. Holman, Senior 

Vice President of the Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce, Wichita, Kansas and 

Chairman of the Kansas Interstate Committee for the Arkansas Basin Development 

Association (ABDA). 

The Kansas ABDA representatives join with our colleagues from the other Arkansas River Basin states to form the multi-state Arkansas Basin Development Association. We fully endorse the summary statement presented to you by the Chairman 

of the Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. 

Public Law 108–137 authorized a 12-foot channel on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas 

River Navigation System. The Corps is now obligated to operate and maintain the 

system as a 12-foot channel. Over 90 percent of the system currently is adequate 

for a 12-foot channel. Deepening the remainder of the channel to 12 feet will allow 

carriers to place 43 percent more cargo on barges, which will reduce the amount 

of fuel consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount of $7.0 million were 

allocated in fiscal year 2005 with $1.5 million used to complete the Feasibility Study 

and Environmental Impact Statement with the other $5.5 million used on engineering, design, and construction activities. In conjunction with the deepening project 

the Corps is preparing a Basin Wide Master Plan that will include an integrated 

major maintenance construction and operational maintenance prioritized list for investment opportunities. Other environmental benefits include the creation of new 

aquatic habitat through new dike construction and the construction of Least Tern 

islands through beneficial use of dredged material. 

Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth by constructing dike structures to minimize dredging and dredging only necessary areas. 

This investment will increase the cost competitiveness of this low cost, environmentfriendly transportation method and help us combat the loss of industry and jobs to 

overseas. 

The critical water resources projects in the Kansas portion of the Arkansas River 

Basin are identified below. The projects are environmental and conservation in nature and all have regional and/or multi-state impact. We are grateful for your past 

commitment to these projects. 

A. We ask for your continued support for this important Bureau of Reclamation 

project on behalf of the Wichita/South Central Kansas area: 

Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.—This is the continuation of a 

Bureau of Reclamation project jointly endorsed by the City of Wichita, Groundwater 

Management District No. 2 and the State of Kansas. This model technology has 

proven the feasibility of recharging a major groundwater aquifer supplying water to 

nearly 600,000 irrigation, municipal and industrial users. The demonstration project 

has successfully recharged more than one billion gallons of water from the Little Arkansas River. The project is essential to help protect the aquifer from on-going degradation caused by the migration of saline water. 

The Equus Beds are vital to the surrounding agricultural economy. Also, environmental protection of the aquifer, which this strategic project provides, has increasing importance to ensure quality water for the future since south central Kansas 

will rely to an even greater extent on the Equus Beds aquifer for water resources. 

The south-central Kansas economy including the Wichita MSA represents: 

—More than 20 percent of the state’s employment. 

—More than one-third of the state’s manufacturing employment and payroll. 
213 

—At least 20 percent of the state personal income. 

The quality of life and economic future for more than 20 percent of the state’s population and economy is dependent upon the availability of reliable, high quality 

water resources from the Equus Beds. 

The State of Kansas supports the project as the needed cornerstone for the area 

agricultural economy and for the economy of the Wichita metropolitan area. The 

Chief Engineer of Kansas has authorized full-scale construction. 

The aquifer storage and recovery project is a vital component of Wichita’s comprehensive and integrated water supply strategy. The full scale design concept for 

the aquifer storage and recovery project calls for a multi-year construction program. 

Phase One is estimated to cost approximately $25 million and is scheduled for completion in 2007. The total project involving the capture and recharge of more than 

100 million gallons of water per day is estimated to cost $130 million over 10 years. 

This is substantially less costly, both environmentally and economically, when compared with reservoir construction or other alternatives. 

We are grateful for your previous cost share funding during the demonstration 

phase, as a compliment to funds provided by the City of Wichita. As we enter the 

construction phase, we request continued Congressional support in two ways: 

1. House Bill 1327 was passed by the House of Representatives last year. The 

Senate passed a very similar bill, Senate Bill 1025. This legislation, or similar legislation, would authorize the project and also provide cost share funding up to 25 percent of the project cost to a maximum of $30 million. We request your support of 

this legislation authorizing the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project as a Federal 

project and directing the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in its final design 

and construction to completion. 

2. Through continued cost share funding of the full-scale Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project within the limits of House Bill 1327 or similar legislation for fiscal 

year 2007. 

B. The Arkansas River Basin is a treasure that must be protected for future generations. However, we are experiencing decline in water quality due to sediment and 

nutrient loading. The quality of the water in the Arkansas River and its tributaries, 

including the numerous reservoirs in the system, is a reflection of its watershed and 

land use practices. It is imperative that the subbasins within the system are studied 

using the watershed approach and that protective remedies are identified and implemented to reverse the continuing decline in water quality. We recommend adding 

the following high priority watershed studies to the fiscal year 2007 budget: 

1. Walnut River (El Dorado Lake) Watershed Feasibility Study.—A reconnaissance 

study was conducted in July 2000 by the USACE, Tulsa District, which identified 

ecosystem restoration as a primary concern in the Walnut Basin. The Kansas Water 

Office entered into an agreement with the USACE to begin a Walnut River Basin 

Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study for the entire basin. 

Following the initial phase of the feasibility study, it was decided that focusing 

the study to a smaller geographic area would make more efficient use of existing 

local, state, and federal resources. The project was re-scoped to focus study efforts 

on protection and restoration of El Dorado Lake and its contributing watershed. 

Public water supply storage in El Dorado Lake is owned by the City of El Dorado 

and represents an important future regional water supply source for the Walnut 

Basin. The reservoir and its watershed have been designated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment as high priority for Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) implementation for eutrophication (nutrients) and siltation. Fecal coliform 

bacteria is another high priority TMDL pollutant. Because of the importance of protecting both water quality and quantity in El Dorado Lake, and to more effectively 

target limited resources, KWO has partnered with the City of El Dorado to address 

long-term protection and restoration needs for the reservoir and its watershed, in 

cooperation with other local, state and federal agencies. 

Study efforts include addressing identified opportunities to reduce sedimentation 

in El Dorado Lake and meet the watershed total daily maximum load (TMDL) 

issues of sediment and eutrophication for the purpose of preserving existing water 

supply storage, restoring riparian and aquatic habitat in the lake and watershed. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget for this project in the amount of $200,000 is for continuation of the feasibility study. We support the President’s proposed fiscal year 

2007 budget which includes $80,000 for completion of the feasibility study in September 2007 

2. Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.—A need exists for a basin-wide 

water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the 

issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A federal interest has been determined from the reconnaissance study as a result from a Congressional add in fiscal 

year 2003 and another add was appropriated in fiscal year 2004. The Reconnais-
214 

sance Report has been approved. Feasibility Cost Share Agreements will be executed in 2006. The study would support management efforts by Kansas and Oklahoma agencies to address watershed and reservoir restoration issues in the Grand 

Lake Watershed. Local interest exists for ecosystem restoration projects and flood 

damage reduction projects. We request funding in the amount of $450,000 in fiscal 

year 2007. 

C. Grand Lake Feasibility Study.—A need exists to evaluate solutions to upstream 

flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements 

necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A study authorized 

by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was completed in September of 

1998 and determined that if the project were constructed based on current criteria, 

additional easements would be required. Section 449 of the WRDA of 2000 directed 

the Secretary to evaluate backwater effects specifically due to flood control operations on land around Grand Lake and authorizes a feasibility study at full Federal 

cost if the Secretary determines that Federal actions have been a significant cause 

of the backwater effects. The Tulsa District is preparing a letter report which will 

be submitted to the ASA(CW) for a determination on proceeding with a full federally 

financed feasibility study. If the ASA(CW) determines that Federal actions have 

been a significant cause of the flooding, feasibility study activities would be initiated 

at full Federal expense. Since Grand Lake is an integral component of a system 

flood control operation consisting of 11 principal reservoir projects in the Arkansas 

River basin, changes in the operations of the project or other upstream changes 

could have a significant impact on flood control, hydropower and navigation operations in the Grand (Neosho) River system and on the Arkansas River Basin system, as well. A feasibility study is necessary to determine the most cost-effective 

comprehensive solution to the real estate inadequacies. We urge you to provide 

$500,000 to fund feasibility studies for this important project in fiscal year 2007 and 

to direct the Corps of Engineers to execute the study at full federal expense. This 

project has been a Congressional add for the past four years, but there are no funds 

in the fiscal year 2007 President’s budget request to continue this project. 

D. Continuing Authorities Programs.—We support funding of needed programs including the Small Flood Control Projects Program (Section 205 of the 1948 Flood 

Control Act, as amended), Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (Section 206 of the 1996 

Water Resources Development Act, as amended), Ecosystem Restoration (Section 

1135 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act, as amended) as well as the 

Emergency Streambank Stabilization Program (Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control 

Act, as amended). Smaller communities in Kansas (Iola, Liberal, McPherson, Augusta, Parsons, Altoona, Kinsley, Newton, Arkansas City, Coffeyville and Medicine 

Lodge) have previously requested assistance from the Corps of Engineers under the 

Section 205 and Section 14 programs. The City of Wichita also requests funding 

through these programs to address flooding problems. We urge you to support an 

increase of these programs to the $65 million programmatic limit for the Small 

Flood Control Projects Program, $35 million for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, $35 

million for the Ecosystem Restoration Program and $25 million for the Emergency 

Streambank Stabilization Program. 

The Planning Assistance to States Program under section 22 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, as amended, provides federal funding to assist the 

states in water resource planning. The state of Kansas is grateful for previous funding under this program which has assisted small Kansas communities in cost sharing needed resource planning as called for in the Kansas State Water Plan. We request continued funding of this program at the $10 million programmatic limit 

which will allow the state of Kansas to receive the $500,000 limit. 

Finally, we are very grateful that both the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have the integrity and continuity these 

agencies provide on major public projects. Your continued support of these vital 

agencies, including funding, will be appreciated. Our infrastructure must be maintained and where needed, enhanced for the future. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of these Committees, thank you very much for the 

dedicated manner in which you have dealt with the Water Resources Programs and 

for allowing us to present our funding requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) would like to provide input that may assist 

you in the task of determining the level of fiscal year 2007 appropriations for the 

Department of the Interior’s, Biological Research Discipline (BRD) of the U.S. Geo-
215 

logical Survey (USGS), the Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), the National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As the Nation’s largest association of fisheries 

and aquatic science professionals with 9,000 members representing all states, commonwealths, and trust territories, we believe it is essential that interests of our 

members and our profession be considered in the appropriations process for agencies 

supporting fisheries and aquatic science and conservation. We ask this statement 

be included in the official record of the agency’s appropriation hearings. 

The Nation’s fisheries annually provide billions of dollars in recreational and commercial benefits. Millions of Americans and visitors spend hundreds of millions of 

hours fishing the country’s rivers, streams, lakes, and marine coastal waters. 

Over the past few years the Congress has taken critically important actions to 

conserve these resources to ensure that their benefits will continue to be enjoyed 

by future generations. However, despite Congress’ actions, our fisheries resources 

are at risk and in too many cases threatened. Additional funds are needed to better 

implement the management and research programs that are essential to reverse the 

current decline in many of our fisheries. 

Although we understand that this is a period of strongly competing government 

priorities, we also wish to note that robust research and technology development 

programs are the only means by which more effective and efficient fisheries management tools and actions can be developed and tested. Management and conservation decisions are only as good as the information upon which they are based and 

there is substantial evidence to suggest that better information is critically needed 

here. To address these needs the Society offers the following recommendations for 

your consideration. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Biological Resources Discipline 

The Biological Resources Discipline (BRD) provides critical scientific research and 

information needed for the effective management and restoration of the Nation’s inland, anadromous, and estuarine fisheries and aquatic resources. With no regulatory 

role, BRD provides high-quality unbiased science for our nation’s natural resources 

decision makers. 

In light of past under funding of the BRD, AFS is disappointed over the fiscal 

year 2007 request of $172.5 million for the Biology component. This is a slight increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget, and it is still almost a $3 million decrease 

from the fiscal year 2004 budget. AFS also notes that although recent BRD budgets 

show progress by tracking in the same direction as inflation, they still are not keeping -up with inflation and have not yet made up for the 20 percent decrease experienced in 1996. 

The Society is a strong supporter of BRD’s Co-Operative Research Units (CRU). 

CRU is of particular importance to fishery research, restoration, and management 

are the Co-operative Research Units (CRU). We strongly support the $274,000 increase to this important program. 

U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Fisheries Program 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service works with others to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation’s fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems for the benefit of the 

American people. The Fisheries Program safeguards these resources while helping 

to provide recreational opportunities for the nation’s 50 million licensed anglers, as 

well as evaluates fish populations and their habitats and coordinates the restoration 

and recovery of aquatic populations, habitats, and ecosystems. 

The Society recommends the $3.859 million increase to the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund in mandatory appropriations. AFS also commends the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request for continuing to address the operations and management 

challenges faced by our aging National Fish Hatchery System, a system critical to 

fishery conservation, restoration, and recreation efforts, but that needs to be updated to function at its full capacity and achieve its management objectives. However, the total budget includes $114.6 million for the Fisheries program, which is 

a net program decrease of $2.1 million compared to 2006. Within this level of funding are program increases of $1.9 million for hatchery operations for endangered 

species recovery actions, $1.4 million for fish passage improvements, and an increase of $2.0 million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative. The Society recommends restoring the fiscal year 2007 Fisheries Program budget to the fiscal year 

2006 level. 
216 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Wildlife and Fisheries 

The BLM manages public lands for a range of uses, including recreation, conservation, livestock grazing, hunting and fishing, forest management and wildland 

fire management, cultural resource protection, and energy and mineral production. 

Many of the BLM lands are managed for fisheries as well as other uses. Fisheries 

program priorities for 2007 include: inland-fisheries conservation; subsistence fisheries management; Pacific Northwest fisheries, including culverted fish passage 

issues; multi-species conservation; aquatic indicators of land condition; and partnerships. 

While we feel that the President and Congress have made an effort to increase 

funding for the important role of conserving our Nation’s aquatic resources, we feel 

more funds should be allocated to these programs in fiscal year 2007. AFS was encouraged in fiscal year 2005 to see an increase of $100,000 for these programs and 

$430,000 in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 budget request of $12.418 is still 

an encouraging increase over the fiscal year 2006 budget. However, AFS recommends an increase of the Fisheries Line Item to back the fiscal year 2001 level 

of $12.8 million. 

AFS is also pleased to see an increase of $181,000 in the fiscal year 2007 budget 

for Threatened and Endangered Species Management. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Outer Continental Shelf Program 

AFS supports MMS activities overseeing OCS leases, review of new exploration 

and development plans, examination of pipeline right-of-way applications, environmental assessments, and annual safety inspections of mineral extraction operations 

on-site. MMS OCS provides for safe and environmentally sound energy and mineral 

development on the OCS. AFS supports the MMS request of $159.365 million in fiscal year 2007 for OCS program activities, a net increase of $10,594 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted budget. AFS is also pleased to see $250 million dedicated to the Coastal Impact Assistance 

Program in fiscal year 2007. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Park Management 

For fiscal year 2007, AFS recommends supporting the Resource Stewardship Line Item at the level requested of $362.4 million. AFS also supports The 2007 budget 

includes an increase of $1.0 million for natural resource programs to complete establishment of inventory and monitoring programs, and equip managers with critical 

information about the ecosystems they manage. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

The AFS is concerned with the President’s request of $970.7 million in fiscal year 2007 for BOR. This is a net decrease of $132.5 million below the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level. With the growing challenge of water quality and quantity, allocation 

and preservation, AFS wants to underscore the critical responsiblity the Bureau of 

Reclamation and other Federal agencies have in managing our water resources and 

their associated ecosystems and species for the public good, including compliance 

with the Endangered Species Act. 

The Society appreciates your consideration of our view. We welcome the opportunity to provide additional information and advice regarding fisheries efforts of the 

Department of Commerce. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

On behalf of our America’s fish and wildlife agencies, I urge the Subcommittee 

on Interior and Related Agencies to support funding in the amount of $85 million 

for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act. 

The State Wildlife Grants Program is our nation’s core program for keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife agencies enjoy a strong partnership with the federal government in managing our nation’s wildlife resources. 

Working together, we are able to ensure robust fish and wildlife populations and 

keep species from declining to the point of becoming endangered. State Wildlife 

Grants is an integral element of this partnership, providing the federal govern-
217 

ment’s share of support for proactive on-the-ground conservation projects aimed at 

declining fish and wildlife species and their habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not 

just a grants program. It truly is a core program of the Department of Interior for 

advancing a pressing national need. The President’s budget includes $74.7 million, an increase of $5 million above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $68.5 million. We appreciate the Administration’s 

continued support for this program as a core component of their collaborative conservation agenda. 

Although the budget is tight, America’s fish and wildlife agencies are recommending that Congress provide a funding level of at least $85 million in order to 

restore this program back up to the highest level of funding it has ever received, 

in fiscal year 2002. Consistent funding is essential to the long-term success of this 

program, and the completion of wildlife action plans in every state and territory 

only underscores the need for adequate and reliable resources. A funding level of 

$85 million would send an important message about the Congress’s commitment to 

following through on providing the support needed to implement the wildlife action 

plans. We are pleased that 170 Representatives have already formally signed on to 

this commitment in the form of a ‘‘dear colleague’’ and we hope you will match that 

strong demonstration of support. 

We also urge your consideration of additional language to provide an incentive for 

states to cooperate on projects with other states as well as federal agencies when 

implementing the actions in their plans. Allowing implementation projects that include several states working together to implement actions identified in their comprehensive state wildlife strategies at a 75:25 match (vs. 50:50) will provide greater 

benefits to the nation. In addition, allowing federal funds to be used as a match for 

a particular State Wildlife Grants project will encourage greater cooperation between a federal entity within that state and the state wildlife agency in implementing the strategies/plans together. The strategies/plans have the potential to encourage everyone to work together resulting in a greater cumulative impact as well 

as avoiding costly duplication and unnecessary overlap. 

The President’s budget includes a proposal to set aside $5 million of the new 

funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants for a new program of competitive 

grants. While we appreciate the intent to reward effective conservation proposals, 

we believe that the time is not yet right for a new competitive program to be created 

within State Wildlife Grants. The creation of such a program should be predicated 

on the attainment of higher levels of funding. State Wildlife Grants has provided 

a tremendous enhancement to the capacity of every state to address wildlife conservation. While we cannot currently support the creation of a competitive funding 

program, we are committed to making any programs that are enacted by Congress 

a success. If Congress deems that this is an appropriate course of action, we will 

work together with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make it a success. 

In closing, I again extend the appreciation of America’s wildlife agencies for your 

continued support for the state-federal wildlife conservation partnership. We sincerely urge you to provide our requested level of $85 million for State Wildlife 

Grants. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION

We are seeking your support for the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request 

of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic 

Resources Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, led by the International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on the successful North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale 

and serve as a model for other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the 

objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast. 

The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States. This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest diversity of aquatic species and 

habitats of any region in the country, (2) these resources are facing serious threats 

to their future existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is only 

by working together through partnerships that we will make a difference. SARP in-
218 

cludes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida; 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. 

This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast 

Aquatic Habitat Plan. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute’s perspective on fiscal year 2007 appropriations for geoscience programs 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 Bureau of Land Management’s Energy and 

Mineral Management program and the Smithsonian Institution. AGI also supports 

new funding for fixed costs and a few high priority programs within the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS). The high priority programs include a new Integrated Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project, the National Streamflow Information 

Program, the Energy Resources Program and some new funding for the Landsat 

Continuity Mission. 

Regrettably, the Administration also proposes significant cuts to the USGS mineral resources and water programs. If the President’s request were enacted, the 

USGS would receive a total budget of only $945 million, a 2 percent decrease compared to last year’s funding, while the Mineral Resources Program would receive a 

$22 million cut, leaving the program with only about $30 million in fiscal year 2007 

and the Water Resources Program would be cut by about $7.4 million. If enacted, 

these reductions would hamper the Survey’s ability to carry out its important objectives to monitor environmental conditions and provide resource assessments for economic development and national security. The value of domestically processed 

nonfuel mineral resources is estimated to be about $478 billion and the USGS Mineral Resources Program is the only entity, public or private, that provides an analysis and assessment of the raw materials and processed minerals accessible from 

domestic and global markets. Specifically, we ask the Subcommittee to restore funds 

to the Mineral Resources Program and the Water Resources Program and to support 

a $1.2 billion overall budget for USGS. This budget would allow essential, but consistently under funded, programs throughout the agency to fulfill their basic mission 

and such a request is supported by the 69 organizations of the USGS Coalition. AGI 

is a charter member of the USGS Coalition. 

For the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the proposed fiscal year 2007 is 

$7.3 billion, a 5.1 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 the environment. 

AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 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 fifth year in a row, the USGS faces cuts in the Administration’s request. 

AGI thanks the Subcommittee for its record of restoring critical funds and recognizing the Survey’s essential value to the nation. The USGS is a critical federal 

science agency and it should receive increased funding like the proposed increases 

in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative for the National Science 

Foundation and the Office of Science within the Department of Energy. The USGS 

performs complementary research, analysis and education and should be part of the 

President’s initiative to advance innovation, reduce imported oil dependencies and 

ensure American competitiveness in science and technology. 

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 
219 

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. Some of the most important 

activities of the Survey serve the entire nation. 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 these missions be recognized and valued 

within the Department and by the Administration. 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 decisionmaking. 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 huge cut, leaving the program with less than $30 million in fiscal year 

2007 would decimate the program. It would cost about 240 full time positions and 

would eliminate or reduce global mineral resource assessments of mineral commodities, research on industrial minerals, research on inorganic toxins, materials flow 

analyses, and the Minerals Resources External Research program. The essence of 

the program would be jeopardized at a time when mineral products account for a 

rapidly growing and valuable commodity of the U.S. economy. 

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 over 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. MRP scientists also investigated and prepared a report on 

the asbestos-bearing debris in the aftermath of the World Trade Center disaster. 

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 continued requests for small annual increases for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (the fiscal year 2007 request is for $25.4 million) 

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. Re-authorization at $64 million per year over the next 5 years is currently being considered 

in Congress. AGI strongly supports the increased funding being considered by Congress 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/tsunami in the Indian Ocean, hurricanes 
220 

Katrina and Rita striking the Gulf Coast and the massive earthquake in Pakistan, 

remind us of the need for preparation, education, mitigation and rapid response to 

natural hazards. A 2006 National Academies report entitled Improved Seismic Monitoring estimates that increased seismic monitoring leads to increased future savings from the damaging effects of potential earthquakes. Given recent events and 

this timely report, 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 

has been allocated about 10 percent of its authorized funding level per year, which 

is not nearly enough to deploy the 7,000 instruments called for in the law. Currently, 66 are operating and there is much more work that needs congressional support. We would like to commend the Subcommittee for your leadership in securing 

previous increases for ANSS and ask for additional increases in fiscal year 2007. 

The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) was reauthorized 

in October, 2004 and AGI supports the appropriation of full funding for this vital 

program. 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 supports increased funding for stream gages and the National Streamflow Information program. 

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 2007 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. We support the Administration’s request for increased funding for the 

Smithsonian in fiscal year 2007. 

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. If 

you would like any additional information for the record, please contact me at 703– 

379–2480, ext. 228 voice, 703–379–7563 fax, rowan@agiweb.org, or 4220 King 

Street, Alexandria VA 22302–1502. 
221 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, American Hiking Society is the 

only national nonprofit organization that promotes and protects foot trails and the 

hiking experience. With a strong membership base of individual hikers and hiking 

clubs, American Hiking represents half a million outdoors people and serves as the 

voice of the American hiker. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s past support for 

trails and recreation and urge you to support strong funding that will keep our 

trails open, safe, and enjoyable today and for future generations. American Hiking 

makes the following trail and recreation funding recommendations for fiscal year 

2007: 

National Park Service 

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $10.1 million 

National Trails System: $10.68 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS Network 

Challenge Cost-Share Program: $4.5 million Traditional CCSP (one-third of $4.5 million for National Trails System), plus $2.5 million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial 

USDA Forest Service 

Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: $275 million 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance—Trails: $90 million 

Bureau of Land Management 

Recreation and Wilderness Management: $70 million 

National Landscape Conservation System: $46 million 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System: $417.5 million 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

Stateside LWCF: $100 million 

Federal LWCF: $220 million, including $23.7 million for National Scenic and His- toric Trails, as follows: Appalachian NST: $5.6 million (Forest Service); Continental 

Divide NST: $1.4 million (BLM); Ice Age NST: $4 million (NPS); Florida NST: $5 

million (Forest Service); Pacific Crest NST: $5.25 million (Forest Service), $1.5 million (BLM); Overmountain Victory NHT: $195,000 (Forest Service); Oregon NHT: $1 

million (BLM). 

FISCAL YEAR 207 TRAIL & RECREATION FUNDING PRIORITIES

Our nation’s trails provide unparalleled opportunities for hiking and other outdoor 

recreation activities, enjoyment and appreciation of natural and cultural resources, 

healthy physical activities, alternatives for transportation, and economic development for local communities. Recreation has increased dramatically in importance for 

the American people, yet the federal investment for trails, recreation, and land conservation has not increased accordingly. This lag has resulted in high maintenance 

backlogs, deteriorating infrastructure, loss of open space, and negative impacts to 

resources. 

NPS, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA): $10.1 million 

The RTCA program is a technical assistance program that implements the natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation mission of the NPS. RTCA 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. On average, the program partners protect nearly 700 

miles of rivers, create more than 1,300 miles of trails, and conserve more than 

61,000 acres of open space each year. RTCA is a very successful and popular program, but its funding has remained relatively flat during the last decade and lagged 

well behind the rate of inflation. The program’s declining real budget has resulted 

in significant cuts to staff and reduced staff participation in on-the-ground projects. 

RTCA requires at least a $2 million increase 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: $10.68 million, plus $1.25 million for GIS network 

The NPS administers eighteen of the twenty-four National Scenic and Historic 

Trails. For most of these trails, barely one-half of their congressionally authorized 

length and resources are protected and available for public use. A minimum of 
222 

$10.68 million in fiscal year 2007 is crucial for resource protection, trail maintenance, interpretation, and volunteer coordination and support. In addition, NPS requires $1.25 million to continue work on a Geographic Information System network 

for the National Trails System. 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 

Although recreation makes up the greatest use of National Forest System lands 

and the largest share (60 percent) of the Forest Service’s contribution to the Gross 

Domestic Product, recreation remains woefully underfunded and understaffed. Only 

about 10 percent of the Forest Service budget is dedicated to recreation. The Forest 

Service requires increased funding for recreation management and wilderness to 

protect critical resources; upgrade recreation facilities; reduce the $200∂ million deferred maintenance backlog; augment on-the-ground recreation staff; improve recreation resource analyses and planning; and more effectively utilize partnerships and 

volunteers. The President’s fiscal year 2007 proposed funding level, excluding any 

cost of living increases or inflationary pressures, would result in a program reduction of $14.3 million from fiscal year 2006. 

Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance—Trails: $90 million 

The Forest Service manages 133,000 miles of trails and requires increased fund- ing to restore and maintain these thousands of trail miles; reduce the $99 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 President’s fiscal year 2007 proposed funding level, excluding any cost of living increases or inflationary pressures, would result in a program reduction of $15.6 million from fiscal year 2006. We request 

$11.48 million as a separate budgetary item in addition to the Administration’s 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. 

BLM, Recreation Management: $70 million 

The BLM supports a broad range of recreational opportunities within its multiple 

use mission yet continues to receive very limited funding for recreation. BLM is focusing on a comprehensive travel management approach to managing roads and 

trails, 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 miles 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): $46 million 

Basic Operations and Maintenance, Law Enforcement, Resource Monitoring, and 

Cultural Resource Protection: We urge the subcommittee to increase the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget for the NLCS by $11.3 million, for operations and 

maintenance, to provide a total of at least $46 million to conserve the unique National Monuments, Conservation Areas, Trails, Rivers, Wilderness, and Wilderness 

Study Areas that comprise the 26 million-acre System. This would restore funding 

levels to those proposed by the President in fiscal year 2006. Priority unmet needs 

include law enforcement, resource monitoring, and cultural resource protection. Adequate funding for fiscal year 2007 is critical, as the BLM will need to implement 

numerous Resource Management Plans for areas in the System. We also ask the 

committee to support any member requests for additional funding for NLCS units 

in their districts. American Hiking endorses the specific funding requests for National Scenic and Historic Trails submitted by the Partnership for the National 

Trails System. 

Crucial Acquisitions.—We urge the committee to add $5.1 million to purchase 

inholdings and lands adjacent to NLCS areas that are threatened by development, 
223 

including Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and McInnis Canyons NCA, California’s Carrizo Plain National Monument, the Pacific Crest Trail 

and Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon, and the Continental Divide 

Trail in New Mexico. 

Accountability and Transparency.—We urge the committee to promote greater 

transparency through budgeting and reporting. Congress should require BLM to 

provide a cross-cut budget for NLCS that includes subactivity accounts, similar to 

that published in the fiscal year 2002 DOI budget, which clearly listed funding for 

specific activities within specific NLCS units. The BLM’s recent National Scenic and 

Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan recognized the ‘‘. . . need for a subactivity 

account . . .’’ by emphasizing that ‘‘. . . In order to ensure adequate funding to 

properly protect congressionally recognized national trail resources and monitor success, this objective eliminates conflict of purpose and will provide a mechanism to 

improve funding and identify and track use of designated funds.’’ To help Congress 

and the public understand the needs of the NLCS and how funds were spent, Congress should require BLM to provide expenditure and accomplishment reports on 

NLCS areas, like Monuments, Conservation Areas and National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, starting with reports for fiscal year 2006. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS): $417.5 million 

The NWRS protects countless species of wildlife, fish, plants, and critical habitat, 

provides recreational opportunities for nearly 40 million visitors annually, and continues to face significant budget shortfalls. The operations and maintenance backlog 

for the system totals about $2.7 billion. Approximately 200 refuges do not have any 

staff. A minimum increase of $16 million above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation 

is necessary to prevent ‘‘no net loss’’ for the system, meet cost of living increases 

and inflationary pressures, and keep refuges from cutting public use programs. The 

NWRS uses its approximately 2,500 miles of land and water trails to deliver its congressionally determined six priority wildlife dependent recreation activities. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): $100 million Stateside; $220 million 

Federal 

The LWCF helps create parks, protect trails and open spaces, preserve wilderness 

and wildlife habitat, and enhance recreational opportunities. While LWCF funds 

have been cut severely, the need for open space and recreation has soared. LWCF 

has helped create parks for people to enjoy in 98 percent of counties in America and 

has provided protection for more than five million acres of land and water areas 

across the country. 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 strongly oppose the Administration’s recommendation to terminate the stateside LWCF program. 

American Hiking is joined by many Representatives and Senators of both parties 

in strongly opposing the Administration’s proposal to raise $800 million to help fund 

rural roads and schools by selling off national forests and other public lands, our 

nation’s pride and legacy. 

CONCLUSION

Volunteer contributions are essential to trails and recreation programs, and 

American Hiking and its members and partners contribute hundreds of thousands 

of hours worth millions in labor, to help maintain our nation’s trails. However, an 

increase in volunteerism on public lands must not be perceived as a panacea to 

agency budget constraints. American Hiking is coordinating more than 100 weeklong Volunteer Vacation trail maintenance trips in 2006 on our treasured national 

parks, forests, and other public lands. On June 3, 2006, American Hiking will coordinate the fourteenth National Trails Day (NTD) to raise public awareness and 

appreciation for trails, with more than one thousand NTD events nationwide to celebrate and maintain trails. 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 HIKING SOCIETY

I am writing on behalf of American Hiking Society to urge your support for trails, 

recreation, and land conservation in the fiscal year 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. 

We are very concerned about some of the deep cuts for trail and recreation programs 
224 

proposed in the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request. Increased funding 

is crucial to keeping our trails open, safe, and enjoyable today and for future generations. We respectfully request the following funding levels in fiscal year 2007: 

—$10.1 million for the National Park Service’s (NPS) Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program to help communities manage and protect their recreational and natural resources. Ongoing funding shortages continue to erode 

RTCA’s real budget and reduce essential services of this excellent federal technical assistance program. 

—$10.5 million for the 18 national scenic and historic trails administered by the 

NPS; plus $1.25 million for a Geographic Information System network for the 

national trails. 

—$275 million for USDA Forest Service Recreation Management, Heritage, and 

Wilderness, and $90 million for Capital Improvement and Maintenance for 

Trails to protect resources, reduce the maintenance backlog, augment on-theground recreation staff, leverage volunteers, and maintain trails. These two programs each face about a $15 million cut in the Administration’s request, which 

would adversely affect critical trail and recreation needs across the country. 

—$70 million for Bureau of Land Management Recreation and Wilderness Management and an $11.3 million increase for the National Landscape Conservation 

System to manage rapidly expanding recreational use while protecting natural 

and cultural resources. We urge the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to 

establish high standards for accountability and transparency in the BLM’s 

budget. 

—$220 million for the Federal side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF); $100 million for Stateside LWCF. We vigorously oppose the Administration’s recommendation to terminate the state assistance program, a vital tool 

that provides close-to-home recreational opportunities for all Americans. 

In addition, we strongly oppose the Administration’s proposal to help fund rural 

roads and schools by selling off national forests and other public lands, our nation’s 

pride and legacy. 

American Hiking Society is a national organization that promotes and protects 

foot trails and the hiking experience. Thank you for your support and considering 

this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The American Institute of Biological Sciences requests that Congress provide the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) with $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007, with 

at least $200 million for the Biological Resources Discipline. 

The funding we request would restore proposed cuts to important science programs, provide a modest but needed inflation adjustment, and implement important 

science and information dissemination initiatives. This funding would also help 

USGS address the cost of maintaining research infrastructure. 

The USGS provides independent research, data, 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 innovative interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important questions. 

USGS scientists do not work in isolation. Through offices located in every state 

and partnerships with more than 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 brings additional intellectual and technical resources to work on the biological, ecological, and 

natural resource questions USGS seeks to answer. The value of Cooperative Research Units extends beyond their immediate research productivity, however. Cooperative Research Units are a vital component of our nation’s 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. Increased funding for the USGS would enable the Biological Informatics Program to 

continue on-going activities and begin to implement initiatives the resource manage-
225 

ment and research communities have identified as priorities. For instance, new 

nodes could be added to the National Biological Information Infrastructure program. 

The NatureServe program provides the scientific basis for wise natural resources 

management. Together with its network of sate Natural Heritage programs, 

NatureServe provides valuable information about rare species and threatened ecosystems to numerous federal and state agencies to help them make informed natural resource management decisions. The proposed $1.0 million investment in ensuring the quality and consistency of this national data resource is estimated to leverage $40 million nationwide, primarily from state and private sources. 

USGS biological research programs gather important data and information that 

academic, private sector, or other government scientists do not or cannot collect. For 

instance, a clear national priority is the prevention and mitigation of economic 

losses from non-native species invading new environments. USGS research helps 

guide our understanding of how these invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, 

snakehead fish, and tamarisk, colonize new environments. Decision-makers, whether a private land owner or a resource manager working for a government agency, 

utilize USGS science to develop action plans to combat invasive species. 

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, USGS research allows scientists to 

assess the vitality of bird populations, determine habitat requirements, and map migration routes. This information is increasingly important to public health officials 

concerned with the potential spread of diseases that may be transmitted from wild 

animals to humans or domesticated animals. Indeed, included in the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request is $3.2 million for surveillance of migratory waterfowl 

for avian flu. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request does not fully fund ‘‘fixed’’ cost increases. We 

encourage the committee to fully fund these expenses. Without full funding for these 

costs, USGS science programs would likely be forced to reprogram funds that would 

otherwise support important research. 

An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.2 billion for the USGS and at least $200 

million for the Biological Resources Discipline would enable the USGS to: maintain 

current research efforts; restore $7.3 million in proposed terminations of on-going 

research; provide at least a $1.5 million increase to the Cooperative Research Units 

program; provide $1.0 million for the NatureServe program; provide funding for 

fixed cost increases; provide $3.2 million to support surveillance of waterfowl for 

avian flu; support for a new USGS-wide natural hazards initiative; and, provide a 

modest inflation adjustment. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If you require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202–628–1500. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HYDROLOGY; AMERICAN RIVERS; AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY; AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION; 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS; ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN

WATER AGENCIES; ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER; POLLUTION

CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS; CLEAN WATER ACTION; CROP SCIENCE SOCIETY OF

AMERICA; THE GROUNDWATER FOUNDATION; THE H. JOHN HEINZ III CENTER FOR

SCIENCE, ECONOMIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN

WATER AGENCIES; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; THE NATIONAL

GROUND WATER ASSOCIATION; SIERRA CLUB; SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA; 

AND WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION

We are writing to urge you to provide increased funding for the National Water 

Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and the Ground-Water Resources Program 

within the budget for the U.S. Geological Survey in the fiscal year 2007 Interior, 

Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. Specifically, we urge that 

you provide $70 million for the NAWQA program and $8.5 million for the GroundWater Resources Program. These amounts would enable both programs to maintain 

program capabilities while meeting cost increases due to inflation. 

One of the most important challenges we face as a Nation in the coming decades 

is the management of water resources to provide sufficient quantities of clean and 

safe water to meet the needs of our growing population, agricultural and industrial 

demand, and environmental and recreational needs. Two programs within the U.S. 

Geological Survey conduct basic scientific research on critical surface and ground 

water resources to assist policy-makers in making informed resource allocations decisions. 
226 

NAWQA was established to provide consistent and comparable information across 

the nation on water-quality conditions and ecosystem health, and the Ground-Water 

Resources Program was established to assess the availability of ground-water resources at the regional and national scale. Both programs are the only non-regulatory federal programs that conduct long-term, scientifically-based monitoring of 

our nation’s streams and ground water to support sound management and policy decisions relating to our water resources. 

While a number of state and federal programs conduct water resources monitoring, these two programs are the primary sources for long-term, nationwide information on the quality of streams and aquatic ecosystems, and the availability of 

ground water resources. 

The general public as well as local, state, and federal water quality officials 

charged with managing our water resources rely on NAWQA and the Ground-Water 

Resources Program and the information they provide. 

For example, a 1993 NAWQA study near Denver uncovered the existence of 

MTBE in ground water which alerted the public and health professionals to unintended consequences of a compound designed to enable gasoline to burn cleaner. In 

2005, NAWQA studies conducted in Austin, Texas uncovered a direct link between 

increased mortality of aquatic life and contaminated storm water run-off caused by 

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) found in parking lot and driveway pavement sealants. During drought conditions, the Ground-Water Resources Program 

provides real-time ground-water measurements to USGS databases for display on 

the Internet for water managers and the general public. 

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report examining 

twenty federal data collection programs that assemble and analyze quantitative 

measures of the nation’s environmental conditions and trends. The report examined 

whether funding issues or other factors will affect the ability of these programs to 

continue to generate data comparable to data from past years. GAO found that of 

the twenty programs examined, only two programs were in jeopardy of continuing 

to generate quality data, including NAWQA. GAO found that NAWQA’s ability to 

continue providing comparable data has been significantly diminished due to funding constraints. 

Congress provided slight increases in funding for both these programs in the fiscal 

year 2006 appropriations cycle; however, the fiscal year 2007 Budget request proposes a reduction for the Ground-Water Resources Program and a slight increase 

of approximately $300,000 for NAWQA. If these budget requests were to be accepted, both programs will be required to curtail their research programs. Already, static funding for NAWQA has required it to reduce the number of water study units 

from sixty to forty-two. And, within these study regions, the impacts of the reductions were amplified by a reduction in the number of stream networks targeted for 

continuous monitoring from 492 stream sites to just 84. 

Insufficient funding for these two programs is severely hampering their ability to 

fulfill their missions and to effectively assist water managers and policy makers at 

all levels of government. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to develop a stronger 

cooperative program with existing state ground water research agencies with additional federal funding to these programs. We urge you to support $70 million for 

NAWQA and $8.5 million for the Ground-Water Resources Program in the fiscal 

year 2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill so that 

critical water monitoring data will continue to be available. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The American Institute of Biological Sciences requests that Congress provide the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) with $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007, with 

at least $200 million for the Biological Resources Discipline. 

The funding we request would restore proposed cuts to important science programs, provide a modest but needed inflation adjustment, and implement important 

science and information dissemination initiatives. This funding would also help 

USGS address the cost of maintaining research infrastructure. 

The USGS provides independent research, data, 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 innovative interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important questions. 

USGS scientists do not work in isolation. Through offices located in every state 

and partnerships with more than 2,000 federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations, the USGS has built the capacity to leverage additional research expertise. 
227 

For example, through the Cooperative Research Units program USGS scientists are 

stationed on university campuses. This proximity to academic researchers brings additional intellectual and technical resources to work on the biological, ecological, and 

natural resource questions USGS seeks to answer. The value of Cooperative Research Units extends beyond their immediate research productivity, however. Cooperative Research Units are a vital component of our nation’s 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. Increased funding for the USGS would enable the Biological Informatics Program to 

continue on-going activities and begin to implement initiatives the resource management and research communities have identified as priorities. For instance, new 

nodes could be added to the National Biological Information Infrastructure program. 

The NatureServe program provides the scientific basis for wise natural resources 

management. Together with its network of sate Natural Heritage programs, 

NatureServe provides valuable information about rare species and threatened ecosystems to numerous federal and state agencies to help them make informed natural resource management decisions. The proposed $1.0 million investment in ensuring the quality and consistency of this national data resource is estimated to leverage $40 million nationwide, primarily from state and private sources. 

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 economic 

losses from non-native species invading new environments. USGS research helps 

guide our understanding of how these invasive species, such as the zebra mussel, 

snakehead fish, and tamarisk, colonize new environments. Decision-makers, whether a private land owner or a resource manager working for a government agency, 

utilize USGS science to develop action plans to combat invasive species. 

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, USGS research allows scientists to 

assess the vitality of bird populations, determine habitat requirements, and map migration routes. This information is increasingly important to public health officials 

concerned with the potential spread of diseases that may be transmitted from wild 

animals to humans or domesticated animals. Indeed, included in the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request is $3.2 million for surveillance of migratory waterfowl 

for avian flu. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request does not fully fund ‘‘fixed’’ cost increases. We 

encourage the committee to fully fund these expenses. Without full funding for these 

costs, USGS science programs would likely be forced to reprogram funds that would 

otherwise support important research. 

An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.2 billion for the USGS and at least $200 

million for the Biological Resources Discipline would enable the USGS to: maintain 

current research efforts; restore $7.3 million in proposed terminations of on-going 

research; provide at least a $1.5 million increase to the Cooperative Research Units 

program; provide $1.0 million for the NatureServe program; provide funding for 

fixed cost increases; provide $3.2 million to support surveillance of waterfowl for 

avian flu; support for a new USGS-wide natural hazards initiative; and, provide a 

modest inflation adjustment. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If you require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202–628–1500. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

REQUEST SUMMARY

On behalf of the nation’s 36 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for 

this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2007 Appropriations recommendations for 

the 26 colleges funded under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal College Act), our two tribally controlled postsecondary vocational 

institutions, the two Bureau of Indian Affairs postsecondary institutions, and the In-
228 

stitute of American Indian Arts. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, administers all these programs, save for the Institute of American Indian Arts, which is funded directly by the Interior Department. 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 2007, we seek a total of $69.4 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. 

Specifically, we request $66.9 million; of which, $49.2 million would be for Title I 

grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II (Dine ́ College). This request 

is an increase of $7 million for Title I grants and a $6.3 million increase for Dine ́

College over fiscal year 2006 levels and a total of $12.7 million over the President’s 

fiscal year 2007 budget request for institutional operations funding. Additionally, we 

seek $500,000 for the technical assistance contract under section 105 of the Act, the 

same amount as appropriated in fiscal year 2006. 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. Additionally, $2 million is requested for endowments under Title III of the 

Act. Lastly, we support $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and $2.5 

million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology; the latest budget once again recommends eliminating Interior Department 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 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 basic 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, 25 years later and notwithstanding an increase of $2.5 

million in fiscal year 2006, these colleges are operating at $4,563 per full-time Indian student count (ISC), approximately 75 percent of their authorized level of 

$6,000 per ISC. If the TCUs were to be fully funded at $6,000 per ISC today, when 

you consider inflation, they would not even have the same buying power as their 

initial fiscal year 1981 appropriations, which was $2,831 per ISC. While the other 

TCUs funding is not enrollment driven and therefore the disparity of funding is not 

as easily illustrated, they too suffer from a lack of adequate operating funds. 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 
229 

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 on reservations, graduates of TCUs 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. 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: Over 90 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 TCUs 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 they were first funded, the number of colleges has quadrupled 

and Indian student enrollments have risen a remarkable 333 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 2007. 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 2007 recommendation would fund institutional operations at Title I colleges at approximately $5,400 per ISC, which is still short of the original funding level as appropriations have not even kept up with inflation. 

(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, the unemployment rate can exceed 60 percent. In comparison, the national unemployment rate for February 2006 is 4.8 percent. 
230 

(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 2007

For the past several years the annual Federal budget has recommended deep cuts 

in TCU operations, in fiscal year 2006 the budget recommended an 18 percent cut. 

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget includes $54.3 million for institutional operations of 26 TCUs, which indicating a change in this trend. Each year Congress has 

restored the recommended cuts and even included some increase to the TCUs’ operating grants. Over the past few years several new TCUs have become eligible for 

funding under the Tribal College Act. However, the lack of basic operating funds 

caused financial difficulties that two long standing colleges were not able to overcome. Unfortunately, D–Q University in California and Si Tanka University in 

South Dakota, which were chartered in 1971 and 1974 respectively, are now closing 

their doors. We are hopeful that Congress will build on the President’s fiscal year 

2007 budget recommendation so that tribal colleges might realize a true increase 

in the funding available for basic operations. 

AIHEC’S APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

We respectfully request a total appropriation of $69.4 million for the programs authorized under the Tribal College Act. 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. Specifically, we request $66.9 million; of which, $49.2 million would 

be for Title I grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II (Dine ́ College). 

This request is an increase of $7 million for Title I grants and a $6.3 million increase for Dine ́ College over fiscal year 2006 levels and a total of $12.7 million over 

the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for institutional operations funding. 

Additionally, we seek $500,000 for the technical assistance contract under Sec. 105 

of the Act, equal to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation and 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 funding and operations. Additionally, we request $2 

million for Title III of the Act, which helps our institutions to build endowments. 

The President’s budget request eliminates this program. 

For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support $4.5 million for 

United Tribes Technical College; and $2.5 million for Crownpoint Institute of Technology to restore and expand the funding for these programs that the fiscal year 

2007 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 2007 appropriations recommendations. 
231 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO PRESERVE CAPE COD

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod, the region’s leading environmental advocacy and stewardship organization with more than 5,500 members, I write to strongly support an 

appropriation of $6.1 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the 

Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. This funding would be used to acquire the 57-acre North of Highland Campground, which is a family-run campground within the Seashore’s boundary in the town of Truro. 

The Cape Cod National Seashore is clearly the crown jewel of this peninsula’s natural resources. The beautiful beaches, dunes, marshlands, and kettle hole ponds 

make the Cape Cod National Seashore one of the most heavily visited parks in the 

National Park system. Biking and hiking trails and surfing, swimming and fishing 

opportunities attract those seeking active recreation as well as those looking for serenity and scenic vistas. 

The family that owns this land, which as been operated as a campground since 

1954, wishes the land to continue to be used as a campground, providing affordable 

recreation for the general public at this very popular destination. For the family, 

the Seashore and the public, this outcome is by far superior to the land being sold 

and developed as residences. The family is working closely with the National Seashore to that end. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the appropriation of $6.1 

million in the fiscal year 2007 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the 

Cape Cod National Seashore. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

We respectfully request $220.3 million in fiscal year 2007 for the State and Local 

Air Quality Management Program—which is the amount appropriated in fiscal year 

2006. The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget reduces funding for this important 

program by $35.1 million. 

Established by the Clean Air Act, the State and Local Air Quality Management 

Program provides federal financial assistance in the form of grants to the 50 states, 

4 territories, and approximately 60 local agencies to operate their air pollution control programs. The grants provide the resources to states and localities to perform 

basic air pollution control activities like monitoring air quality, developing and planning control options, permitting and inspecting sources, enforcing laws and regulations, and educating the public. 

In particular, this grant funding helps support state and local air quality management efforts to implement the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. As you may 

know, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated 495 counties 

across the nation as in nonattainment for the particulate matter and ozone air quality standards. Under the Clean Air Act, states must submit State Implementation 

Plans by 2007 and 2008 detailing how these areas will meet the standards by specified deadlines. Additionally, EPA has promulgated numerous other regulations that 

impose additional duties on state and local officials. 

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget includes $185.2 million for the state and 

local grant program—which is a reduction of 16 percent or $35.1 million from the 

fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. This entails reductions of $15.6 million from the 

Section 105 air grants program and $2.5 million from regional planning organizations. Additionally, funding for the fine particulate monitoring program is cut by 

$17 million, with the remainder shifted from Section 103 authority to Section 105. 

This shift will require states and localities to provide matching funds. 

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We urge you to restore the funding for this important program to $220.3 million for fiscal year 2007 and not shift 

funds for monitoring from Section 103 authority to Section 105. Funding for this 

vital program should not be decreased at a time when the workload required of 

states and localities is increasing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLANDS ASSOCIATION, INC. 

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc. (APIA) submits the following request with regard to the fiscal year 2007 Indian Health Service budget: 

—$1.14 million increase over fiscal year 2006 for phase two of staffing for our new 

health center in St. Paul. This is $265,000 more than the Administration’s requested $875,000 increase. 
232 

—$1 million for the construction shortfall for the staff quarters for the new St. 

Paul Health Center 

—We support the recommendations of the Alaska Native Health Board on matters 

including increased funding for built-in costs, for contract support, medevac and 

patient travel, village-built clinics and for construction of the hospitals in Barrow and Nome which are at the top of the IHS priority construction list. 

St. Paul Health Center Staffing. We thank Congress for providing funding for the 

construction of the new health center at St. Paul, one of the most remote and needy 

locations in the IHS health system. The Center opened on January 13, 2006. In fiscal year 2006 Congress provided $260,000 for the first phase of staffing for our new 

health center. The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget would build the $260,000 

from fiscal year 2006 into the base budget and provide an increase of $875,000 for 

a total of $1.13 million. This is $265,000 short of the needed $1.4 million. Thus we 

request a total increase over fiscal year 2006 of $1.14 million. 

Staffing Package: 

Fiscal year 2006 staffing package—$260,000 (built into base budget) 

Fiscal year 2007 Admin proposal—$875,000 increase over fiscal year 2006 

APIA Need—$1,140,000 increase over fiscal year 2006 

TOTAL TWO-YEAR PHASE-IN OF STAFFING 

Year Amount 

Fiscal year 2006 appropriation ............................................................................................................................ $260,000 

Fiscal year 2007 APIA Request ............................................................................................................................ 1,140,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 1,400,000 

While we appreciate the Administration’s effort to calculate our funding package 

need, it falls short by not accounting for the extreme remoteness of our site and the 

ensuing lack of access to available support services and facilities. 

St. Paul Island is located, as this committee knows, in the Bering Sea and it is 

almost 1000 air miles away from our nearest referral center in Anchorage. It is also 

the only Health Center in the most dangerous fisheries area in the country. APIA 

must serve a huge influx of seasonal fisheries workers and our staff must be of a 

caliber to handle major disasters with no ready assistance. Our population balloons 

to over 2000 during the fishing seasons. Due to the dangerous nature of fishing in 

the Bering Sea, many of our cases are of an emergency nature—for instance, we 

have provided emergency response services for shipwrecks, explosions, and fishingrelated injuries. In addition to the large numbers of persons—Native and non-Native—who fish in our waters, we also attend to emergency health needs of the many 

people who visit our area for bird watching. We are, in fact, ‘‘the only act in town’’ 

when it comes to health care, and thus we need to be as self-sufficient as possible 

in the provision of health care. That is why our new Health Center will include xray capability, a holding bed area, and 24 hours per day call-back for emergencies. 

As you would imagine, the cost of medical staff is very high in the Aleutian 

Pribilof Islands. While last year’s Physician Assistants received an annual salary of 

$85,000, the cost this year is $120,000 plus housing. In addition, the cost of traveling to and from our communities has increased in some cases 140 percent. A ticket 

to St. Paul is $1,000. Home heating fuel has risen to over $800/month and electricity 

is $400/month. 

Extreme weather conditions and the cost of travel further play an adverse role 

in getting field services out to St. Paul. Visits by physicians are minimal and often 

times postponed or shortened due to weather conditions. St. Paul has the highest 

recorded per capita rate of Type 2 Diabetes in the United States. This situation has 

become critical as the rate continues to increase. Approximately 60 percent of the 

population is in need of mental health assistance, with anticipation that this will 

increase as the fishing industry continues to decline. Having an adequate staffing 

package will allow us to address these disease burdens. 

A total staffing package of $1.4 million is more realistic to meet our unique needs 

that are not easily quantified by a universal formula devised for other IHS sites 

that have far better access to support centers. 

St. Paul Health Center Quarters Shortfall.—We also ask for $1 million to meet 

the shortfall in quarters construction funds for the St. Paul Health Center. Without 

the additional $1 million we will be forced to eliminate one single and one double 

housing unit which were in our approved construction plan. In the context of St. 

Paul Island, this is very significant. 
233 

It is extremely difficult to find housing for staff on the Island. Island land is, as 

you can imagine, extremely scarce and can only be leased, making it impossible for 

anyone to acquire bank financing for loans on existing homes (should a rare one become available). Our own Health Administrator, who is from St. Paul, has had to 

live off-island waiting for housing to become available. We must have this additional 

funding so that our attempts to recruit and retain medical staff for the new St. Paul 

Health Center are not thwarted by the lack of adequate housing. 

History.—While well known to our Congressional delegation, we would like to 

bring to the Subcommittee’s attention a little sense of the history of the Aleut people—a history likened to that of colonialism and of being treated like the enemy 

during World War II. Much of what has happened to the Aleut people has been driven by the desire of private industry and governments for the riches of the Bering 

Sea seal trade and of the coerced labor of highly skilled Aleut fishermen. 

Russian fur traders first started coming to the Pribilof Islands during the mid 

1700s. They used Aleut fishermen as slave labor, mistreated Aleut women, and indiscriminately plundered the seal population. Rival traders took an estimated 

240,000 seals in 1868 alone. In the first 30 years of Russian contact, the Aleut population declined from an estimated 12,000 to about 1,900. Aleuts were relocated by 

the Russians from hundreds of villages into just 27 villages. (Source: A Century of 

Servitude by Dorothy M. Jones, B.A.) 

Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million— 

the transaction referred to as Seward’s Folly. The cost was more than paid for by 

the profits to the government from the Pribilof fur trade—with the labor done by 

Aleuts. In 1870, the U.S. Government established the Pribilofs as a government reservation and signed a 20-year contract with the Alaska Commercial Company granting it exclusive property right to seals in exchange for rent and royalties. The law 

also required conservation measures, much needed after the years of Russian exploitation. The Pribilof Islands were managed by the United States Treasury Department. Treasury officials had a great deal of influence over the daily lives of Aleuts 

but were given little direction on how to go about their jobs. The results ranged 

from neglect to egregious violation of individual rights. 

A most painful experience for us was the evacuation during World War II of 

Aleuts from the Pribilofs to various locations in southeastern Alaska. Aleuts endured the evacuation from 1942 to 1945. This was allegedly done for the safety of 

the Aleuts, but in fact Aleuts were treated like they were the enemy. People were 

given two days notice to leave and then were never told their destination—most 

ended up 1,500 miles away in various southeast Alaska locations. It is a little 

known fact that some people were also evacuated to Japan. Aleuts were put in extremely crowded unheated abandoned buildings, many families in one area separated only by blankets hung from the ceiling. Sanitation conditions were horrible— 

in one case there was one outhouse for over 200 persons. There was little clean 

water. Naturally there was much sickness. The U.S. Government realized that they 

needed the labor of the Aleut fisherman for sealing operations and they were taken 

back to the Pribilofs on a seasonal basis to obtain the fur and seal oil needed by 

the military—their wives and children left behind in the horrendous relocation 

camps. 

In the end, 10 percent of the Aleuts who were evacuated from St. Paul, St. 

George, Unalaska, Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Biorka, Kashega, and Makushin died in 

the relocation camps. Of the 42 persons evacuated from Attu to Japan, 22, or nearly 

50 percent, died. When people were allowed to return to their home villages, many 

found that their homes had been destroyed, their possessions taken, and their 

churches stripped of religious icons—by the U.S. military. 

Despite this history, the Aleut are a proud people and are up to the challenge of 

providing quality health care to our people despite the many geographical and environmental challenges of living in an isolated frontier community. The efforts to 

build a new health center on St. Paul Island started over 20 years ago. Now that 

the dream is a reality, it would be devastating to the many who worked hard to 

make this happen to have the Center fall short of desperately needed housing and 

staff. 

Thank you for your consideration of the needs of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal and other state and locally 

owned utilities throughout the United States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public 
234 

power utilities deliver electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (approximately 43 million people), serving some of the Nation’s largest cities. However, the 

vast majority of APPA’s members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining our fiscal year 

2007 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the Interior and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: ENERGY STAR PROGRAMS

APPA is disappointed in the Administration’s request of $45.7 million for fiscal 

year 2007 for EPA’s Energy Star Programs as it represents a reduction in their request of approximately $5 million from fiscal year 2006 as well as a reduction in 

the congressional allocation of $49.5 million for fiscal year 2007. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate at least the fiscal year 2006 amount for Energy Star. 

Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program pairing EPA with businesses and 

consumers nationwide to enhance investment in underutilized technologies and 

practices that increase energy efficiency while at the same time reducing emissions 

of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. In particular, APPA member systems 

across the country have been active participants in a subset of the Energy Star program called ‘‘Green Lights.’’ The Green Lights program encourages the use of energy 

efficient lighting to reduce energy costs, increase productivity, promote customer retention and protect the environment. 

According to the EPA, Energy Star is saving businesses, organizations, and con- sumers more than $9 billion a year, and has been instrumental in the more widespread use technological innovations like LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent 

lighting, power management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy 

use. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: LANDFILL METHANE OUTREACH PROGRAM

APPA is also disappointed in the Administration’s request of $1.9 million for fiscal 

year 2007 for the Landfill Methane Outreach Program at EPA. We would urge the 

Subcommittee to again consider an allocation for this program over and above the 

Administration’s request. 

The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) helps to partner utilities, energy organizations, states, tribes, the landfill gas industry and trade associations to 

promote the recovery and use of landfill gas as an energy source. According to the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), LMOP has more than 490 Partners 

that have signed voluntary agreements to work with EPA to develop cost-effective 

landfill-gas-to-energy (LFG) projects. There are approximately 395 operational LFG 

energy projects in the United States with approximately 140 projects currently 

under construction or exploring development options and opportunities. LMOP has 

also developed detailed profiles for over 1,300 candidate landfills. 

Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a landfill decomposes. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane and about 50 percent carbon dioxide. Landfill gas 

can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source rather than being released 

into the atmosphere as a potent greenhouse gas. Converting landfill gas to energy 

offsets the need for non-renewable resources such as coal and oil, and thereby helps 

to diversify utilities’ fuel portfolios and to reduce emissions of air pollutants from 

conventional fuel sources. 

In 2005, all operational LFG energy projects in the United States prevented the 

release of 19 MMTCE (million metric tons of carbon equivalent). This reduction is 

the carbon equivalent of removing the emissions from 13.3 million vehicles on the 

road or planting 19 million acres of forest for one year. This reduction also has the 

same environmental benefit as preventing the use of 162 million barrels of oil or 

offsetting the use of 341,000 railcars of coal. 

As units of local and state governments, APPA’s member utilities are uniquely 

poised to embark on landfill-gas to energy projects. EPA’s LMOP facilitates this 

process by providing technical support and access to invaluable partnerships to our 

members and the communities they serve. 

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

APPA is disappointed with the Administration’s request of $2.7 million for fiscal 

year 2007 for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and 

urges the Subcommittee to consider allocating at least $3.2 million for this office. 

Public power utilities have experienced a general lack of consistency in federal government regulation, particularly involving environmental issues. While additional 

layers of government should be avoided, a central overseer can perform a valuable 
235 

function in preventing duplicative, unnecessary and inconsistent regulation. CEQ is 

responsible for ensuring that federal agencies perform their tasks in an efficient and 

coordinated manner. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present testimony to this most important committee. I serve as Executive Director 

for the Little Rock Port Authority and as Arkansas Chairman for the Interstate 

Committee. Other committee members representing Arkansas, in whose behalf this 

statement is made, are: 

Mr. Scott McGeorge, President, Pine Bluff Sand and Gravel Company, Pine Bluff 

Mr. N.M. ‘‘Buck’’ Shell, CEO, Five Rivers Distribution in Van Buren and Fort 

Smith 

Mr. Jack Long, General Manager, Logistic Services, Inc., Port of Little Rock 

Mr. Jeff Pipkin, President & CEO of the Russellville Area Chamber of Commerce 

and Director of the Arkansas Valley Alliance for Economic Development 

We call to your attention four projects on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 

Navigation System (the ‘‘System’’) that are especially important to navigation and 

the economy of this multi-state area: Arkansas River 12-Foot Channel, Little Rock 

Port, Backlog of Channel and Structure Maintenance, and the Arkansas-White Rivers Cut-Off Study. 

ARKANSAS RIVER’S 12-FOOT CHANNEL

Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108–137 authorized a 12-foot channel on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now obligated to operate 

and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over 90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel. Deepening the remainder of the channel 

to 12 feet will allow carriers to place 43 percent more cargo on each barge which 

will reduce the amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Other environmental benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and the construction of least tern islands through beneficial use of dredged 

material. 

—Therefore, we request $40,000,000 to continue the work towards achieving the 

12-foot navigation channel as noted in Public Law 108–137. Corps of Engineers 

capability levels on this project are currently $20,000,000 in both the Tulsa and 

Little Rock Districts. The goal of completing this project in four years at the 

capability levels of the Corps will increase the cost competitiveness of this low 

cost-environment friendly transportation method and help us combat the loss of 

industry and jobs to overseas. 

LITTLE ROCK PORT

We recognize the significant reduction in new work and understand the need to 

combat the Global War on Terrorism. We also recognize the need to look for economic advantages where the needs of the government cross with the good of public 

entities to serve both needs. We believe a prime example of this effort would be to 

utilize Section 107 of the River and Harbors Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–645) in the 

Continuing Authorities Program which would allow the disposal of dredge disposal 

material to be utilized by the Little Rock Port for beneficial fill material. 

—Therefore, $7.6 million is requested for this project. This project will compliment 

the goal of Homeland Security by providing a safe, mid-America environment 

for shipping while complimenting other Federal investments, including the 12- 

foot channel project’’ by providing completion of a major economic development 

engine. 

BACKLOG OF CHANNEL STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE

We request $10 million Operation and Maintenance Budget which is urgently 

needed for critical repairs to damaged and deteriorated dikes and revetments to 

maintain channel alignment and provide original channel configuration while reducing the need for dredging. 

More than a decade of neglect to our navigation structures while funding the construction of Montgomery Point Lock & Dam has created a critical backlog of channel 

structure work that threatens the viability of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River 

Navigation System. 
236 

ARKANSAS–WHITE RIVERS CUTOFF STUDY

A cutoff is developing between the Arkansas and White Rivers which, if not corrected, could have dramatic adverse effects on the navigation system as well as significant bottomland hardwoods and pristine environment that provides unique wildlife habitat in southeast Arkansas. 

Unless corrected, it is inevitable that a major cutoff will occur negatively impacting navigation on the river, significantly increasing siltation and dredging requirements and, at worst, cutting off the lower end of the Navigation System from the 

Mississippi River. —We request, for the benefit of the entire system, $300,000 to protect the Navigation System from incurring significant increases in dredging, hazardous navigation conditions, and to preclude a devastating loss of habitat in bottom land 

hardwoods in the Big Island region between the Arkansas River, the White 

River and the Mississippi River. This pristine habitat is being threatened from 

the meandering of these rivers while also adversely impacting the Navigation 

System. The funds are greatly needed to complete the study and do the required 

environmental documentation. 

In addition to these three vital requests, we urge you to continue to support funding for the construction, and operation and maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System which provides low-cost and dependable transportation for farm products, construction aggregates, raw materials and finished products important to our nation’s economic recovery. 

It is also most important that you continue construction authority of the McClellan-Kerr Project until remaining channel stabilization problems identified by the 

Little Rock District Corps of Engineers have been resolved. The Corps needs to develop a permanent solution to the threat of cutoffs developing in the lower reaches 

of the navigation system and to use environmentally sustainable methods under the 

existing construction authority. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the work of this essential committee and thank you 

for your efforts that contribute so much to the social and economic well-being of the 

United States of America. 

We fully endorse the statement presented to you today by the Chairman of the 

Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee and urge you to favorably consider 

these requests that are so important to the economic recovery of our region and nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES AND THE

COUNCIL ON LIBRARY AND INFORMATION RESOURCES

This statement is submitted on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries 

(ARL) and the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR). ARL and 

CLIR are writing in support of the fiscal year 2007 budget request of $140.955 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and, in particular, the 

$17.988 million budget request for the Preservation and Access Division, whose 

work is critical to preserving our American heritage. ARL and CLIR respectfully 

urge that Congress provide an addition $15 million or a total of $156 million for 

NEH in fiscal year 2007. 

NEH plays a vital role in preserving our historic and cultural legacy, improving 

education at all levels, and helping Americans better understand the life of their 

Nation. The Preservation and Access Division of NEH was created to help advance 

knowledge and understanding of the humanities in America. Through its grant programs, the Division supports projects that preserve and increase the availability of 

resources, such as books, journals, newspapers, photographs, and films that are crucial for research, education, and public programming in the humanities. 

NEH funding is absolutely critical to ongoing programs of interest to the library 

community: the Brittle Books Program, the U.S. Newspaper Program, and Preservation Education and Training. Without Congressional support for NEH, fragile material in libraries and repositories in universities, colleges, and communities across 

the country would be in danger of permanent loss. 

We applaud NEH’s quick response in assisting cultural institutions following the 

devastation caused by Katrina. NEH provided $30,000 to state humanities councils 

in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and generously channeled $1 million in 

emergency grants to libraries, museums, historical societies and cultural institutions. More recently, NEH announced that it would dedicate an additional $250,000 

to hurricane relief for affected humanities-related institutions. 

ARL and CLIR also encourage funding for the Administration’s request of $15.239 

million for the We the People initiative. This initiative further enhances NEH’s core 
237 

functions in critical areas, including Preservation and Access. The initiative, created 

in response to the lack of basic historical knowledge among many Americans, is designed to enhance the teaching, research, and understanding of American history 

and culture. Of particular interest to the research library community is one of the 

initiative’s key programs, the National Digital Newspaper Program (NDNP). This 

program will convert microfilm of historical newspapers published between 1836 

and 1922 into digital files and mount them on a national database that will be freely accessible to all Americans via the Internet. This effort is a partnership between 

NEH, which funds the digitization projects, and the Library of Congress, which 

mounts and maintains the resources. We strongly encourage you to support this initiative. 

Although microfilming serves as a great tool for preserving America’s books and 

newspapers, ARL and CLIR strongly support the efforts of NEH to complement its 

preservation program with grants for the digitization of library materials. Digital 

technology provides new opportunities to extend the reach of humanities resources 

into every classroom, library, and home. To that end, many repositories of specialized and rare materials are digitizing their holdings to provide students, educators, 

and scholars easy access to them. Moreover, libraries and other humanities organizations are providing online access to an ever-increasing body of knowledge created 

in ‘‘born digital’’ journals, books, and databases. 

NEH also provides critical assistance to our Nation’s libraries, archives, historical 

societies, and other repositories for preservation education and training. Grants in 

this area help support U.S. graduate programs in art and material culture conservation; preservation workshops, surveys, and information services to hundreds of cultural institutions; and targeted workshops for staff who manage digital imaging and 

preservation microfilming projects. 

Last year, the NEH and the National Science Foundation (NSF) formed a partnership to develop and advance knowledge of endangered languages. The initiative, 

‘‘Documenting Endangered Languages,’’ records, documents and archives information on 3,000 languages that are near extinction. ARL and CLIR strongly support 

this important multiyear, cooperative initiative. 

Information, education, and knowledge are the pillars of our country’s domestic 

progress and international leadership in the 21st century. The existence and support of humanities is vital to ensure a successful democracy by means of reflection, 

participation, and communication. The Nation must preserve the historical record 

accumulated by past generations to ensure the success of future generations. 

We very much appreciate the Subcommittee’s continuing support of NEH and its 

programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE RECREATIONAL ACCESS

Americans for Responsible Recreational Access is a group committed to fostering 

responsible recreational practices on public lands. We are writing to you today to 

express our grave concerns about the Administration’s budget proposal for the U.S. 

Forest Service, especially those portions dealing with the recreation and trail programs. 

The President’s budget proposal calls for reducing the Recreation, Wilderness and 

Heritage program by 4 percent, $10 million less than the Congress appropriated in 

fiscal year 2006. The Trails program is slated for an even larger cut of 19.4 percent, 

$14.5 million less than fiscal year 2006 funding. 

We understand that the Federal budget is under severe strain. And we certainly 

don’t envy the task you have before you in deciding which programs should ultimately receive lesser support in the coming fiscal year. We hope that as you balance 

competing interests, you will take a close look at the Forest Service budget, especially those areas dealing with recreation. 

More than ever, greater numbers of Americans are visiting our national forests 

for recreational activities. The Forest Service tracks the number of visitors to its facilities and its own statistics show that in 2004 alone, there were more than 205 

million visits to the National Forests. Since then, we know that this figure has 

grown and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This is not the time to 

be cutting funds for trail maintenance and rehabilitation work. 

We think a strong case could be made that these programs merit an increase in 

funding especially for trail maintenance and rehabilitation. But we understand that 

such a wish is highly unlikely during these difficult fiscal times. Therefore, our hope 

is that your committee will fund these programs in fiscal year 2007 at the current 

level found in fiscal year 2006. 
238 

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. 

In the coming days, we will be visiting members of your committee to make the 

case that facilitating recreation in our National Forests is an important mission of 

the U.S. Forest Service, and that the Recreation and Trail programs merit, at a 

minimum, funding at the 2006 level. We stand ready to assist your committee with 

any background information you desire that supports funding the trails and recreation programs at their existing levels. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 1

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommends an annual appro- priation of $1.5 billion from the federal general fund for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF) program and $1 billion for the Safe Drinking Water 

SRF (DWSRF) in fiscal year 2007. The need is justified; 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 

2005. 

THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ASCE also recommends that Congress approve at least $1.2 billion in new budget authority for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year 2007, including $85.8 million 

for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. This level would enable 

the USGS to meet new challenges while continuing to provide data for land-use 

management, sustainable natural resource development, economic growth, and enhanced security from natural and manmade hazards. 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. 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT NEEDED

For fiscal year 2007, we support annual appropriations of $1.5 billion from the 

federal general fund for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program. For fiscal year 2007, ASCE supports a minimum appropriation of $1 billion from 

the federal general fund for the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

(SRF) program. The federal government has directly invested more than $70 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 CWSRF program has been steadily eroding. Congress 

appropriated between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion from 1995 to 2004. But in fiscal 

year 2005 Congress cut wastewater SRF funding for the first time in eight years, 

reducing the total investment to $1.1 billion, and the total was further redueced in 

fiscal year 2006 to $887 million. The Bush administration has proposed further cuts 

for fiscal year 2007, with a budget submittal calling for an appropriation of only 

$688 million, a reduction of nearly 29 percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level. 

Funding needs remain very high: the U.S. must invest an additional $181 billion 

for all types of sewage treatment projects eligible for funding under the Act, accord-
239 

2 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. 3 H.R. 4560, 109th Cong. (2005). 

4Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are paid for by the local water utilities, not the 

federal government. 5The CBO approximation does not include the $178 billion to $331 billion in anticipated pipe 

replacement costs over the same 20-year period. 

ing 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). 

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.2

—ASCE supports enactment of the Clean Water Trust Act of 2005,3 which would 

establish a federal water infrastructure trust fund act that would provide a reliable source of federal assistance for the construction and repair of POTWs to 

reduce the enormous funding ‘‘gap.’’ The bill also would authorize Congress to 

appropriate $37.5 billion over five years for wastewater and drinking water systems. 

—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

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

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 2006 was $838 million, less than 10 

percent of the total national requirements. The Bush Administration has proposed 

an appropriation of $842 million for fiscal year 2007. 

—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- 
240 

term investments. A capital budget system would help Congress to focus on programs devoted to long-term growth and productivity. 

USGS PROGRAMS

ASCE requests that Congress increase the fiscal year 2007 budget of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to $1.2 billion. We support full funding for the agency’s vital 

streamgaging program. 

The fiscal year 2007 budget request would cut funding for the USGS by $20.6 million (2.1 percent) to $944.8 million. 

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 essentailly flat. Even this flat funding 

for the USGS reflects congressional restoration of proposed budget cuts. 

NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM

ASCE strongly supports the president’s fiscal year 2007 request of $51.5 million 

for the Earthquake Hazards Office and $5.7 million for the multi-hazards initiative; 

these are a positive indication of the Administration’s support in this important 

area. ASCE remains concerned about the continued under funding of Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), as the $8 million requested for fiscal year 2007 is 

well under the authorized level of $36 million. 

ASCE urges Congress to build on the president’s support and appropriate the 

fully authorized funding level of $85.8 million, including $36 million for ANSS, for 

the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) functions at the 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

The USGS has the responsibility to monitor earthquakes, assess the seismic hazard for the Nation and research the basic earth science processes controlling earthquake occurrence and effect. The Advanced National Seismic Research and Monitoring System (ANSS), authorized by Congress in 2000, is intended to expand the 

current monitoring system and provide the needed information to maximize our understanding of how specific buildings performed during earthquakes. Strong motion 

information is critical to making the next quantum leap in understanding how to 

economically arrest the growth of earthquake risk. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER

ADMINISTRATORS (ASDWA) 

ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2007, the Subcommittee appropriate funding for three state drinking water programs at levels commensurate with 

Federal expectations for performance and at levels that continue to ensure appropriate public health protection. Specifically, ASDWA requests an appropriation of 

$112 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program; $850 million for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program; and $6 

million for state drinking water program security initiatives. 

ASDWA represents the state drinking water programs in each of the fifty states 

and territories in their efforts to ensure the provision of safe drinking water to more 

than 275 million consumers nationwide. ASDWA’s primary mission is the protection 

of public health through the effective management of state drinking water programs 

that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

States Need Increased Federal Support to Maintain Public Health Protection.— 

State drinking water programs strive to meet their public health protection goals 

through two principal funding programs—the Public Water System Supervision Program and the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund Program. These two programs—with their attendant state match requirements—provide the means for 

states to work with drinking water systems to ensure that American citizens can 

turn on their taps with confidence that the water is safe to drink and that the supply is adequate. In recent years, state drinking water programs have accepted addi-
241 

tional responsibilities to work with all public water systems to ensure that critical 

drinking water infrastructure is protected and that plans are in place to respond 

to disasters both natural and manmade. 

HOW STATES USE FEDERAL FUNDS

The PWSS Program.—To meet the requirements of the SDWA, states have accepted primary enforcement authority for oversight of ongoing regulatory compliance 

and technical assistance efforts for 160,000 public water systems to ensure that potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a timely manner. 

Going beyond these longstanding core responsibilities, since 1996, state drinking 

water programs have participated in the development and implementation of more 

than 20 new Federal regulations and strategic initiatives designed to enhance the 

protection of public health. States are also implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect public health from ‘‘source to tap’’—including source water assessments and controls; technical assistance with water treatment and distribution; and 

enhancement of overall water system capacity. State activities go far beyond simply 

ensuring compliance at the tap. 

The DWSRF Program.—In less than 10 years, states have leveraged funding for the DWSRF program into more than $9 billion in loans to thousands of communities 

as a means to help them improve the quality or quantity of the water they drink. 

State drinking water programs have also used DWSRF funds to support the technical assistance and training needs of small drinking water systems and to help 

them obtain the technical, managerial, and financial proficiency that enables them 

to meet the requirements of the SDWA. 

State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.—Since 2001, and more critically 

since last summer’s experience of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, states have taken 

extraordinary measures to meet the security and emergency response-related needs 

of the drinking water community. State drinking water programs have endeavored 

to respond to the significant number of requests for assistance, training, information, and financial support from the systems under their purview. States have also 

been instrumental in providing support and assistance to systems in assessing 

whether a contamination event has occurred and, if so, evaluating the magnitude 

of the public health implications. States have devised training and technical assistance programs, initiated new communications structures, and begun the work of integrating the concepts of enhanced security concerns throughout all aspects of the 

drinking water program. 

WHY INCREASED FUNDING IS CRITICALLY NEEDED

States must accomplish all of the above-described activities and take on new responsibilities while responding to escalating pressures to further cut their budgets, 

streamline their workforces, and operate with less state-provided financial support. 

State drinking water programs have always been expected to do more with less and 

states have always responded with commitment and ingenuity. However, state 

drinking water programs are now in crisis. Congress and the Executive Branch, 

through EPA, have implemented national program guidance calling for both states 

and water systems to continually improve their contaminant rule compliance rates. 

However, many states are now experiencing declining compliance rates in the face 

of declining or stagnant financial resources. For every decrease in available Federal 

dollars, the likelihood of a contamination event that puts public health at risk increases. 

Although the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100 

million per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached that originallyauthorized level. This level of funding, 10 years after enactment, is now woefully 

inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by state drinking water programs. 

Of the $1.1 billion in PWSS grants that states could have received since 1996, actual appropriations have only been $851.7 million through fiscal year 2005 and the 

additional $98.3 million appropriated for state programs in fiscal year 2006 is still 

a tentative figure, according to the EPA website, due to the potential for additional 

rescissions. Such chronic underfunding of the program has consequences. It is estimated that one-third of the states may not be able to conduct timely implementation 

of major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work undone or forcing 

U.S. EPA to undertake rule implementation tasks that they may not have the resources or expertise to perform. This could create a significant implementation crisis 

in several regions of the country and ultimately delay implementation of several 

critically needed public health protections. 

Similarly, for the DWSRF, the authorized level of $1 billion per year has never 

been appropriated. States have received less than 80 percent of the $11 billion au-
242 

thorized for the DWSRF program since 1996. This underfunding, coupled with the 

decline in the spending power of these dollars due to inflation and cost of living increases, has severely hampered state drinking water programs’ ability to fulfill their 

mission and provide critically needed support to drinking water systems. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST LEVELS AND SDWA PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS

The PWSS Program.—This year, the State PWSS program request level in the 

Administration’s budget is $99.1 million. This reflects an alarming downward trend 

from prior year Administration requests of $105.1 million and the enacted budget 

high point of $101.9 million appropriated just three years ago—in fiscal year 2004. 

State drinking water programs are hard pressed to understand a justification for 

the decreased funding since this is the year when they must begin implementation 

of the new arsenic regulations and the M/DBP Rule cluster—two very sophisticated 

and complex initiatives. States want to offer the flexibilities allowed under these 

and other rules; however, fewer dollars mean less opportunities to work one-on-one 

with systems to meet their needs. States, this year, are also expecting to see new 

regulatory requirements relating to ground water protection and revisions to the existing lead and copper rule. Looking ahead, states expect that new rules relating 

to MTBE, perchlorate, and NDMA will be forthcoming. A new Radon Rule will also 

likely soon be developed along with revisions to the Total Coliform Rule and possibly, a new distribution system rule. The number of regulations requiring state implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations continue to grow 

while, at the same time, Federal funding support necessary to maintain compliance 

levels and meet expectations is in decline. 

ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2007 funding for the 

PWSS program be appropriated at $112 million. This figure represents a baseline 

of $101.9 million as appropriated in fiscal year 2004 plus an additional 3 percent 

increase over the past two fiscal years and into fiscal year 2007 to adjust for inflation. 

The DWSRF Program.—The fiscal year 2007 DWSRF program request in the 

President’s budget reflects a nearly $9 million decrease from the amount requested 

in the three previous years. The primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating water system compliance with national primary 

drinking water regulations through the provision of loans to improve drinking water 

infrastructure. EPA’s most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs 

Survey (2003) indicated that water system needs total $276.8 billion over the next 

20 years to comply with SDWA mandates. This represents a significant jump from 

the earlier survey (1999) findings of a total 20 year need of $150.9 billion. ‘‘Immediate’’ water infrastructure needs totaled $165 billion in the 2003 survey as compared to $102.5 billion identified in 1999. Despite these documented needs, the maximum amount requested by the Administration for the DWSRF has been $850 million and Congress has appropriated less than those requested levels. (the anticipated post-rescission appropriation for fiscal year 2006 is $832.2 million). Without 

reasonable increases—or at least maintenance of previous funding levels, the 

DWSRF will never be able to meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection goals for which it was designed. 

ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2007 funding for the 

DWSRF program be appropriated at authorized level of $1 billion or at least $850 

million. $850 million represents a maintenance baseline consistent with previous 

year funding request levels. 

Security Responsibilities.—The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $4.9 million for state drinking water programs to continue to expand their security activities, particularly for small and medium systems. While states are appreciative of the 

funding, once again it is difficult to understand why the request level is decreased 

from previous years. Given the realities exemplified by Hurricane Katrina, state 

drinking water programs are working more closely than ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking water systems’ preparedness and response capabilities. In addition to providing technical assistance, training, and support as mandated by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, in recent years, states have been 

directed to focus their efforts toward smaller water systems not covered by the Act. 

These systems are much less likely to have the organizational or financial wherewithal to better secure either their physical or cyber infrastructures and rely on the 

states to help them meet their needs and identify potential funding sources 

(DWSRF). There is no dedicated fund to support or assist these smaller systems. 

ASDWA, therefore, respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2007 funding for the 

state security initiatives program be appropriated at $6 million. This figure represents a maintenance baseline consistent with previous year funding request levels 
243 

adjusted for the eroding effects of inflation since the originally appropriated level 

of $5 million in fiscal year 2002. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, ASDWA respectfully recommends that both state and Federal fiscal 

year 2007 budget needs for the provision of safe drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. The Subcommittee can meet those needs through relatively modest 

increases in funding over the Administration’s requested fiscal year 2007 budget or 

by a ‘‘budget-neutral’’ reallocation of funding within the overall budget of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. ASDWA calls the Subcommittee’s attention to an 

alternative state-recommended fiscal year 2007 budget developed by the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) as a constructive starting point for these discussions. 

A strong drinking water program supported by the Federal-state partnership will 

ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, 

in fact, will continue to improve—so that the public can be assured that a glass of 

water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live. States are willing and 

committed partners. Additional Federal financial assistance is needed, however, to 

meet ongoing and ever growing regulatory and security needs. In 1996, Congress 

provided the authority to ensure that the burden would not go unsupported. In 

2006, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be realized. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY

INTRODUCTION

The Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 100 

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 2007 compared to the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level. 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 Mark Pryor 

as Chairman; Washington Gas Chairman and CEO James DeGraffenreidt, Jr. as 

Co-Chairman; and Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp and Ed Markey and 

Senators Bingaman, Collins and 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 most successful efforts to promote marketplace solutions for greater energy efficiency. The program works with thousands of 

business partners to make it easy for consumers to find and buy many energy-efficient products, buildings, and services by awarding the well-known Energy Star 

label and by providing other consumer information. The Energy Star program is an 

entirely voluntary program that reduces energy demand, lowers energy bills, and 

helps avoid pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. 

Increased investment by the federal government in the Energy Star program will 

translate to increased energy savings by consumers and businesses 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. 

In 2005 alone, Energy Star helped Americans save 28,000 Megawatts of peak 

power, enough to avoid the need for more than 50 new power plants. This savings 

is a significant amount of energy—150 billion kWh—representing 4 percent of total 

2005 electricity demand. Working together with Energy Star, Americans prevented 

the emission of 35 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which is equivalent to removing 23 million cars from the road. And Americans, with the help of 

Energy Star, saved $12 billion on their energy bills. As these statistics exemplify, 

the Energy Star program is helping millions of Americans get the energy they need, 

while saving money and avoiding pollution. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS AMERICA’S GREATEST ENERGY RESOURCE

Energy efficiency is the nation’s greatest energy resource—we now save more energy each year from energy efficiency than we get from any single energy source, 

including oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that if we tried to run today’s economy without the energy-efficiency improve-
244 

ments that have taken place since 1973, we would need 43 percent more energy supplies than we use now (43 quadrillion Btu). 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. 

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. 

Energy efficiency is an investment. There is often a modest additional cost for 

purchasing more efficient, smarter technologies, but that additional cost and more 

is paid back 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.’’ The program sets rigorous guidelines representing high 

energy-efficiency and product quality goals that products, buildings, or services 

must meet in order to qualify for the Energy Star label. 

In 2003 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 works through voluntary partnerships, and these have grown since 

the early 1990s to include thousands of businesses. These partnerships demonstrate 

that energy efficiency delivers ‘‘pollution prevention at a profit.’’ And the Energy 

Star program testifies to the important environmental achievements that can be 

made through cooperative partnerships between government and businesses. 

Energy Star serves broad constituencies in every state in the country. Energy 

Star currently has more than 8,000 partners who are committed to improving the 

energy efficiency of our homes, businesses and products. Among those partners are 

over 1,500 manufacturing partners who make and market over 35,000 different 

models of Energy Star qualifying products, and 800 retail partners representing 

over 21,000 storefronts, as well as building owners and operators, utilities, state and 

local governments, and nonprofit organizations. Energy Star counts more than 2,500 

builder partners and partners who supply products and services for energy-efficient 

home construction. More than 500,000 families now live in Energy Star Homes (40 

percent more than last year)—locking in financial savings for homeowners of more 

than $110 million annually. In fact, nearly 10 percent of all homes built in 2005 

earned the Energy Star label. 

As you may know, 2006 marks the sixth 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 in the past has been remarkable. Joining us in our 

request this year are 391 companies and Energy Star partners and another 75 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 efficiency 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 to label more products, appliances, buildings, and services. 

Time and again, the President and the EPA Administrator 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 declined. The fiscal 

year 2007 proposed budget for Energy Star, $45.7 million, is down 9 percent from 

this year and, after inflation, is down one-fifth from fiscal year 2002. In addition, 
245 

internal funding cuts at EPA have plagued the program over the past several years. 

Even with tight 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 sky-high 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 increased by 

at least $10 million over last year’s appropriated level for fiscal year 2007, and 

should be doubled over the next five years. This would enable the Energy Star program to label additional products, update its criteria, increase consumer education 

campaigns, and—especially important—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 17,000 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 reports again specify the 

exact level of federal funding that is appropriated for the Energy Star program 

as in the fiscal year 2006 reports. Such direction to EPA is needed to assure 

that funding intended by Congress for the program is used by the agency for 

that purpose. Unfortunately, EPA has a history of imposing internal cuts in the 

program, especially in years when Congress has not specified Energy Star funding. 

—Second, we recommend that Congress increase funding of the Energy Star program by $10 million over the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level, to $60.0 million, 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 2007 will return a significant and cost-effective yield in pollution reduction, economic stimulation, energy security, and consumer savings. 
246 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ASM is the largest single life science organization in the 

world, comprised of more than 43,000 members. ASM members are involved in research to improve human health and the environment and work in academic, industrial, medical, and governmental institutions worldwide. The ASM’s mission is to 

enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life processes, 

and to promote the application of this knowledge for improved health, and for economic and environmental well-being. 

The EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the environment. 

The ASM believes that sound public policy for environmental protection depends on 

adequately funded intramural and extramural research programs based on scientific 

peer review to assure that support is awarded for both quality and relevant research. At laboratories located throughout the nation, the EPA works to assess environmental conditions and to identify, understand, and solve current and future environmental problems; integrate the work of scientific partners such as nations, private sector organizations, academia and other agencies; and provide leadership in 

addressing emerging environmental issues and in advancing the science and technology of risk assessment and risk management. It is essential that the EPA science 

and technology programs are adequately supported. 

The fiscal year 2007 request for the EPA’s science and technology funding is $788 

million, 8 percent above fiscal year 2006. Science and technology programs are important to addressing complex environmental problems, and the ASM urges Congress to support the Administration’s overall request to increase funding for the 

EPA’s science and technology programs by $58.5 million. The EPA depends on excellent research programs to evaluate risk, develop and defend protective standards, 

anticipate future health and environmental threats, and to identify solutions to environmental problems. 

WATERBORNE PATHOGENS

Although the American public enjoys safe drinking water, waterborne disease outbreaks caused by pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites continue to be reported. Surface water and groundwater sources can be contaminated with many different types of chemical substances and microorganisms. Furthermore, the disinfection process itself creates a number of potentially toxic chemical byproducts. The 

EPA conducts the necessary research to provide a strong scientific foundation for 

standards that limit the public’s exposure to drinking water contaminants and disinfection byproducts. This research supports major regulatory activities including 

the Microbial/Disinfection Byproduct Rules, and future decisions on unregulated 

pathogens and chemicals. 

The EPA has drinking water regulations for more than 90 contaminants. The Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) includes a process for identifying new contaminants, 

which are reported in a Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). The first CCL was published in March 1998. The EPA uses this list of unregulated contaminants to 

prioritize research and data collection efforts to help determine whether a specific 

contaminant should be regulated. 

In addition to releasing the most recent CCL in February 2005, the EPA provided 

an update on its work to improve the CCL process for the future that is based, in 

part, on recommendations from the National Research Council and the National 

Drinking Water Advisory Council. Goals for the future include: 

—evaluate a wider range of information; 

—screen contaminants more systematically; and 

—develop a more comprehensive CCL by expanding the number of contaminants 

being reviewed for inclusion on the next CCL. 

The EPA is currently working on the third CCL and anticipates its draft release 

in 2006. The increasing numbers of contaminants and candidate contaminants that 

must be monitored and regulated require adequate funding. Research focuses on filling data gaps, developing analytical methods for measuring the occurrence of chemical and microbial contaminants on the CCL and developing and evaluating cost-effective treatment technologies for removing pathogens from water supplies, while at 

the same time minimizing microbial/disinfection by-product formation. 

Under the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act of 2000 

(BEACH Act), the EPA protects the quality of the nation’s coastal and Great Lakes 

region recreational water. Swimming in some recreational waters can pose a risk 

of illness as a result of exposure to microbial pathogens. The EPA’s safety improve-
247 

ment strategy includes the general reduction of pathogen levels in recreational waters by: 

—reducing pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs); 

—addressing major sources discharging pathogens under the permit program; and 

—improving management of septic systems. 

The EPA is conducting research on waterborne pathogens, arsenic, disinfection 

byproducts, and other chemical contaminants to protect the nation. The ASM supports the Administration’s request to increase Drinking Water and Water Quality 

research by $9.8 million in fiscal year 2007. 

INDOOR AIR QUALITY

Every breath we take, indoors and out, we inhale not just life-sustaining oxygen 

but dust and smoke, chemicals, microorganisms, and particles and pollutants that 

float on the air. The average human inhales approximately 10 cubic meters of air 

daily. Because most people spend about 22 hours each day indoors, poor indoor air 

quality (IAQ) affects both public health and national productivity. At present, a 

shortage of IAQ research leaves much unknown about cause-and-effect specifics, but 

there is little doubt that contaminated buildings are attracting more attention as 

occupants develop often vague symptoms followed by remediation, litigation, and 

other costly outcomes. 

Although IAQ issues are often viewed as a problem of modern buildings, connections made between air and disease date to ancient times. Long before the germ theory of disease and its indictment of pathogenic microorganisms, humans associated 

foul miasmas like ‘‘sewer gas’’ with infectious diseases such as malaria. Initially, 

prevention of disease transmission by infectious pathogens became the principal 

concern of early public health advocates. Today we understand that airborne nonpathogenic organisms, fragments of microbial cells, and by-products of microbial metabolism also cause problems. The ASM believes that more research is needed in 

this area for the safety and protection of human health and urges Congress not to 

support the Administration’s request for a $6.4 million reduction in fiscal year 2007 

for Air Quality research at the EPA. 

COMPUTATION TOXICOLOGY

The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has initiated a research 

program on Computational Toxicology to better understand the relationships between sources of environmental pollutant exposure and adverse outcomes. Computational toxicology integrates computing and information technology with the technologies of molecular biology and chemistry and is used to improve the EPA’s 

prioritization of data requirements and risk assessments for toxic chemicals. Strategic objectives of this program are to: (1) improve understanding of the linkages 

in the continuum between the source of a chemical in the environment and adverse 

outcomes, (2) provide predictive models for screening and testing and (3) improve 

quantitative risk assessment. 

The ASM supports the Administration’s request to increase research funding for this program by $2.7 million in fiscal year 2007. Part of this increase will support 

a biologically based system to reduce the uncertainty in the prioritization and categorization of chemicals, and develop computational models of biological processes 

relevant to the induction of toxicity for high priority environmental contaminants. 

As a result, the Agency would be less reliant on default assumptions of risk assessments and able to accurately characterize the uncertainty associated with risk predictions. 

STAR GRANTS PROGRAM

The EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) manages the STAR grants 

program, which is a competitive, peer-reviewed, extramural research grants program intended to increase access to the nation’s best scientists and engineers in academic and other nonprofit research institutions. Research sponsored by the STAR 

program allows the EPA to fill information gaps that are not addressed completely 

by its intramural research programs, and to respond to new and emerging issues 

that the agency’s laboratories are not able to address. 

The EPA fiscal year 2007 budget requests $65 million for the STAR grants program, a 5 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2006 level, and 36 percent below 

the peak funding level of $102 million in fiscal year 2002. The National Academy 

of Sciences (NAS) has urged the continuation of and investment in the STAR program. In 2003, the NAS released a report titled, The Measure of STAR: Review of 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Research Grants Program, which argues that the STAR grants are a critical means 
248 

for the agency to access scientific expertise that it does not have in-house, and to 

respond quickly to emerging issues. 

Since its inception in 1995, the STAR research projects have resulted in articles 

in highly respected, peer-reviewed journals, and have already helped to improve our 

understanding of the causes, exposures and effects of environmental pollution and 

microorganisms in the environment. The ASM urges Congress to increase funding 

for the STAR grants program to the fiscal year 2002 level of $102 million. The 

STAR program focuses on critical research areas, including the health effects of particulate matter, drinking water, water quality, global change, ecosystem assessment 

and restoration, human health risk assessment, endocrine disrupting chemicals, pollution prevention and new technologies, children’s health, and socio-economic research. 

STAR FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

As part of its STAR program, the EPA offers Graduate Fellowships for master’s 

and doctoral level students in environmentally related fields of study. The STAR fellowship program was initiated in 1995. Approximately 1,100 STAR fellowships have 

been awarded since the inception of the program. The purpose of the fellowship program is to encourage promising students to obtain advanced degrees and pursue careers in an environmental field. This goal is consistent with the immediate and 

long-term mission of the EPA, to protect public health and the environment. 

The EPA budget requests a $3.4 million reduction to the STAR Fellowship Program in fiscal year 2007, or 37 percent below the fiscal year 2006 level. This reduction will affect approximately 37 graduate students pursuing degrees related to environmental sciences. The ASM urges Congress to restore funding for the STAR Fellowship Program. The STAR fellowship program has proven to be beneficial to both 

the public and private sectors by providing a steady stream of well-trained environmental specialists to meet environmental challenges in our society. It has also provided new environmental research in physical, biological, health sciences, and social 

sciences and engineering. 

CONCLUSION

Well-funded research is needed to address emerging issues affecting the environment and human health. For the EPA to fulfill its mission to protect human health 

and to safeguard the natural environment, the ASM urges Congress to support the 

Administration’s overall request for increased funding for the EPA’s science and 

technology programs in fiscal year 2007. 

The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony and would be 

pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it considers its appropriation for the EPA for 

fiscal year 2007. 

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 2007 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $170 million. Congressional support for the 

NEA has strengthened in recent years, evidenced by meaningful incremental funding increases. Still, the NEA has never fully recovered from a 40 percent budget cut 

in fiscal year 1996. The current fiscal year 2006 level of funding for the NEA— 

$124.4 million—is well below the 1992 appropriation of $176 million. 

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 through the NEA’s core programs—Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching Every Community, Learning in the 

Arts for Children and Youth, and Federal/State partnerships—and through important national initiatives. 

Founded in 1942, the American Symphony Orchestra League is the national service organization for nearly 1,000 symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate orchestras, with budgets ranging from less than $50,000 to more than $50 million. Together with the NEA, we share a common goal of strengthening orchestras as organizations and promoting the value of the music they perform. 

As the NEA marks its 40th year, it is important to recognize the irreplaceable 

contributions federal funding makes to the creative capacity of the United States. 

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. 
249 

A few quick facts about the state of American orchestras: 

Across America, there are 1,800 adult and youth orchestras.—Supported by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators, and community leaders, America’s 

adult, youth, and college orchestras exist in every state and territory, in cities and 

rural areas alike. They engage more than 150,000 instrumentalists, employ (with 

and without pay) more than 8,000 administrative staff, and attract more than 

475,000 volunteers and trustees. 

During the last decade, America’s orchestras performed for more people than ever 

before.—American orchestras have never been in greater demand. In the course of 

a season, orchestras perform nearly 36,000 concerts to total audiences nearing 28 

million. Current attendance at concerts is higher than a decade ago. 

Orchestras remain artistically rich, economically challenged—and amazingly resilient.—Though their structure is delicately balanced, the economic performance of 

America’s orchestras continues to improve. Three of the communities that lost orchestras during the recession of 2002 through 2005 have already revived their orchestras or started new ones. Musicians and civic leaders value live symphony 

music so much that they do whatever it takes to ensure the presence of an orchestra 

in their community. 

Orchestras are an important part of the community fabric.—The resolve of American orchestras to reach all segments of their communities is strong. In the 2003– 

04 season, America’s orchestras performed more than 36,000 concerts, including 

twice as many education concerts as a decade ago. Orchestras are working to increase the representation of their diverse communities both on stage and in the audience, and composer residencies are on the rise. Orchestras are essential and active 

partners in increasing access to music, improving the quality of life in their communities by collaborating with school systems and other local partners to deliver a wide 

array of performances and programs. 

NEA GRANTS UNIQUELY SUPPORT THE CREATION, PRESENTATION, AND PRESERVATION

OF THE ARTS

In the most recently completed grant year, fiscal year 2005, the NEA’s Grants to 

Organizations included 118 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. 

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 and distribution of NEA funds through state arts agencies. 

Concert income accounts for only 37 percent of orchestra revenue. The remaining 

support for orchestras is generated by a delicate balance of private and public support. For many orchestras, the benefit of an NEA grant goes far beyond the dollarvalue of the award and serves to multiply private support by attracting additional 

sponsorship and recognition. 

—In fiscal year 2005, the Juneau Symphony received an NEA grant, funding a 

tour to Wrangell, Alaska through Alaska’s Inside Passage. This is the first NEA 

grant the orchestra has received. Support from the NEA enabled the orchestra 

to bring live symphonic music to underserved communities and helped attract 

new funding sources from area businesses. 

—The Orchestra of Southern Utah received its first NEA grant to support the 

Spanish Trail Festival, a celebration of the Hispanic, Paiute, and Pioneer heritage of the area through music and native dance. The NEA grant enabled the 

orchestra to commission an original composition by Marshall McDonald, a nationally prominent guest artist, pianist and composer, and helped procure a 

$5,000 grant from the George S. and Dolores Dore ́ Eccles Foundation. 

—NEA funding for the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra supported a state-wide 

tour to small, rural, and underserved communities in New Mexico, serving approximately 5,000 new audience members and reaching over 42,000 children 

through educational programs in partnership with local school systems and 

community centers. 

NEA FUNDING HELPS ORCHESTRAS CONNECT TO THEIR COMMUNITIES

The NEA motto, ‘‘A Great Nation Deserves Great Art’’ aptly reinforces the key 

focus of the agency. While the vast majority of NEA funds are allocated to arts institutions, the NEA exists to serve the American people. Projects supported by the 

NEA must demonstrate artistic excellence and a strong capacity to reach new audiences. Audiences across the country are currently experiencing an NEA-funded 
250 

project that exhibits the hallmarks of the agency: reaching new audiences, attracting additional financial support, and providing access to the arts to communities nationwide. 

An NEA grant to the Glens Falls (N.Y.) Symphony Orchestra supports the ‘‘Ford 

Made in America’’ project, a collaborative commissioning, performance, and outreach 

project that involves 65 smaller-budget orchestras, including at least one from each 

of the 50 states. In addition to support from the NEA, the Ford Motor Company 

Fund contributed major funding, becoming the title sponsor, and the program is a 

partnership of the American Symphony Orchestra League and Meet the Composer. 

The largest consortium commission ever planned by American orchestras, Ford 

Made in America gives ensembles in smaller communities the capacity to premiere 

a new work by Joan Tower, an established American composer of national repute. 

For orchestras with smaller budgets, commissioning and presenting a major new 

work by a nationally recognized composer can be difficult, due to budget constraints 

and limited staff resources. The collaborative nature of the Ford Made in America 

project provides the 65 participating orchestras the opportunity to achieve together 

what no one of them could afford to do on their own. On the local level, Ford Made 

in America has opened up new potential funding streams for participating orchestras. Communities in all participating orchestras are enjoying the ‘‘buzz’’ that comes 

with being connected with the greater symphony community and garnering national 

attention by being part of an exciting new project. 

Joan Tower’s composition titled ‘‘Made in America’’ received its world premiere by 

the Glens Falls Symphony Orchestra in October 2005, and will be performed in May 

2006 by the Missoula Symphony Orchestra. The subsequent performances will take 

place through March 2007, making ‘‘Made in America’’ the most-performed work by 

a living American composer. The Ford Made in America project is more than just 

a performance of one piece, however. Each participating orchestra has been 

equipped with a ‘‘tool kit’’ which provides talking points for local fund raising, marketing materials, and education lesson plans that serve as the basis for developing 

distinctive community-based programs. 

The Ford Made in America project exemplifies the vitality of America’s orchestras 

and composers, a spirit of partnership, and a commitment to creativity and communities. It also demonstrates the capacity of the NEA to identify and support efforts 

that encourage creative collaboration and build the artistic strengths of local communities. 

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 ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL SOLID

WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS (ASTSWMO); NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES (NAGS); NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRUCK STOP OPERATORS

(NATSO); NATIONAL GROUND WATER ASSOCIATION (NGWA); NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC); PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT INSTITUTE (PEI); SIERRA

CLUB; AND THE SOCIETY OF INDEPENDENT GASOLINE MARKETERS OF AMERICA

(SIGMA) 

As you prepare to develop fiscal year 2007 appropriations legislation, the undersigned organizations request that you increase substantially the level of appropriations from the Federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to 

fund fully the Federal underground storage tank (UST) program. Such an increase 

in fiscal year 2007 appropriations will: (1) provide important assistance to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and States in preventing petroleum releases 

from regulated USTs; (2) enable EPA and States to undertake remediation work at 

UST sites where a responsible party can not be found; (3) provide Federal and State 

UST officials with adequate resources to ,enforce Federal and State UST laws; and, 

(4) enhance the protection of human health and the environment. 

The Federal LUST Trust Fund provides money to States and EPA to operate their 

UST programs and to assist States in remediating releases when a responsible 

party cannot be found. In the years since its inception, this Fund has amassed a 

balance of $2.349 billion as of September 30, 2005. A preliminary analysis by the 

Treasury Department reports that in fiscal year 2005 the Fund received an additional $190.8 million from the Federal LUST tax and $77.7 million from interest on 

the balance in the Fund. Yet, for the last several years Administration budget re-
251 

quests and congressional appropriations from the Fund have been less than the interest earned—$69.4 million in fiscal year 2005. 

These minimal annual appropriations levels have persisted for years, causing the 

balance in the Fund to rise to a point that it could now fund annual appropriations 

at current levels for the next 30 years—without an additional dollar in income! 

Clearly, the LUST Trust Fund is being used as a Federal deficit reduction device 

rather than for the important purpose originally envisioned by Congress—protection 

of the environment. This situation must change. We have asked the Administration 

to increase its budget request for the program, and we are asking you to increase 

congressional appropriations. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained several reforms to the Federal UST program that expand the permitted uses of Federal LUST Trust Fund dollars and place 

substantial new responsibilities on the EPA and State UST agencies. The legislation 

authorized significant increases in appropriations from the Fund to assure that EPA 

has the financial resources to implement these reforms, to assure that the new regulatory provisions do not represent an unreasonable burden on the States, and to 

allow EPA and States to expand their response to UST petroleum releases, including those containing MTBE. If the Administration and Congress do not break with 

tradition and appropriate significantly higher amounts from the Fund in the coming 

years, EPA and the States will be unable to implement these important reforms. 

The President’s proposed budget includes an additional $26 million in State and 

Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) dedicated to help States implement these important reforms, yet requests only $73 million from the LUST Trust Fund for overall 

program operations. While the additional STAG funds will be of great assistance to 

the States, they are insufficient to fully implement the reforms of the Energy Policy 

Act without a substantial increase in appropriations from the LUST Trust Fund as 

authorized in the Energy Policy Act. 

We understand that the Administration and Congress currently are facing a difficult budget situation and there are many demands on Federal funds. However, the 

Federal LUST Trust Fund must cease to be used as a deficit reduction tool in the 

budget process and its massive resources must be employed to fulfill Congress’ intent—prevention of UST releases, remediation of UST releases, and enforcement of 

Federal and state UST laws. 

As you consider fiscal year 2007 spending priorities, we urge you to ensure this 

important environmental program is adequately funded and that the resources collected to protect the environment, prevent UST releases and enforce Federal and 

State UST laws are used to do just that. 

Thank you for your support for the Federal UST program and please let us know 

how we may be of assistance to you and your staffs in this effort. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONSERVANCY

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I am writing in behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy to present this testimony in support of 

three Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations totaling $5.6 million and 

two Forest Legacy appropriations totaling $3.22 million. These projects are in Tennessee, Virginia, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine and if funded will lead to acquisitions that significantly benefit the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.), America’s favorite long-distance hiking trail and a unit of the National Park System. 

The Appalachian Trail Conservancy is a volunteer-based, private nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of the 2,175-mile Appalachian National Scenic 

Trail, a 250,000-acre greenway extending from Maine to Georgia. Our mission is to 

ensure that future generations will enjoy the clean air and water, scenic vistas, 

wildlife and opportunities for simple recreation and renewal along the entire Trail 

corridor. Our 37,000 members come from all 50 states and last year our 5,000 affiliated volunteers contributed more than 195,000 hours toward managing and maintaining the Trail and its associated facilities and resources. 

Cherokee National Forest ($3 million LWCF).—We are requesting $3 million from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. This funding will support the acquisition of four tracts—three of them directly benefiting the Appalachian Trail. The most spectacular of them is the Hump 

Mountain tract (470 acres for $1.175 million). This in-holding consists of vacant 

land, both open and wooded, and lies on the upper slopes of Hump Mountain and 

includes the headwaters and upper watershed of Shell Creek. This tract is situated 

in the immediate view shed of the A.T. which traverses along the crest of Hump 

Mountain at elevations exceeding 5,000 feet. This section of the A.T. is characterized 

by high altitude grassy balds situated along the Tennessee/North Carolina state 
252 

line. Views from and to the property are outstanding. Currently, this tract is being 

subdivided and advertised for sale on the Internet; however, no lots have been sold 

and the landowner has indicated he would consider selling the tract as a whole. The 

Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy (SAHC), Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and local hiking clubs are working in 

cooperation with the Forest Service to prevent development of this tract and bring 

this tract under Forest Service ownership. 

Also in the Cherokee National Forest is the Shook Branch relocation tract (20 

acres for $50,000). The present location of the A.T. in the Shook Branch area includes approximately a one-quarter-mile walk on a paved county road that not only 

diminishes A.T. values, but also creates a safety concern of mixing pedestrians with 

vehicular traffic. The original Trail route planned for this area has met with an unwilling seller. The Forest Service, in cooperation with ATC and local hiking clubs, 

has determined a better and more scenic route for the Appalachian Trail that can 

be accomplished without utilizing eminent domain. Two properties on the new proposed route were recently acquired from willing sellers and only this tract remains 

to complete this A.T. relocation. 

The final A.T. parcel in the Cherokee National Forest is the Pond Mountain Wilderness tract: (11 acres for $27,500). This tract is within 1,500 feet of the Appalachian Trail and is adjacent to the federal Pond Mountain Wilderness area. Acquisition will allow the Forest Service to provide parking for foot travel access into National Forest System lands and will enhance several outdoor activities such as hunting, camping, hiking and other backcountry recreational experiences. 

George Washington and Jefferson National Forest ($1.25 million LWCF).—This 

appropriation will enable acquisition of a combination of fee-simple interests as well 

as conservation easements along a proposed seven-mile relocation of the Appalachian Trail adjacent to the New River in Giles County in Southwest Virginia. For 

nearly 30 years the final alignment of the A.T. in this area has remained unresolved 

due to challenges with trail design, land ownership, and hiker-safety issues. The 

current footpath location is on private property owned by Celanese Acetate, LLC 

and is open only at the discretion of the landowner. The current route parallels U.S. 

460, passes by a large chemical plant, provides minimal recreational or scenic values, and poses a barrier to certain Celanese land uses. The largest portion of the 

requested funding will be to purchase fee interest in approximately 400 acres from 

Celanese. Seven scenic easements will be acquired from additional landowners 

amounting to approximately an additional 25 acres. 

Through the collaborative efforts of the USDA Forest Service and the Appalachian 

Trail Conservancy, in negotiation with the managers of the Celanese Acetate, LLC 

Chemical Plant and the local community and government, a new alternative route 

was identified on the Celanese property that provides a scenic and safe route from 

the New River to the summit of Peters Mountain. The new route alleviates impacts 

to adjacent private landowners. This is a route that is receiving wide public support. 

The completed trail will provide the local community with an outstanding recreational opportunity, as this area of Southwestern Virginia seeks to capitalize on 

outdoor recreation dollars for economic growth. 

The proposed new route crosses the New River and U.S. 460 and immediately enters the woods. The terrain and topography will shield the Trail from the audible 

and visual impacts of the chemical plant and the highway. The trail will follow the 

New River for one mile before ascending a ridgeline onto Hemlock Ridge through 

terrain that provides a more remote experience and minimizes conflicts with Celanese operations. As it continues and ascends Peters Mountain, it affords spectacular vistas of the surrounding terrain. 

Skiff Mountain Forest Legacy ($1.22 million Legacy).— This Forest Legacy funding will allow the State of Connecticut to acquire an easement on 510 acres of working forest in the towns of Kent and Sharon in the northwest corner. The Skiff Mountain project is being spearheaded by the Trust for Public Land and the State of Connecticut and if funded will implement the second and final phase of this project. 

Given the level of development and the relative lack of open space in a small urban 

state like Connecticut this presents a unique opportunity to conserve a large piece 

of working forest. These lands contain the headwaters of several tributary streams 

to the Housatonic River and also harbor important wildlife habitat. Of importance 

to the Appalachian Trail, these parcels provide significant viewshed protection and 

buffer the Trail from development. These lands also contain the upstream area for 

several brooks that are used as water sources by hikers. Keeping these lands from 

being developed will sustain the rural economy by providing a long term source of 

forest products in a region that frequently is seeing large parcels subdivided for second home development. 
253 

Broad Brook Property—Green Mountain National Forest ($1.1 million LWCF).— The Broad Brook Property is an important addition to the Green Mountain National 

Forest along the Massachusetts border. Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 

are the final 970 acres of the 3,921-acre Broad Brook watershed property. For many 

years, the city of North Adams, Massachusetts, 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. The State of Vermont has mapped this parcel as 

being entirely within black bear production habitat capable of supporting 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 headwaters 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 current A.T. protection is 

a narrow easement and this acquisition would bring the level of A.T. protection up 

to an adequate standard. Putting the trail in the midst of a larger protected landscape is the surest way to retain the wild and scenic experience that hikers currently enjoy elsewhere in southern Vermont. 

Grafton Notch Forest Legacy: Maine ($2 million Legacy).—The Grafton Notch parcel is part of the Mahoosuc Range, an important mountain landscape that is seeing 

intense development pressure around the resort community of Bethel, Maine. This 

project is ranked #1 on the President’s Forest Legacy list and the funding would 

provide an opportunity for the State of Maine to acquire a 3,688-acre parcel. This 

parcel contains spectacular views both to and from the Appalachian Trail. It also 

contains a section of the Grafton Loop Trail, a side trail to the Appalachian Trail. 

This new trail is designed to take pressure off of the heavily visited section of the 

A.T. in the Mahoosuc Range. The Grafton Notch parcel is surrounded on three sides 

by state land and is part of an important mountain ecosystem that is one of only 

three places in Maine where peaks rise above 4,000 feet. If it is not purchased by 

the state, the parcel is vulnerable to development since it is in the same valley as 

the Sunday River Ski Area, a destination resort that has been spawning very large 

subdivisions at a rate that has caused concern in the local community. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of Land and Water Conservation Fund and Forest Legacy appropriations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDUBON CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Audubon Connecticut, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support 

of a $2 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land 

acquisition within the Salmon River Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut, as part of an overall $4 million request for funding for 

refuge projects in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. 

Audubon Connecticut, the state organization of the National Audubon Society 

with more than 10,000 members statewide, works to further the protection of birds, 

other wildlife and their habitats using education, science and conservation, and legislative advocacy for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity. 

In 1991, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (NFWR) Act directed USFWS to study the entire Connecticut River watershed, from Vermont and 

New Hampshire, through Massachusetts to Connecticut, and create a national fish 

and wildlife refuge. The Conte NFWR is no ordinary refuge. The Connecticut River 

watershed, 7.2 million acres in four states, is larger and more populous than areas 

usually considered for a refuge. The purposes of the Conte Refuge are also much 

broader, it is one of the few fish and wildlife refuges, and protecting natural diversity is a new scientific and social challenge. There are several announced, identified 

and potential IBAs within the boundaries of the Refuge. The two current acquisition 

opportunities are located at the Salmon River Division in Connecticut and the Fort 

River Division in Massachusetts. 

The northern third of the watershed located in Vermont and New Hampshire is 

part of the ‘‘Northern Forest’’ which is largely privately owned industrial forest 

stretching from the Adirondacks to the coast of Maine. Large blocks of this land 

have been sold in unprecedented quantities recently as the timber industry relocates 

some of its financial assets. Important bottomland forest, flood plain wetlands, and 

a variety of grassland areas are generally located along the middle third of the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts and northern Connecticut. The mouth of 

the river, located in southern Connecticut, contains internationally significant fresh, 

brackish and saltwater tidally influenced wetlands. The Refuge emphasizes pro-
254 

tecting Federal trust species—migratory birds, migratory fish, federally endangered 

or threatened species, and rare and exemplary natural communities. 

Forty-eight ‘‘Special Focus Areas’’ encompassing roughly 180,000 acres have been 

identified within the watershed. These areas contribute substantially or in unique 

ways to supporting natural diversity in the watershed. There are two recognized 

IBAs and seven identified IBAs within the Refuge Special Focus areas in Connecticut; there are 14 in Massachusetts, four in Vermont, and one in New Hampshire. 

In Connecticut, the Salmon River is recognized by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) as a high-priority Special Focus Area. Salmon River Division is comprised 

of a range of important natural features, including free-flowing rivers, thriving 

freshwater tidal marshes, forested watersheds, floodplain forests, and rare plants 

and animals. 

The Elm Camp Johnson property proposed for acquisition in 2007 would be the 

first acquisition in this division and is a keystone property containing these features: 

—3,360 feet of frontage on Pine Brook, a high-quality stream that provides remarkable cold-water fish habitat 

—1,440 feet on the west bank of the Salmon River, site of extensive state and federal efforts to restore anadromous fish runs, including the Atlantic salmon 

—Pine Brook is the only major Salmon tributary free of artificial barriers to migratory fish 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $4 million for the Silvio 

O. Conte NWR in fiscal year 2007 in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, allocated to projects in the four states included in the Refuge, with $2 

million for the Elm Camp Johnson parcel in Connecticut, and an additional $2 million for land acquisition projects in Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire 

in the Fort River Division, Pondicherry, and Mohawk River Divisions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDUBON CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of Audubon 

Connecticut, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a 

$1 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. 

Audubon Connecticut, the state organization of the National Audubon Society 

with more than 10,000 members statewide, works to further the protection of birds, 

other wildlife and their habitats using education, science and conservation, and legislative advocacy for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity. 

The Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, named to honor the late U.S. 

congressman who was instrumental in its creation, was established to protect migratory bird habitat considered important to wading and shorebird species including 

heron, egrets, terns, plovers and oystercatchers among others. Stewart B. McKinney 

NWR is currently comprised of eight units stretching along 60 miles of Connecticut’s 

coastline. In addition to the increase in habitat protection over the years, the refuge 

now provides opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish 

and wildlife-oriented recreation. Located in the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge provides 

important resting, feeding, and nesting habitat for many species of wading birds, 

shorebirds, songbirds and terns, including the endangered roseate tern. Adjacent 

waters serve as wintering habitat for brant, scoters, American black duck and other 

waterfowl. Overall, the refuge encompasses over 800 acres of barrier beach, tidal 

wetland and fragile island habitats. 

Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 22-acre Menunketesuck 

Salt Meadow Marsh in Westbrook, Connecticut. The property is comprised of pristine coastal tidal marsh, a forested upland, scrubland, and a rock outcropping that 

towers above 1,000 feet of frontage along the gentle Menunketesuck River as it 

winds its way to Long Island Sound. As a migratory stopover for neo-tropical migrant land birds, this riparian area is the top priority for acquisition for the refuge. 

It has been identified as an Important Bird Area by Audubon Connecticut because 

of its high value avian habitat. 

Acquisition of the marsh property will enhance the resources of the current Salt 

Meadow Unit of the refuge, as it contains part of the least developed upland borders 

of any remaining tidal marsh in all of Connecticut. As much of the state’s coastline 

has been built upon, it is rare to find such a large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut. Under imminent threat of development into condominiums, this parcel 
255 

must be acquired by the Refuge if it is to continue to serve as an island of forested 

habitat land on an otherwise highly developed coastline. 

In order to acquire the Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh property, an appropriation of $1 million is needed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. This priority acquisition will increase wildlife habitat protection at 

the Stewart B. McKinney NWR and ensure the public continued opportunities for 

recreation and environmental education along Connecticut’s coastline. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1 million for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARIZONA WILDERNESS COALITION

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony in support of an appropriation of $5.5 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for purchase of the Packard Ranch 

for the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. 

The canyons, deserts, and forests of the Coconino National Forest are a tremendous natural resource for residents and visitors in central Arizona. Millions of visitors are drawn annually to the forest to camp, fish, picnic, ride horses, and enjoy 

winter sports. 

This year, the Forest Service has the opportunity to acquire the 139-acre Packard 

Ranch property. Located upstream from the towns of Clarkdale and Cottonwood, the 

riparian areas along the Verde River and Sycamore Creek on the property provide 

critical habitat for threatened and endangered species including bald eagles, razorback suckers, and spikedace. The parcel is adjacent to the Sycamore Creek Wilderness, an area that protects the scenic red rock Sycamore Canyon. 

Packard Ranch includes an important trailhead providing access to the Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness. Both the Parson’s and Packard hiking trails are entered exclusively from this property. Although the public has traditionally been permitted to 

use this trailhead, there is no permanent guarantee of access. 

Properties with riparian frontage in Arizona are at a premium for development, 

and without permanent protection, it is predictable that Packard Ranch would be 

developed. If this were to happen, the character of the landscape could change dramatically, and the public could lose access to the trails and wilderness area. 

With its strategic location within the Coconino National Forest, the acquisition of 

the Packard Ranch property in fiscal year 2007 will protect vital habitat, ensure 

continued public access to trails, and preserve the unique scenic vistas of Sycamore 

Canyon. Acquiring this property from the currently willing seller should be provided 

the highest level of priority. An appropriation of $5.5 million is needed from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund to ensure that this land will be protected in 

perpetuity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the acquisition of Packard Ranch for the Coconino National Forest. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN RIVERS, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS, INTERSTATE COUNCIL ON

WATER POLICY, ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN STATE GEOLOGISTS, WESTERN STATES

WATER COUNCIL, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HYDROLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, WATER ENVIRONMENTAL FEDERATION, 

FEDERATION OF FLYFISHERS, AMERICAN CANOE ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATION OF

STATE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGERS, TROUT UNLIMITED, ASSOCIATION OF STATE DAM

SAFETY OFFICIALS, NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES, AMERICAN

WHITEWATER, AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

We seek your help to increase funding in the federal fiscal year 2007 budget sufficient to restore the U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Water Program (CWP) and 

National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) to at least fiscal year 2003 levels 

of capability. Restoring this capacity requires an appropriation of at least $74 million for the CWP (rather than the $62.171 million in the President’s request) and 

$16.764 million for the NSIP (as requested by the President). 

Many of our members are active, financial partners in the Cooperative Water Program. All of us rely on the streamflow data collected and disseminated by these two 

important programs. 
256 

Together, these two programs comprise a critical national system of water resource monitoring. The USGS operates and maintains these networks with extensive cooperation from state agencies, interstate organizations, tribal and local governments and many non-governmental organizations. 

The Nation’s need for accurate streamflow data continues to increase along with 

our population. This information is used by federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies, by public utilities, private businesses, non-profit organizations and 

individuals, on a regular basis to forecast flooding and drought events, to plan and 

protect water supplies for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses, to design 

bridges, manage hydropower production, schedule recreation activities, evaluate 

dam safety and to integrate ecological protection of wetlands, fish and wildlife management and for endangered species conservation with our other priorities. 

Although these data collection and science programs benefit so many interests, 

their funding has been allowed to erode to the point that the quantity and quality 

of the basic data are threatened, with significant adverse consequences to a growing 

and diverse number of decision makers and stakeholders. Years of inadequate federal funding threatens the availability of critical data regarding stream flows, lake 

levels, groundwater levels and water quality, which are the basis for many essential 

public and private decisions. The President’s request for the CWP will continue a 

pattern of steady erosion of federal support and the elimination or obsolescence of 

many long-term gages, undermining our planning, design, forecasting and emergency warning capabilities. 

In 1998, Congress’ concern about streamgaging led the USGS to create the National Streamflow Information Program. Unlike the Cooperative Water Program 

(which is funded in large part by non-federal Cooperators), Congress determined 

that the NSIP should be funded entirely with federal appropriations. In November 

2004, the National Research Council’s Committee on Water Resources Research 

completed its assessment of the USGS plans for the NSIP: ‘‘Overall, the Committee 

concludes that the National Streamflow Information Program is a sound, well-conceived program that meets the nation’s needs for streamflow measurement, interpretation, and information delivery.’’ 

The NSIP has been severely under funded and we urge your support for the President’s request to increase its appropriation to $16.764 million for fiscal year 2007 

in order to restore program capability to its fiscal year 2003 level. The NSIP is currently able to fund less than 15 percent of the gages listed in the plan approved 

by the National Research Council. In future years, another $100 million will be 

needed to reactivate and add streamgages, upgrade the system, and realize the full 

vision of the NSIP. A fully funded NSIP averts the loss of long-term gages that are 

critical for analysis of trends, floods, and water supply. A strong federal investment 

in the NSIP is needed to reverse the current trend of annually shutting down 

streamgages that provide the basis for flood warnings and info for water resource 

management. 

The President’s request for the Cooperative Water Program in fiscal year 2007 

($62.171 million) represents a cut of $2 million and will exacerbate the decline in 

CWP capability. For over 100 years, the CWP has been maintained as a federal/nonfederal partnership, funded through 50/50 percent cost-share agreements. Today, 

roughly 70 percent of the funding is from non-USGS sources. 

For fiscal year 2007, we ask that you appropriate at least $74 million for the Cooperative Water Program to restore its ability to its fiscal year 2003 level, as we 

urged in our August 12, 2005 letter to Interior Secretary Norton and OMB Associate 

Director Anderson. This amount is still well below the $138 million contributed by 

Cooperators annually since fiscal year 2004. We will continue asking Interior, OMB 

and the President to increase their annual requests to match the Cooperators’ level 

of support over the next few years. In the meantime, we seek your help. 

Our recent experience with the prediction of catastrophic storms and the design 

of adequate safeguards proves that timely and accurate information needed for 

water resources management has never been more important. 

We urge you to give a higher priority to these vital programs in fiscal year 2007 

and then increase future appropriations until the Cooperators’ matching contributions are fully met and the nation’s water monitoring system is fully stabilized. In 

this regard, the funding levels we are requesting should be viewed as the minimum 

needed to maintain existing capabilities, while even greater funding would hasten 

the restoration and completion of a National Streamgaging System that we depend 

on in making water supply and emergency management decisions. 
257 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AWWA RESEARCH FOUNDATION (AWWARF) 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of AwwaRF. We re- quest the consideration of the Subcommittee for $5 million in funding from the EPA 

Science and Technology account of your fiscal year 2007 bill. 

Providing safe, secure, and affordable drinking water to the American public is 

a national priority and compliance with federally mandated drinking water regulations is an essential part of this process. AwwaRF, acting in its capacity as the research arm of the North American water supply community, supplies much of the 

sound science and knowledge that utilities depend upon to meet EPA regulations. 

We believe that the Foundation offers a successful model for how to fund this crucial 

research in today’s challenging budgetary climate. 

AwwaRF generates $12 million each year in cash from our nearly 1,000 participating utilities in the research subscription program. This funding is produced when 

utilities invest $2.10 per million gallons of delivered water out of their rate base 

with the Foundation. We generate a further $13 million each year through research 

partnerships and researcher in-kind contributions. Very simply, when the Congress 

provides $5 million in EPA Science and Technology funding for AwwaRF, it is instantly matched by $12 million from the subscription program. When partnerships 

and in-kind are factored in, every $1 in Congressional funding is matched by $5 

from AwwaRF and the water supply community. We are proud of our demonstrated 

ability, year after year, to turn $5 million in Congressional funding into a $30 million drinking water research program. This achievement is made possible by the 

funds generated by local utility customers through their water bill and by the investment of the Congress. 

Over the past 20 years, this approach has produced an AwwaRF investment in 

drinking water research of over $370 million, including $53 million in Congressional 

funding. This translates into 710 completed and 323 ongoing projects. These projects 

have been conducted by researchers in leading universities, water utilities, and consulting engineering firms from throughout the world. The results are providing answers and tools for a host of challenges to the delivery of safe drinking water including improved methods for removing arsenic and perchlorate from water, 

desalinating brackish groundwater and ocean water, and protecting against waterborne pathogens such as cryptosporidium, to name only a few. The breadth of 

AwwaRF supported and managed research is so broad that it impacts water agencies in every region of the country and of every size from rural water systems to 

the largest cities. 

We appreciate the consideration of the Interior Appropriations Committee, including your $1 million in fiscal year 2006 funding. This however represents an 80 percent decrease from the $5 million in funding that was provided to AwwaRF from 

fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005. The Foundation makes no claim whatsoever to assured funding each year from the Congress. We instead base our requests 

upon our proven track-record of delivering relevant and highly creditable drinking 

water research to the water supply and regulatory communities. The $5 million in 

EPA funding provided by the Congress had been leveraged into a $30 million a year 

ongoing research program. This will be impossible to sustain given the $4 million 

cut in fiscal year 2006 funding and despite the fact that water utilities have continued their investment in the research subscription program at the same $12 million 

annual level. If these reductions continue in fiscal year 2007, AwwaRF will be 

obliged to shrink its staff and to further cut back on drinking water research, including our ability to create research partnerships to further leverage our funding. 

Although AwwaRF’s $30 million annual program is largely directed towards providing water utilities with the tools they need to comply with federal regulations, 

80 percent or $25 million of this amount is paid for with local dollars. We trust that 

very few requests come before the Committee where such a modest funding request 

affects as many people as AwwaRF and its drinking water research program. We 

further trust that few requests feature a local match of five to one. If Congress withdraws its support of AwwaRF and drinking water research, we do not believe that 

federal regulations or the challenges they entail will go away as well. We therefore 

respectfully submit that it is good policy for the Congress to continue to help water 

utilities to secure the research they need by continuing the AwwaRF/Congressional 

research partnership at its current 80/20 match. 

We note that the Administration has requested a $4 million increase in fiscal year 

2007 drinking water research located in the EPA S&T account. We respectfully request that the Committee re-invest this $4 million with AwwaRF, along with the 

$1 million in fiscal year 2006 funding that you provided. This would create the $5 

million in funding that we are seeking and, more importantly, it would provide for 

the continued operation of AwwaRF and the research subscription program at its 
258 

current level. This means that water utilities will continue to have the knowledge 

and the tools they need to deliver safe drinking water to the American public. 

Thank you again for your past support and for your consideration of our fiscal 

year 2007 request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BETHEL AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BETHEL, MAINE

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the op- portunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of $2 million from the 

Forest Legacy Program for the Grafton Notch property in Maine. Grafton Notch is 

Maine’s highest priority Forest Legacy project. 

The 3,688-acre Grafton Notch property offers plentiful opportunities for recreation, sustainable forestry, and protection of diverse forest and riparian habitats. It 

is surrounded on three sides by Maine public reserve lands and Grafton Notch State 

Park, a very popular tourist destination, and is adjacent to Mahoosuc Notch, one 

of the most rugged sections of the federally protected Appalachian National Scenic 

Trail. The parcel is also in the viewshed from the Trail, both from Mahoosuc Notch 

and from the Baldpate Mountain section. Given its location, the property is a prime 

site for public recreational use, and upon purchase by the state, would be added to 

the 27,253-acre Mahoosuc Unit. 

A snowmobile trail that provides a critical link to a Maine-New Hampshire trail 

network runs through the property along the Bear River. In addition, this property’s 

public protection is critical to the completion of the 42-mile Grafton Loop Trail, a 

newly-constructed AT spur that runs from East Baldpate Mountain across several 

peaks before ascending the southeast slopes of Old Speck and reconnecting to the 

AT. Protection of the Grafton Notch property would ensure that these recreational 

opportunities will continue to be available to the public and will also help alleviate 

overcrowding by providing significant backcountry recreation alternatives. 

The Grafton Notch property contains the southeast slopes of Old Speck Mountain 

and the northwest slopes of Sunday River Whitecap. There are numerous waterfalls 

on the site as well as several tributaries that drain into the Bear River and the Sunday River, both of which contribute to the Androscoggin River. 

The mountainous terrain supports a variety of plant communities in the transition between forested slopes and alpine summits. Up to 80 percent of the property 

is available as a timber resource and will be managed by the state using sustainable 

harvesting procedures. 

With its proximity to scenic, natural, and recreational resources, the forested resources found on the Grafton Notch property are seriously threatened with fragmentation. The property is only 10 miles from the Sunday River Ski Area, Maine’s 

largest ski resort, and is immediately adjacent to Route 26, which leads into the 

growing town of Bethel. A second-home subdivision was recently approved across 

Route 26 on the slopes of Puzzle Mountain, and in nearby Andover, a 5,500-acre 

timber lot was carved into 500 acre homesites. 

With an appropriation of $2 million from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 

2007, the Grafton Notch property would be permanently protected, ensuring a host 

of public benefits for future generations. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present testimony in support of 

the Grafton Notch Forest Legacy project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BLACK BEAR CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the oppor- tunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.75 million appropriation to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for 

the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Black Bear Conservation Committee (BBCC) is a regional non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to restore the federally listed Louisiana 

black bear to suitable habitat in its historic range in Louisiana, Mississippi, southern Arkansas, and east Texas. The recovery efforts associated with the Louisiana 

bear are considered to be as progressive as any restoration effort in the nation because of the broad base of support from landowners, timber companies, agricultural 

interests and other stakeholders in the region. Habitat restoration and protection 

are key components to the success of the recovery objective. 

The Tensas River NWR has an immediate opportunity to further its black bear 

recovery program and ensure the permanent protection of critical bottomland hardwood forestlands by completing the final phase of the 11,033-acre Chicago Mill tract. 
259 

At present, the Tensas NWR exists as two separate units. With the acquisition of 

the Chicago Mill property, these two units will be bridged, thus providing a protected wildlife corridor for the refuge species, most notably the Louisiana black bear. 

Located in Madison Parish, near the town of Tallulah, this property was initially 

used for forestry purposes and then primarily as an agricultural tract for many 

years. Conservation offers the US Fish and Wildlife Service an outstanding opportunity to create additional habitat by restoring bottomland hardwoods to the site. 

The Chicago Mill acquisition is both innovative and highly leveraged, using al- most $4 million of private carbon sequestration funds to offset what otherwise would 

be costs incurred by the USFWS. Thus far, over 8,200 acres have been conserved, 

using previously Congressionally appropriated funds, an allocation from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, and carbon sequestration funds from the Entergy Corporation. To further the recovery efforts for the Louisiana black bear, over one-half 

million trees have already been replanted on over 1,900 acres of these lands. Additionally, Entergy Corporation has donated substantial management funding to the 

refuge as part of the this conservation deal. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the final of four phases of the Chi- cago Mill acquisition. An appropriation of $1.75 million from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007 is needed to purchase the final 2,723 acres 

of the Chicago Mill tract. This funding will provide connectivity among refuge-protected habitat lands, safeguard important wildlife habitat, and allow restoration activities to proceed at the Tensas River NWR. I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1.75 million for the 

Tensas River NWR in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

This testimony pertains to the Biomass Energy Research Association’s (BERA) 

recommendations for fiscal year 2007 in support of appropriations for the USDA’s 

Forest Service (USDAFS) to support bioenergy-related R&D under the President’s 

Healthy Forest Initiative and through the USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory. 

Both activities are conducted under the auspices of the Natural Resources and Environment program of the U.S.D.A. BERA recommends that $56,000,000 be appropriated for these efforts in fiscal year 2007. A separate statement has been prepared 

for submission on other biomass energy RD&D performed by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the 

Energy and Water Development Bill. Specific line items for the USDAFS budget are 

as follows: 

—$35,000,000 under the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative for the reduction of 

hazardous fuels via removal of forest thinnings, waste and underbrush. 

—$5,000,000 to continue the Biobased Products and Bioenergy Research (BPBR) 

program of the USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory. 

—$1,000,000 to collect and consolidate the results of two decades of R&D conducted at the DOE on utilization of forestry energy sources. 

—$5,000,000 to develop and implement an integrated R&D plan for forestry-derived bioenergy. 

—$10,000,000 for industry cost-shared energy plantation demonstration projects 

BACKGROUND

On behalf of BERA’s members, we would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA’s Board of Directors for 

the high-priority programs that we strongly urge be continued or started. BERA is 

a non-profit association based in the Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982 

by researchers and private organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education and research on the economic production of energy 

and fuels from freshly harvested and waste biomass, and to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept 

federal funding for its efforts. 

There is a growing realization in our country that we need to diversify our energy 

resources and reduce reliance on foreign oil. Economic growth is fueling increasing 

energy demand and placing considerable pressure on our already burdened energy 

supplies and environment. The import of oil and other fuels into the United States 

is growing steadily and shows no sign of abating. Industry and consumers both are 

being faced with rapidly rising costs for petroleum and natural gas, which are vital 

to our economy. A diversified energy supply will be critical to meeting the energy 
260 

challenges of the future and maintaining a healthy economy with a competitive edge 

in global markets. The recently announced Biofuels Initiative at the DOE provides 

funding to support the use of cellulosic biomass as a feedstock for ethanol, including 

wood and forestry resources, with the potential to replace as much as 30 percent 

of domestic gasoline demand in 2030. We support this Initiative and believe it will 

help to accelerate the use of this important energy resource. 

Forest biomass energy plantations that provide feedstocks for forest biorefineries 

producing paper products as well as fuels and biopower could make an important 

contribution to our energy supply while providing a boost for rural economies and 

reducing wildland forest fires. In addition, wood can be used instead of petroleum 

and natural gas to produce many high-value products such as plastics and chemicals. However, targeted research is needed to make this a reality. 

BERA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE R&D

The Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative, which was created as a result of ‘‘The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000,’’ and Title IX of the Farm Bill, sought 

to triple U.S. usage of bioenergy and biobased products. A strategic plan was developed to reach this goal by the multi-agency Biomass Research and Development 

Board (BRDB) co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture. To meet goals for bioenergy and biobased products, substantial increases in 

biomass energy and fuel consumption are clearly needed. BERA’s recommendations 

support several key areas that will contribute to the goals of sustainable forestry 

as well as the creation of viable renewable resources as part of a diversified energy 

supply. Specific programs are recommended as follows. 

Recommendation 1: Support the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative: Reduction in 

Hazardous Fuels via Forest Waste Recovery for Fuel and Feedstocks 

Large, repetitive, wide-spread losses have occurred in the Nation’s forests over the 

last several years because of wild fires. Such fires are supported by the accumulation of dense undergrowth and brush coupled with poor forest management practices, insect infestation and disease that increase the number of dead trees, and 

other factors. As a result, loss and injury to fire fighters and others, large property, 

financial, and esthetic losses, and environmental harm have occurred in commercial 

as well as private and federally owned forests. BERA believes that this problem can 

be optimally addressed by conducting a targeted RD&D program to develop economic, practical methods for collection and removal of forest wastes, underbrush, 

and small-diameter tree thinnings, for the purpose of using them as energy resources. Forest wastes could be combined with large-scale forest biomass energy 

plantations to provide fuel and feedstocks for forest biorefineries producing fuels 

and high-valued products. Funding should be provided to start an RD&D program 

in this area as soon as possible. This is essential to the long-term sustainability of 

the forest and biomass energy industries in North America and to help reduce and 

displace fossil fuel consumption. 

Recommendation 2: Continue to Conduct Wood-based Feedstock Research at the 

USDAFS Forest Products Laboratory 

Critical research to develop, plant, grow, and manage energy crops, particularly 

forest biomass, for conversion to cost-competitive energy and fuels, was once conducted by the DOE but has since been terminated. DOE’s position is that other 

agencies (USDA) are better suited to handle this research. While DOE’s feedstock 

production program has made significant research contributions over the last 25 

years, BERA strongly endorses the idea that the USDA should assume responsibility for this program. The USDA has a long history in biomass production and is 

recognized worldwide for its accomplishments in developing advanced agricultural 

and forest biomass production methods. According to a recent study (Biomass as 

Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a 

Billion-Ton Annual Supply, DOE/USDA April 2005), woody feedstocks can make a 

substantial contribution (368 million dry tons per year) and are an essential component of a large-scale industry producing affordable biomass energy, fuels, and 

chemicals. BERA strongly recommends that RD&D on woody biomass production for 

dedicated energy and feedstock uses be continued by the USDAFS Forest Products 

Laboratory Biobased Products and Bioenergy Program(BPBR) under the Interior 

and Related Agencies Bill. This program is developing new and more economical 

technologies for the production, management, harvest, and utilization of woody materials for energy and high-value products. The research is a natural complement 

to the forest waste recovery R&D that BERA recommends be added to its overall 

program. 
261 

Recommendation 3: Collect/Consolidate DOE’s Research and Field Results 

DOE has conducted an extensive forest biomass production program from the 

1970’s up to 1992. This research included laboratory and field projects performed 

by academe, national laboratories, research institutes, and the private sector. The 

program emphasized the development and selection of special species, hybrids, and 

clones of trees, and advanced growth, management, and harvesting procedures for 

dedicated energy crops. Research on short-rotation tree growth and the screening 

of tree species in small-scale test plots was carried out in several areas of the country. Depending on the geographic location, woody species recommended as energy 

feedstocks from the test-plot results included hybrid poplars, willow, eucalyptus, 

black locust, and others. In collaboration with DOE, BERA recommends that the results of these efforts be collected and consolidated with those of the USDAFS efforts 

on woody biomass production. A plan should also be developed for preserving the 

large amount of improved woody crop clonal materials produced both by the 

USDAFS and the university collaborators of DOE. 

Recommendation 4: Develop an Optimized RD&D Plan 

BERA recommends that the USDAFS produce a 10-year, strategic RD&D plan 

that continues the research necessary to obtain the data and information needed for 

optimization of methods for recovering and removing waste biomass and small-diameter thinnings from forests and the testing of their efficacy on preventing forest 

fires, to design forest plantations for different regions of North America, including 

environmental impacts, and to integrate fire prevention methods with forest biomass production. The management, growth, harvesting, storage, and transport to 

hypothetical processing plants of both the waste and virgin biomass should be included in this work. The resulting system designs should lead to industry costshared field projects to demonstrate medium-scale, sustainable, forest biomass production and the removal of residuals in several geographic locations. 

Considerable progress has been made on the efficient production of short-rotation 

woody crop and multi-crop systems. In addition, research on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering methods to low-cost energy crop 

production have shown promise. This research should continue to be an important 

part of the R&D plan going forward. 

Recommendation 5: Support Industry Cost-shared Plantation Projects 

BERA recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects of at least 1,000 

acres in size be installed and operated in different regions of the country as a forerunner to commercial energy plantations in which dedicated energy crops are grown 

and harvested for use as biomass resources. The results of this work will provide 

sufficient operating and capital cost data to afford second generation economic data 

for larger modular systems and to perfect the design of sustainable energy plantations. The scale-up projects should be strategically located and should utilize the advanced woody biomass production methods developed in the research programs. Successful completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its potential by providing the data and information needed to implement the design, construction, and 

operation of practical forest biomass production methods for sustainable energy 

plantations that can supply low-cost feedstock for conversion to heat, steam, electric 

power, liquid and gaseous fuels, and chemicals. 

During the first year of this program, fiscal year 2007, site studies can be completed to facilitate the selection of specific areas that are deemed suitable for energy 

plantation construction, and that installation on at least one site can be started. 

DOE should be involved in this program where appropriate so that their work on 

biomass infrastructure can be applied, such as the design and operation of integrated biomass production and conversion systems. 

CONCLUSIONS

Expansion of the USDAFS programs as recommended by BERA enables a considerably higher probability of significantly increasing the contribution of biomass to 

primary U.S. energy demand by displacing more fossil fuel usage and eliminating 

a national fire hazard. The key to this eventuality is the deployment of technologies 

for producing and recovering low-cost virgin and waste forest biomass for conversion 

to cost-competitive supplies of energy, fuels, and chemicals. Forest biomass is the 

Nation’s and the world’s largest reserve of renewable carbon resources. Without the 

availability of economically competitive forest biomass feedstocks, the probability of 

tripling biomass energy consumption in the United States is doubtful. Ultimately, 

this RD&D program is expected to lead to commercial, sustainable energy plantations that are integrated with biorefineries supplied with forest-based fuels and 

feedstocks. 
262 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BLUERIBBON COALITION

The BlueRibbon Coalition (BRC) is a nationwide organization representing 

600,000 motorized recreationists, equestrians, mountain bike enthusiasts and resource users. We work with land managers to provide recreation opportunities, conserve resources, and promote cooperation with other public land users. 

I am writing you to encourage you to sustain current funding levels for the Recreation and Trails programs within the USDA Forest Service (USES) budget. 

The Administration’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget recommends a decrease of $10.4 million to the Recreation program and a $14.5 million reduction to the Trails 

program as compared to the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget. The cuts proposed by 

the President would make it very difficult for the USFS to serve the recreational 

needs of the over 200 million people who annually visit our National Forests. 

Recreational use of USFS lands continues to grow and we believe that the vital 

role played by the USFS needs to be recognized. It is crucial that its funding be 

protected instead of facing steep cuts that will hamper its ability to provide adequate opportunities for those who wish to recreate on our National Forests. 

The proposed cuts come at a critical time for the USFS. On November 9, 2005 

the USFS finalized a rulemaking process that requires each National Forest or 

ranger district to designate which roads, trails and areas are open for motorized vehicle use. This will be a massive undertaking that will require individual forests 

and districts to undergo an extensive process of route identification, evaluation, designation and mapping. 

BRC agrees with Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth’s affirmation that ‘‘OHVs 

are growing in popularity and they are a legitimate use of national forest land.’’ As 

such it is imperative that adequate funding be provided to the USFS to ensure that 

the effective management of OHV use can be accomplished by the implementation 

of the new rule. Without the necessary funding, the Forest Service will be unable 

to either adequately manage or provide adequate opportunity for all National Forest 

system users. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BONNEVILLE SHORELINE TRAIL COALITION

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $3 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical land protection efforts along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in 

Utah. 

The Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition (Coalition) is an organization of entities, 

both citizen and governmental, representing the communities in Utah involved in 

promoting, planning and building the Bonneville Shoreline Trail (BST). The vision 

of the BST is a non-motorized trail that serves as an interface between the urban 

area and public lands along the Wasatch Front and will provide trail users with a 

recreational experience at a distance from motorized activities that is both safe and 

aesthetically pleasing. The Coalition was formed on an ad hoc basis in 2001 and formalized and incorporated in 2003. 

The Bonneville Shoreline Trail concept was originated in 1990 as a proposed 90 

mile trail for non-motorized use that would span the foothills of the four counties 

of the central Wasatch Front. Trail planning has now expanded to encompass more 

than 280 miles from the Idaho border through Cache, Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt 

Lake, and Utah Counties. Additional planning has been proceeding to continue the 

BST westward through Camp Williams and the Kennecott Land development, 

around the Oquirrh Mountains and into the Tooele valley. This multi-use non-motorized trail system will enhance access to open space and public lands, and provide 

a connection to a variety of other trails and recreational areas. The Coalition’s private and governmental entities representing the Wasatch Front communities and 

many dedicated volunteers are working to make the trail a reality 

The ideal alignment of the trail is on or near the foothills bench formed by the 

shoreline of ancient Lake Bonneville. While it is recognized such an alignment is 

not possible throughout the entire length of the trail, planners are urged to vigorously seek a route as near to the Bonneville Shoreline as possible in order to achieve 

the following objectives: 

—To provide access to the canyons, streams, mountains and other features in our 

Wasatch foothills by locating the trail high enough on the slope to provide ready 

access to public lands. 

—To provide a place where walkers, runners, bicyclists and horse users can experience their recreational pursuits at a distance from automobiles that is both 

safe and aesthetically pleasing. (On some sections of the trail, it may not be ap-
263 

propriate to include all uses—pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian—but planners 

are urged to accommodate as broad a range of non-motorized users as possible.) 

—To provide citizens an opportunity for quiet and scenic recreational use that is 

nearby, yet apart from the developed urban area of the Wasatch Front. 

—To provide rapid deployment of fire fighting resources to the urban/foothills 

interface while at the same time serving as a buffer between the developed 

urban area and the more natural environment of the foothills. 

—To contribute to the preservation of aesthetic, wildlife, historic and educational 

values of the foothills. 

The major challenges in creating the Bonneville Shoreline Trail lie principally in 

obtaining the necessary property acquisitions, rights-of-way, easements and permissions. The efforts to actually build trail are typically of secondary difficulty and rely 

principally on volunteer labor. The major costs of developing the BST will be associated with the acquisition of property for the trail. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 are two critical properties along the 

BST that are high priorities for protection by the U.S. Forest Service. Both properties are extremely important summer and winter range habitat for deer and elk. 

They serve as important buffers for fire protection for the rapidly developing area 

along the Wasatch Front and also provide watershed protection for neighboring 

areas. 

The 1,700-acre Draper (Bear Canyon) property is located on the eastern boundaries of the cities of Sandy and Draper along the BST, and both cities are very supportive of this land acquisition. Conveyance of the Bear Canyon property to the Forest Service will allow the forest to reduce management costs by consolidating public 

lands. The property to be acquired is adjacent to both the Lone Peak Wilderness 

and the 1,000-acre Corner Canyon property that was acquired for $13 million by 

Draper City in late 2005 for permanent open space protection and recreation. The 

combination of the Draper’s protection of Corner Canyon and the planned Forest 

Service acquisition of Bear Canyon represents an important federal and local conservation partnership in southern Salt Lake County. In fiscal year 2006, $1.5 million was appropriated to acquire 900 acres. This year, an additional $1.5 million 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund is needed to complete this project 

and protect the remaining 800 acres. Major stretches of the BST are planned across 

this property and its acquisition would be important for the continuity of this portion of the trail. 

The second property available for protection this year is the 300-acre North Ogden 

property in Weber County. The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to provide a new stretch of the BST along the northern boundaries of North Ogden and 

Pleasant View, within the boundaries of the national forest. In 2005, a five-mile 

stretch of BST along North Ogden and Pleasant View was secured through a trail 

easement on an existing utility corridor granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. 

The property available for protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it will bring Forest Service ownership down to this stretch of the BST 

and add critical trail access to the citizens in this area of the state. Protection of 

this property will also protect beautiful views of the foothills of the Wasatch Front 

and Ben Lomond Peak, one of Weber County’s most important landmarks, while 

conserving important wildlife habitat and winter range along this rapid growth 

area. This property is also valued at $1.5 million. 

In fiscal year 2007, a total of $3 million is needed to acquire these two BST properties that are critically important to furthering the goals of the trail. If not protected, this area will be developed over time. Public access to this portion of the BST 

could be lost forever, and adjacent forest and wilderness lands would also be put 

at risk. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $3 million for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUEBLO BOARD OF WATER WORKS

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
264 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE FOR REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement consists of the following organizations: American Birding Association; American Fisheries Society; American 

Sportfishing Association Assateague Coastal Trust; Congressional Sportsmen’s 

Foundation; Defenders of Wildlife; Ducks Unlimited; International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies; Izaak Walton League of America; National Association 

of Service and Conservation Corps; National Audubon Society; National Rifle Association of America; National Wildlife Federation; National Wildlife Refuge Association; Safari Club International; The Wilderness Society; The Wildlife Society; Trout 

Unlimited; U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance; Wildlife Forever; and the Wildlife Management Institute. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to offer comments on the fiscal year 2007 (fiscal year 2007) Interior Appropriations 

bill. Over the last several years, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), a broad coalition of 21 diverse wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific 

organizations, has worked cooperatively with Congress and the Administration to 

highlight the needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System and secure strong investments in this remarkable network of lands and waters. We are grateful for the 

budget increases that Congress provided the Refuge System leading up to its 100th 

anniversary, and we again seek your support as Congress considers fiscal year 2007 

and beyond. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $415 million for the operations 

and maintenance (O&M) budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System, managed 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in the fiscal year 2007 budget. 

CARE, representing a national constituency numbering more than 5 million 

Americans, recognizes 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 Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

was formed in 1995 as a loose coalition of diverse organizations concerned about the 

ability of our national wildlife refuges to fulfill their missions. We have 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. 

Each year, 40 million Americans from coast to coast visit national wildlife refuges 

to experience the best of our great nation’s natural resources. During its first 100 

years, the Refuge System has been instrumental in restoring vital North American 

wildlife populations; providing diverse recreational opportunities to fish, hunt, 

birdwatch, view and photograph wildlife; and educating the public about the wonders of the natural world. In addition, national wildlife refuges stimulate local economic growth, fostering nearly $1.4 billion in recreation-based economic activity and 

generating nearly 24,000 jobs and $453.9 million in employment income. While all 

of these activities are significant, the Refuge System’s potential continues to be 

largely unrealized. 

The mission of CARE has been to address the backlog in operations and maintenance needs within the Refuge System budget, needs that now total $2.7 billion. 

Unfortunately, recent funding cuts in the refuge budget have adversely affected the 

Refuge System by exacerbating the already burdensome O&M backlog. 

President Bush’s fiscal year 2007 request of $381.7 million is approximately $11 

million less than the administration’s fiscal year 2006 request and $763,000 less 

than the actual fiscal year 2006 funding level (after Congressional rescissions and 

agency reprogramming). A $16 million increase in Refuge System O&M funding 

would be a ‘‘no-net-loss’’ budget for the Refuge System to keep pace with inflation 

and other uncontrollable costs when taking into account cost-of-living, energy, and 

sustaining levels of visitor services and wildlife management requirements. 
265 

We respectfully request that you fund the National Wildlife Refuge System at 

$415 million, which would equal the fiscal year 2004 Refuge System budget ($406.5 

million) when adjusted for inflation. This level of funding would ensure a ‘‘no-netloss’’ budget which would allow the Refuge System to avoid layoffs and reductions 

in services, maintain protections for wildlife and habitat, prevent backsliding on 

gains already made, and provide for addressing the backlog in coming years. 

We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to 

our National Wildlife Refuge System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES

The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) is a consortium of the 

seven universities listed above. It was formed in 2001 to develop advanced technologies that can be used to efficiently produce cleaner fuels in an environmentally 

acceptable manner and to study the basic sciences and engineering involved. The 

new technologies developed as a result of CAST research and the highly skilled personnel trained during the course of its activities will help the United States meet 

the challenges of energy independence. These missions are consistent with President 

Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative, announced in his 2006 State of the 

Union Address. The President’s new program includes doubling R&D commitments 

to basic research, supporting universities for world-class education and research opportunities, and training a work force with skills that can be used to better compete 

in the 21st century. 

ORGANIZATION

The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) was formed initially between Virginia Tech and West Virginia University with the objective of developing 

advanced solid-solid and solid-liquid separation technologies that can help the U.S. 

coal industry produce cleaner solid fuels. In 2002, five other universities listed above 

joined the consortium to develop crosscutting technologies that can also be used in 

the U.S. minerals resources industry. As a result, the scope of CAST research was 

expanded to studies of chemical/biological separations and environmental control. 

As a consortium, the Center can take advantage of the diverse expertise available 

in the member universities and address the interests of the different geographical 

regions of the country. Working together as a consortium is consistent with the recommendations of a recent National Research Council (NRC) report on the U.S. Department of Energy’s fossil energy research, which states that ‘‘consortia are a preferred way of leveraging expertise and technical inputs to the mining sector, and 

recommends that DOE should support ‘‘academia, which helps to train technical 

people for the industry.’’ 

PROGRESS AND NEXT STEP

At present, a total of 45 research projects are being carried out at the seven CAST 

member universities. Of these, 12 projects are in solid-solid separation, 5 in solidliquid separation, 12 in chemical/biological separation, 7 in modeling and control, 

and 6 in environmental control. The project selection was made by an industry 

panel according to the priorities set forth in the CAST Technology Roadmap developed in 2002 by industry representatives. Research results have been presented at 

two workshops, the first in Charleston, WV, November 19–21, 2003, and the second 

in Blacksburg, VA, July 26–27, 2005. Both meetings enjoyed strong participation 

from industry. The third workshop will be held in July 2007 in Blacksburg. 

CAST research has been focused on removing impurities (e.g., ash, sulfur, mercury and other toxic elements) from coal. Various solid-solid and solid-liquid separation technologies are used to remove these impurities. In general, the efficiency of 

separation diminishes sharply with decreasing particle size. As a result, coal companies discard coal fines to impoundments. In the United States, approximately 70 to 

90 million tons of coal fines are being discarded annually according to a National 

Research Council report. The report was issued as a result of a congressional directive to investigate a major failure of a fine coal impoundment in Kentucky in October, 2000, which caused 300 million gallons of coal sludge to flood an active mine 

and neighboring creeks and rivers. There are more than 713 active water and slurry 

impoundments in the eastern United States, many of which are rated ‘‘high risk.’’ 

The report suggested a study to identify appropriate technologies that can eliminate 

the need for slurry impoundments. 

CAST has been developing advanced separation technologies that can help U.S. 

coal companies recover fine coal rather than discard it to impoundments. One com-
266 

pany, Beard Technologies, Inc., is currently building a plant designed to recover fine 

coal from a large impoundment in Pineville, WV, using the technologies developed 

by CAST. The plant will be the first to recover practically all of the coal from a 

waste impoundment without the benefit of a tax credit. If the project is successful, 

it is anticipated that many other companies will follow suit. The enabling technology 

used in the Pineville recovery plant is the use of chemical additives that can remove 

moisture from fine coal during vacuum filtration. CAST is developing several other 

dewatering technologies, which include hyperbaric centrifuge, hyperbaric horizontal 

belt filter (HHBF), and a flocculant injection system. In a recent pilot-scale test conducted with the hyperbaric centrifuge, it was possible to reduce the moisture of a 

fine coal (smaller than 0.15 mm) to below 10 percent by weight without using chemical additives. The technology has been licensed to Decanter Machine Company, 

Johnson City, TN, which plans to construct a prototype unit for onsite testing. Development of the HHBF technology is also making progress. Construction of a pilotscale test unit has been completed, and is ready for a trial. This new dewatering 

technology is also designed to reduce fine coal moisture to less than 10 percent. The 

flocculant injection system is already in use by many coal companies to minimize 

the loss of fine coal associated with the use of screen-bowl centrifuges, which represent the most widely used conventional dewatering technology in the U.S. coal industry. In addition, Arch Coal Company is seriously considering installation of a 

deep-cone thickener, as a result of the work conducted at CAST, to obviate the need 

to build a fine coal impoundment. 

Despite the importance of fine coal cleaning, the bulk of the coal being cleaned 

today is coarse coal, most of which is being cleaned of impurities using densitybased separation methods. Therefore, there is an interest in determining separation 

efficiencies using density tracers. Typically, plastic blocks of known densities are 

added to a feed stream, collected manually from product streams, and counted to 

determine the efficiency of separation—a process which is cumbersome and entails 

inaccuracies. Therefore, a new method has been developed in which each tracer is 

tagged with a transponder so that the destination of each tracer can be monitored 

electronically. The new technique has been tested successfully in several plants and 

is ready for commercial deployment. Precision Testing Laboratory, Beckley, WV, 

plans to market the new technology. Its use can help coal companies maximize the 

efficiency of cleaning coarse coal. 

Much of the basic scientific principles and technologies involved in coal cleaning 

also apply to processing ores. Therefore, CAST has been developing crosscutting 

technologies that can be used in both coal and minerals industries. As an example, 

a joint Krebs Engineers-CAST research resulted in the development of a novel 

hydrocyclone that can efficiently remove clay (slimes) from coal. The same technology can also be used in processing many industrial minerals. For instance, removal of clay minerals is an a priori requirement in processing the potash (KCl) 

ores in New Mexico. Laboratory experiments showed that more efficient desliming 

can increase potash recovery by 4 to 6 percent downstream. Implementation of these 

new technologies being developed at CAST will help the industry remain competitive against foreign producers and retain high-paying jobs in the country. 

The United States is the second largest copper producer in the world. However, 

much of the ores being mined are low grade, which makes it difficult for U.S. companies to compete internationally. Traditionally, copper is extracted from an ore 

through a series of processes, including grinding, flotation, smelting, and refining, 

which are energy intensive and hence costly. CAST is currently developing new 

technologies to facilitate the application of alternative leaching/impurity removal/ 

electrowinning processes that can replace the costlier steps of grinding, flotation, 

smelting, and refining. The alternative processes should require substantially lower 

capital costs and reduce energy consumption by 50 percent. 

The mining industry has been extracting gold using cyanide, which is toxic. 

Therefore, CAST has been developing an environmentally benign extraction method 

using alkaline sulfide. Bench-scale continuous tests conducted using this new 

lixiviant showed that the extraction efficiency is as good as those obtained using cyanide. 

In addition to the more practical projects described above, CAST has also conducted fundamental research. As an example, a mathematical model has been developed to describe the flotation process, which is the most widely used and versatile 

solid-solid separation process used in both the coal and minerals industries. The 

model is based on first principles so that it has predictive and diagnostic capabilities. In another project, a computational fluid dynamic (CFD) simulation technique 

has been used to design optimal flotation machines. This project is co-funded by 

Dorr-Oliver EIMCO, Utah. In addition, the surface forces acting between two microscopic surfaces immersed in water have been measured using the atomic force mi-
267 

croscope (AFM) and the surface force apparatus (SFA). The results show that strong 

attractive forces are present between hydrophobic surfaces, the origin of which is 

not yet known. The newly discovered surface forces, which are referred to as ‘hydrophobic force’ play an important role in the separation of hydrophobic energy ‘minerals’ such as coal, oil, bitumen, and kerogen from hydrophilic waste minerals such 

as clay, silica and others. 

FUNDING REQUEST AND RATIONALE

The United States is by far the largest mining country in the western world, followed by South Africa and Australia. In 2004, the U.S. mining industry produced 

$63.9 billion of raw materials, including $19.9 billion of coal and $44 billion of minerals. Australia is a smaller mining country but has five centers of excellence in advanced separations as applied to coal and minerals processing. Last year, Australia 

established the Mineral Science Research Institute, a consortium of four mining 

schools, with a funding of $22.6 million for the initial five-year period. In the United 

States, CAST is the only federally funded consortium serving the mining industry. 

According to a Congressional testimony by K. Mark Le Vier, President of the Mining 

and Metallurgical Society of America, 50 percent or more of the faculty in the U.S. 

mining schools will retire in the next five years. Continued funding of the CAST 

program is critical for producing a trained workforce for the industry. 

CAST has been developing a broad range of advanced separation technologies. Although it is a relatively new research center, some of the projects have yielded technologies that are already in use in industry. Many other promising research projects 

are on-going and require continued support. Working as a consortium is an effective 

way of exchanging ideas and utilizing diverse expertise required to solve major problems. Continued funding will allow CAST to develop advanced technologies that can 

be used to produce cleaner coal in an environmentally acceptable manner. Furthermore, the advanced technologies can be used not only to clean up the troublesome 

waste impoundments that have been created in the past but also to eliminate the 

need to create them in the first place. For fiscal year 2007, CAST is requesting $3 million to (i) develop crosscutting separation technologies, (ii) better understand the basic sciences involved, and (iii) 

produce highly-skilled engineers and scientists. Although the aim of the proposed 

research is to benefit the U.S. mining industry, its results should also help the 

President’s initiatives to develop a hydrogen economy and to produce biofuels more 

efficiently (e.g., separating ethanol from water without distillation). Further, the results can be used to develop technologies for extracting kerogen from oil shale, of 

which the United States has 72 percent (1.2 trillion barrel equivalent of oil) of the 

world’s reserves. A steady supply of fuels and strategic minerals is critical for the 

continued growth of the economy and for national security. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT CENTRAL

CALIFORNIA OZONE STUDY (CCOS) COALITION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition, we are 

pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 2007 

funding request of $400,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency for CCOS. 

These funds are necessary for the State of California to address the very significant 

challenges it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality standards for 

ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design incorporates recent technical 

recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on how to most effectively comply with federal Clean Air Act requirements. 

First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining federal funding 

for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and California Regional PM10/PM2.5

Air Quality Study (CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental 

in improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the nation. Information 

gained from these two studies is forming the basis for the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and 

regional haze State Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 

2008 (particulate matter/haze). As with California’s previous SIPs, the 2007–2008 

SIPs will need to be updated and refined due to the scientific complexity of our air 

pollution problem. Our request this year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important questions that won’t be answered with results from previously funded research projects. 

To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis for SIPs has 

largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like CCOS. These studies are con-
268 

ducted over a single season or single year and have relied on modeling and analysis 

of selected days with high concentrations. Future SIPs will be more complex than 

they were in the past. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is now recommending a weight-of-evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-based, 

integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with seasonal and annual 

photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with federal Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a larger number of days and possibly an 

entire season. In addition, because ozone and particulate matter are formed from 

some of the same emissions precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants 

in combination, which CCOS will do. 

Consistent with the new NAS recommendations, the CCOS study includes corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by past studies, advances the 

state-of-science in air quality modeling, and addresses the integration of ozone and 

particulate pollution studies. In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to emission inventories, address the development of observation-based analyses with sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four general components: 

Performing SIP modeling analyses—2005–2011 

Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses—2006–2008 

Making emission inventory improvements—2006–2010 

Performing seasonal and annual modeling—2008–2011 

CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well as private industry. These 

committees, which managed the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study and are currently 

managing the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork provide a solid foundation for CCOS. 

For fiscal year 2007, our Coalition is seeking funding of $400,000 from the EPA 

through Clean Air funds.—The requested funds would be used in conjunction with 

other funding to conduct weight-of-evidence data analyses, which will help address 

future SIP needs as well as the new NAS recommendations. This funding will also 

allow for computational improvements and air quality modeling validation studies 

that are associated with multi-pollutant air pollution assessments for extended periods (e.g. seasonal or annual). These are necessary to ensure that models are representing the results for the right reasons. The U.S. EPA has a direct stake in, and 

will benefit from, the CCOS program. This program will further the development 

of corroborative analysis methods and improve the fundamental science upon which 

to base future SIPs in California and nationwide. 

California should not bear the entire cost of the study for several reasons. There 

is a national need to address issues regarding air quality modeling, especially for 

long-term multi-pollutant scenarios. The study itself is very cost-effective since it 

builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone 

Study and the current California Regional Particulate Matter Air Quality Study. 

Use of models for future ozone SIPs (and updating existing SIPs) is a national issue. 

The federal government should fund continuing efforts to improve the performance 

of models used in SIPs. Much of the information generated by CCOS will further 

the fundamental science of air quality modeling which makes it valuable from a national perspective. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, WESTBROOK, CT 

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Conservation Commission, Westbrook Connecticut, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present this testimony in support of a $1 million appropriation from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. The Conservation Commission has, by Town ordinance, the 

responsibility for developing criteria for prioritizing open space protection and acquisition. The 22-acre Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh meets the four top criteria: 

(1) protection of water resources including coastal zone resources; (2) protection of 

unique and sensitive habitats; (3) significantly contributes to the viability of adjacent protected open space; and (4) is under threat of development. The Commission 

has also has the responsibility for recommending acquisition of priority lands to the 

Town of Westbrook, or to private, State or Federal agencies, when appropriate. Acquisition and protection of the 22-acre Menunketesuck Salt Meadow Marsh within 

the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge will add significant protection 

to refuge and to the Menunketesuck River estuarine habitat one of Westbrook’s 
269 

most valuable natural resources, and a coastal resource of state and national significance. Named to honor the late U.S. congressman who was instrumental in its creation, 

the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge was established to protect migratory bird habitat considered important to wading and shorebird species including 

heron, egrets, terns, plovers and oystercatchers among others. Stewart B. McKinney 

NWR is currently comprised of eight units stretching along 60 miles of Connecticut’s 

coastline. In addition to the increase in habitat protection over the years, the refuge 

now provides opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish 

and wildlife oriented recreation. Located in the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge provides 

important resting, feeding, and nesting habitat for many species of wading birds, 

shorebirds, songbirds and terns, including the endangered roseate tern. Adjacent 

waters serve as wintering habitat for brant, scoters, American black duck and other 

waterfowl. Overall, the refuge encompasses over 800 acres of barrier beach, tidal 

wetland and fragile island habitats. 

Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 22-acre Menunketesuck 

Salt Meadow Marsh in Westbrook, Connecticut. The property is comprised of pristine coastal tidal marsh, a forested upland, scrubland, and a rock outcropping that 

towers above 1,000 feet of frontage along the gentle Menunketesuck River as it 

winds its way to Long Island Sound. As a migratory stopover for neotropical migrant land birds, this riparian area is the top priority for acquisition for the refuge. 

The marsh property will enhance the resources of the current Salt Meadow Unit of 

the refuge, as it contains part of the least developed upland borders of any remaining tidal marsh in all of Connecticut. As much of the state’s coastline has been built 

upon, it is rare to find an such a large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut. 

Under imminent threat of development into condominiums, this parcel must be acquired by the refuge if it is to continue to serve as an island of forested habitat land 

on an otherwise highly developed coastline. In order to acquire the Menunketesuck 

Salt Meadow Marsh property, an appropriation of $1 million is needed from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. This priority acquisition 

will increase wildlife habitat protection at the Stewart B. McKinney NWR and ensure the public continued opportunities for recreation and environmental education 

along Connecticut’s coastline. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1 million for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL ALLIANCE

The Continental Divide Trail Alliance respectfully requests an addition to the 

President’s budget of $6.42 million, earmarked for the congressionally designated 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. We request that $6,076,000 be appropriated to the Forest Service and $344,000 be appropriated to the Bureau of Land 

Management. These funds will be utilized toward the funding needed to plan 591 

miles of the Trail in preparation for construction and to construct 345 miles of the 

Trail. 

Over the last eleven years we have developed countless partners, utilized thousands of volunteers and significantly leveraged federal funds and resources. We believe the time has come to step up the level of support from Congress: 

—The CDTA, Forest Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management have a well defined plan to complete the Trail; 

—States, corporations and individuals are making substantial contributions to the 

efforts to complete the CDT and leverage limited federal funds; and 

—The investment in this national treasure has tremendous potential to capitalize 

on local and national citizens’ investment of time and money, provide significant 

rural economic development opportunities and increase the awareness of appropriate uses of this amazing national treasure. 

It is important to note that these funds would be available for use in Montana, 

Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico where the CDT is located. Funding provided by this Congress will also be leveraged by volunteer labor and financial support from the private sector. 

We are proud of the many successes we have had over the last few years, raising 

over $4 million in private sector support and $3.5 million in volunteer labor. We 

truly believe that our efforts can send a strong signal to the land managers and 

Americans from every state that the National Trail System model is the best way 

to be effective stewards of our lands. 
270 

It should also be noted that Representatives Hefley, Beauprez, Tancredo, DeGette, 

Salazar, Mark and Tom Udall and Cubin have signed on to this request in support 

of the Continental Divide Trail. 

BACKGROUND

Mission.—The Continental Divide Trail Alliance’s (CDTA) mission is: ‘‘To construct, manage and preserve a non-motorized public backcountry trail along the full 

length of the Continental Divide from Canada to Mexico and to link its significant 

resources with the assistance of volunteers and public and private partnerships. To 

develop an appreciation of and enjoyment in America’s natural lands through education and the opportunity to experience the Continental Divide National Scenic 

Trail.’’ 

In January 2005, the CDTA adopted a new Vision: ‘‘Connecting people to the land 

and each other to instill conservation, respect and renewal of the human spirit’’. 

This vision builds upon CDTA’s ten years of community and public lands work. 

While we are extremely proud of our accomplishments, there is much more to be 

done to fulfill our vision through the creation of the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail. Our Vision guides us to encourage people to know and use the Trail 

to connect with nature, instill public land stewardship, build spiritual communities, 

inspire healthy lifestyles and to protect the environment. 

History.—The idea of a trail through the West’s most scenic, rugged, diverse and 

historic landscapes won the approval of Congress in 1978 when it was officially designated a National Scenic Trail, one of only eight in the Nation. The vision for the 

Continental Divide Trail is to create a 3,100-mile primitive and challenging non-motorized trail on or near the Continental Divide—the Backbone of America—to allow 

people to experience the scenic beauty of the Rocky Mountains and to conserve the 

nationally significant scenic, historic, natural and cultural qualities critical to the 

Trail’s experience. 

The Continental Divide Trail is known as the ‘‘King of Trails’’. The CDT is the 

highest (14,290 feet), wildest, and most remote National Scenic Trail, offering more 

wildlife viewing and miles of dramatic and diverse landscapes than any other long 

trail. The Trail is a window into our past and an open door for adventure and exploring. It is home to working ranches, small towns, and generations of Americans 

whose lives are forever etched with the land they work. It crosses paths where 

Lewis & Clark first set foot on the Continental Divide, where legendary mountain 

men like Jim Bridger and Kit Carson roamed, and where Native Americans built 

rock walls for driving game 5,800 years ago. The Trail is a natural resource treasure 

chest with a changing panorama of crystal clear alpine lakes, glorious mountain 

peaks, cascading waterfalls, sheer cliffs, glaciers, dense forests, arid deserts, and 

fields of brilliant wildflowers. The CDT allows modern day explorers to journey 

among thousands of plant and animal species in their natural settings: mountain 

goats, wild horses, elk, moose, deer, antelope, grizzlies, bald eagles and road runners, as well as, meadows of wildflowers, prickly pear, ancient stands of bristle cone 

pine, aspen groves strewn with columbine and the remote rugged alpine terrain 

with the illusive alpine buttercup. 

In spite of the CDT’s rich history and resources, endless benefits and conservation 

values, the lack of public awareness, volunteer involvement, overall coordination 

and funding were killing progress. In 1995, the Continental Divide Trail Alliance 

was formed to work with the public and federal, state and local agencies in the completion, maintenance and protection of the CDT. Start-up funding was provided primarily by the Fausel Foundation, National Forest Foundation and Recreational 

Equipment Inc. In 1997, the CDTA coordinated the first border-to-border inventory 

of the Trail’s status with volunteers and released a State of the Trail Report. The 

inventory and report led to the development of the CDT 2008 Strategic Completion 

Plan outlining all of the needs, projects, methods and costs to complete the CDT by 

2008, or the Trail’s 30th Anniversary. 

Program.—The CDTA is recognized by the Forest Service, National Park Service 

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the major non-governmental partner in 

the completion, management and protection of the 3,100 miles Continental Divide 

Trail. The CDTA is the voice for unity in the creation of the Trail. CDTA’s work 

includes Trail promotion, public education, and recruitment, training and the coordination of volunteers to scout, locate, construct, repair, maintain and protect the 

Trail. Through these programs, thousands of people connect with and gain ownership of the land, learn and have a greater understanding of public land management, the environment and people living along it, as well as the health benefits of 

using it. Currently the CDT is approximately 58 percent complete meaning it is located to provide the most scenic, diverse and inspiring experience, sensitive to the 
271 

environment, constructed to a high quality non-motorized standard, and signed. 

When complete the Trail will traverse the backbone of America, from Canada to 

Mexico, passing through five states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New 

Mexico), 25 National Forests, 20 Wildernesses, three National Parks (Yellowstone, 

Glacier and Rocky Mountain) one National Monument (El Malpais) and eight BLM 

Resource areas. The CDT acts as a conservation tool, preserving the surrounding 

natural features and significant qualities critical to experiencing a National Scenic 

Trail. 

Accomplishments.—CDTA’s work has been praised by national new sources, such 

as Newsweek, Washington Post and Backpacker Magazine and received the Take 

Pride in America Award. This national attention is due, in part, to the accomplishments we have made over the past ten years (1995–2004). 

—Coordinated, trained and educated nearly 6,700 volunteers who have donated 

more than $3.1 million in volunteer labor on 620 miles of the CDT. 

—Organized two end-to-end surveys with more than 1,000 volunteers to identify 

the Trail’s status, document more than 300 nationally significant features and 

capture 1,700 photos. 

—Developed a 10-year action plan outlining the needs, projects, methods and costs 

to complete the CDT by 2008. 

—Created mutually beneficial partnerships or shared our vision with diverse 

groups like Rotary Clubs, Wyoming Stock Growers Assoc., Backcountry Horseman of America, National Mining Association and Montana Wilderness Association. 

—Completed more than 1,275 miles, 31 bridges and 46 trailheads with the physical labor of volunteers and federal land manager staff, and generous gifts of 

individuals, businesses and foundations. 

Need.—Americans connection to the land and to our diverse cultures and traditions are limited, and in many cases diminishing. With approximately 80 percent 

of U.S. citizens living in urban areas, 40 percent of adults engaging in no leisuretime physical activity, and the average citizen of Western civilizations spending 95 

percent of their lives indoors, one could deduct fewer people experience and recreate 

in the natural world outside. People shut off from the natural world are less sensitive to and supportive of the environment, and experience more stress, a perpetual 

decline in health and well being, and dependencies that cause disorders. 

Also, respect and understanding for other people’s perspectives and lifestyles, particularly as it relates to our public lands, is lacking, as witnessed in the continual 

battles over how public lands should be managed and used. Lack of respect and understanding creates conflicts, produces poor communication, destroys any sense of 

community, and provokes people to make decisions that hurt others. 

In addition, less than one-third of adults in the U.S. engage in the recommended 

amount of physical activity and millions suffer from illnesses (50 million have high 

blood pressure, one-third are overweight, 13.5 million have coronary heart disease, 

etc.) that can be prevented or improved through regular physical activity. Promotion 

of the CDT can inspire and lead people down a path of good health and well being. 

Last, federal land managers are confronted with two troubling trends: an expanding backlog of work on our public lands and a shrinking budget. Funding for routine 

maintenance, currently a $200 million backlog, has not kept pace with needs. The 

result is a declining quality of experience for recreationists. CDTA programs assist 

in caring for the land with millions of dollars worth of volunteer service. 

The CDTA recognizes and embraces the benefits and challenges of building the 

Continental Divide Trail, including providing access to recreate, enjoy and learn 

from the outdoors and to experience and understand the diverse and unique lifestyles and traditions along the Trail. Due to its location, the Trail is a magnet for 

many public-lands issues and CDTA works to unite diverse communities in an effort 

to create a national treasure that will benefit all of America. 

Benefit.— Have you ever sat on top of a mountain and felt refreshed, or been 

cheered by the vibrant sounds of a songbird? Does a wildflower’s fragrance bring 

you joy, and a rushing stream change your senses? These are only a sample of how 

nature soothes the soul and lessons the stresses of normal life. And, these are only 

a few of the ways the Continental Divide Trail inspires and educates thousands of 

people. 

Experiencing the Continental Divide Trail, whether on a six-month end-to-end 

hike, a one-day adventure, or a volunteer work project, will create more knowledgeable and environmentally and socially responsible individuals. The Trail crosses 

3,100 miles of public lands with diverse users and uses, providing an experience 

that teaches and promotes respect and understanding of other people’s perspectives. 
272 

Establishing the Trail on the ground will preserve the land and the significant 

scenic, historic, natural and cultural qualities surrounding the Trail and critical to 

the experience. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CROWNPOINT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CIT) 

CIT respectfully requests $2.5 million for fiscal year 2007 under U.S. Department 

of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity: Special Programs and Pooled Overhead. 

On behalf of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), I thank this Subcommittee for appropriating critically needed operational funds to CIT. The authorization for this appropriation that enables CIT to educate Indian young adults for 

our nation’s workforce is Public Law 84–959, ‘‘Vocational Training for Adult Indians.’’ Public Law 84–959 is fully consistent with the BIA goal of economic self-sufficiency for all tribal citizens. CIT expresses its gratitude to this Subcommittee for 

assisting CIT toward reaching the common goal of economic self-sufficiency for tribal citizens through education for employment. 

CIT is a tribal college in all definitions, and is a member in good standing with 

all voting rights of the national association that advocates for all the nation’s tribal 

colleges, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC). However, 

CIT is not eligible to receive funding under the ‘‘Tribally Controlled Colleges and 

Universities Act,’’ due to an original 1978 statutory restriction of one college per 

tribe. Dine ́ College in Tsaile, Arizona is the one Navajo tribal college already participating under this statute. This restriction is fair for nearly all tribes chartering tribal colleges, as the average tribal population for those tribes is 4,909 derived from 

U.S. Census 2000 trust land tribal populations. The same U.S. Census acknowledges Navajo Nation trust land tribal population 173,987, of a total Navajo population of 225,298. This population is spread throughout a 17,500,000 acre reservation (26,897 square miles) extending into three States (AZ, NM, UT). The Navajo 

reservation is 2,810 square miles larger than the State of West Virginia. The driving 

distance across the reservation is approximately nine hours. As an example of comparison, the fifteen tribes in the States of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have a combined tribal population of 72,835 (U.S. Census 2000). These fifteen 

tribes charter sixteen tribal colleges, each on significantly smaller land bases than 

the Navajo reservation. 

The population and vast service area of the Navajo Nation warrant a second tribal 

college. CIT’s Congressional Delegation sought unsuccessfully to amend this restriction to allow a second college for exceptionally high population tribes. CIT is the 

only postsecondary vocational educational institution on the Navajo Nation reservation. CIT students come from throughout the reservation, as well as from the towns 

of Gallup, Cruet, Continental Divide, Fruitland, Kirtland, Mentmore, Rehobeth (all 

in New Mexico), Durango, Colorado, White Mesa, Utah and the Tohono O’odham 

and Hopi Reservations in Arizona. CIT also serves all eligible applicants as room 

is available and has retrained non-Indian displaced uranium workers and Indian 

students from as far away as Alaska and Montana. 

In its fiscal year 2007 Budget Justification to the U.S. Congress, the Department 

of Interior proposes elimination of CIT funding, but the Department uses erroneous 

calculations to justify their proposal. CIT has submitted correct per student cost and 

funding calculations to the BIA on numerous occasions. To assure accuracy, CIT’s 

cost calculations have been prepared by the outside, independent auditing firm of 

Sloan and Company, Albuquerque, New Mexico. CIT’s correct per student cost per 

year is $10,282. Of this, 65 percent or $6,710 is for residential-related costs. CIT’s 

correct cost is $2,710 higher than the Department’s inaccurate assessment of $4,000 

per student for residential costs. CIT’s correct instruction-only per student cost is 

$3,572, or 35 percent of total per student cost. CIT is one of the few tribal colleges 

that are residential. CIT also offers day care as an essential service for single-parent 

students who are among those most in need of job-oriented educational opportunity. 

The vast majority of all tribal colleges have commuting students only. Most tribal 

colleges do not have residential costs and therefore these dissimilar colleges cannot 

be compared on a per student cost basis to residential tribal colleges. This dissimilarity of comparison is further exacerbated as a result of the Department applying 

cost bases which are severely inaccurate. 

In its proposal to eliminate CIT funding, the Department incorrectly calculates 

that Interior provides $4,402 per student to CIT. The correct per student Interior 

allocation is half that, $2,237. In addition, the Department erroneously calculates 

CIT enrollment at 403 Indian Student Count (ISC). CIT’s correct ISC for fiscal year 

2005 was 646. CIT submits actual enrollment numbers to the BIA every year. The 
273 

most recent year in which CIT had an enrollment approaching the BIA’s incorrect 

fiscal year 2007 citation was in 1993, thirteen years prior. In academic year 2005– 

06, CIT’s accurate ISC enrollment is 904. 

CIT does receive U.S. Department of Education Funding under Section 117 of the 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act. The other tribal colleges also participate 

in Indian Set-aside Perkins funding under Section 116, a section for which CIT is 

not eligible. CIT began to experience a crippling shortfall under Section 117 in 1995 

when disproportionate funding was redirected to online courses. This threatened 

CIT’s operational continuation and in fiscal year 2000 CIT sought Interior operational funding to keep its doors open, the same as the tribal colleges. All tribal colleges including CIT are eligible to compete for multiple sources of funding from 

many Departments, but these sources are not core operational funding. CIT’s correct 

combined funding per ISC from Interior and Department of Education is $8,447, 

which still leaves a shortfall of $1,835 per residential student for the last year calculated. CIT’s 258 ISC enrollment increase from 646 to 904 will exacerbate the 

funding shortfall. CIT has consistently produced outstanding graduation and employment placement statistics with the help of Interior appropriations. 

For fiscal year 2007, the Department also seeks to ‘‘continue facilitating a partnership between the Colorado School of Mines, UTTC and Crownpoint to offer an 

energy related career curriculum.’’ CIT cannot partner with Colorado School of 

Mines if CIT cannot keep its doors open through direct BIA operational assistance. 

Also for fiscal year 2007, the Department of Interior requests ‘‘an increase of $600,000 in the Trust-Real Estate Services activity to offer a Certified Federal Surveyor curriculum provided by United Tribes Technical College and the Crownpoint 

Institute of Technology.’’ The fiscal year 2007 Budget Justification is the first time 

that CIT learned of this proposal. CIT was never consulted regarding this proposed 

joint curriculum and does not even offer such a program. CIT eliminated its surveyor program 14 years ago due to absence of economic demand which demand is 

necessary for employment opportunities. Further, the State of New Mexico requires 

a bachelor degree in order for surveyor graduates to qualify to even take the State 

certification exam. CIT does not offer four-year programs. 

CIT offers one-year certificate and two-year associate degree programs, as well as 

continuing education and summer session. CIT’s most recent graduating class May 

2005 was comprised 201 one-year Certificate and two-year Associate degree students, an increase of 40 graduates over 2004. U.S. Department of Education does 

not allow Spring Count funding, therefore CIT must ask Interior to assist in funding 

this cost. CIT’s 2006 Spring enrollment consists of a Nursing Assistant program not 

able to be offered in the Fall. This program is high employment demand and has 

high job placement. 

Nearly all Navajo citizens on the reservation not only can speak the Navajo language, but use it in their everyday lives. On trust land alone, 106,432 Navajo citizens are age 18 and over. The median Native American population age is 27.4 years, 

eight years younger than the median age for mainstream America. Approximately 

10,000 Navajo students graduate from area high schools each year. The average CIT 

student age is 26, with the actual age range being 18 to 64. The Navajo Nation is 

one of the very few tribes with an extant native language. 94 percent of CIT’s students are full-time: six percent are part-time. Seventy percent of CIT enrollment is 

comprised New Mexico residents, 29 percent Arizona residents and 1 percent from 

Utah, Colorado, Minnesota and Montana 

Of the entire Navajo population, only 4.66 percent of high school graduates go on 

to achieve a bachelor’s degree. Only 2 percent achieve Masters degrees, and less 

than .5 percent earn doctorates. CIT has proven to offer a realistic educational experience that equips young adults with skills that place the majority of graduates into 

career track employment. For students with the goal of continuing their educations 

at four-year institutions, their CIT educational experience has proven to augment 

their ability to succeed. Although distant from major towns, Crownpoint is a major 

reservation activity center. 

In order to overcome the obstacles inherent in its geographic location and underserved population, CIT has broader infrastructure responsibilities. CIT’s campus 

base is comprised of 153,468 square feet of facilities. The campus includes state-ofthe-art classrooms, a hands-on working Veterinary Clinic, modular administrative 

buildings, library, separate men’s and women’s dormitories, married student housing, daycare and cafeteria. CIT has no recreation facility. CIT has a higher proportion of students with developmental education needs resultant from inadequate high 

school preparation. Most students require remedial courses to equip them to undertake college level programs. CIT has longer distances to transport students over reservation expanses where public transportation is non-existent. Despite many challenges, CIT earns achievements. CIT twice received an excellence award from the 
274 

U.S. Department of Agriculture for sincere commitment to student outcomes, one of 

only eight such awards nationally, which carried with it a modest cash prize and 

congratulatory letter from President Bush. CIT’s Culinary Arts Program continues 

to win awards in both national and State competitions. 

For years CIT wait-listed approximately 200 otherwise qualified students due to 

residential housing limitations, a practice recently discontinued because limited 

housing renders admission highly improbable. CIT has a ten-year average student 

retention rate of over 90 percent. Due to funding challenges resulting in insufficient 

Employment Placement personnel, the average job placement has dropped from a 

previous average of 86 percent to 74 percent. Increased funding would greatly assist 

in this area. 

CIT is fully-accredited by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools as 

a higher educational institution. CIT offers two-year Associate of Applied Science 

degrees in seven disciplines: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology, Environmental Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, 

Legal Assistant and Veterinary Technician. CIT offers sixteen vocational certificate 

programs: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology, 

Automotive Technology, Building Maintenance, Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Electrical 

Trades, Environmental Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate. Legal Assistant, Nursing Assistant, Veterinary Assistant, Small Business Development 

(new), Commercial Drivers License and Computer Aided Drafting. 

On average, 85 percent of CIT graduates secure full-time employment and 15 percent accept seasonal jobs. Of this, 54 percent secured employment on-reservation 

and 46 percent off-reservation. The region’s economy is comprised significantly of 

self-employed ranchers who by definition are not placed in employment. Several CIT 

Veterinary students are self-employed ranchers who improve their livestock yield 

through knowledge and skills learned in the CIT Veterinary Program. Students continuing their educations are considered positive terminations. 

Of the above graduating classes students, the CIT Placement Office successfully 

tracked and placed 74 percent of graduates in jobs or continuing education. Of all 

CIT graduates, the average entry level annual wage is over $17,000. Commercial 

Drivers License (CDL) graduates earn the highest wage at $16 to $18 an hour, or 

$33,280 to $37,440 annually if employment remains stable. The next highest entrylevel wages are: Veterinary Technician, Assistant $23,920: Legal Advocate/Assistant 

$21,320: Electrical Trades $20,280: Automotive and Environmental Technology, both 

at $19,760. An apprentice will start at $9/$11 hourly and increase to $22/$28 hourly 

in less than 4 years. 

In an average lifetime of employment, CIT graduates will return to the Federal 

Government the cost of its investment many times over. Each employed graduate 

pays an average of $2,576 of their earnings to federal taxes in the first year of employment alone. Actual taxes paid differ according to a number of variables such as 

number of dependants, but wage earnings and resultant tax contributions will generally continue over at least thirty years. Over 60 percent of tracked graduates were 

employed in private industry and did not rely directly or indirectly on federal appropriations for jobs. 

On behalf of CIT students and their dependants whose quality of life has been 

greatly improved by education resulting in employment, thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH ADAMS, MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.1 million appropriation from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of Broad Brook watershed 

project in the Green Mountain National Forest. 

The City of North Adams has owned the 3,921-acre Broad Brook property across 

the border in Vermont as a source of drinking water for its residents for nearly one 

hundred years. However, several years ago the city ceased depending on the Broad 

Brook parcel for its water and is now interested in selling the property to the Forest 

Service for inclusion into the Green Mountain National Forest. We completed the 

sale of the first portion of the property in December 2005 and are anxious to finish 

this project this year. 

In fiscal year 2007, an appropriation of $1.1 million will secure the transfer of the 

final 970 acres of the 3,921-acre Broad Brook watershed 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 the forest, known for 

its excellent recreational opportunities and critical wildlife habitat. 
275 

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. 

The Vermont congressional delegation, lead by Senator Leahy, has secured appropriations for this project in three consecutive fiscal years, 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

These funds recently allowed the first phase of the property, 2,450 acres, to be 

added to the Green Mountain NF. An appropriation of $1.1 million in fiscal year 

2007 will complete the final phase of this project and would add an additional 970 

acres to the forest. 

The City of North Adams has reduced the total acquisition price for the Forest 

Service for the Broad Brook property by 25 percent off fair market value, allowing 

for a significant savings for the federal government. Importantly for the City of 

North Adams and its residents, the sale of this property to the federal government 

will provide the city with critical funds to enhance city services. The community also 

supports the transaction as a positive conservation legacy of which the city can be 

very proud. 

This federal acquisition in Vermont has significant positive impacts for residents 

in both Massachusetts and Vermont. An appropriation of $1.1 million will complete 

the final phase of this important project. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the appropriation for the Broad Brook property in Vermont. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF DRAPER

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Draper City Council and its residents, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $3 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical land protection efforts along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in 

Utah. 

In November 2005, the City of Draper, with an overwhelming vote of support by 

Draper’s citizens, completed the purchase and permanent protection of Corner Canyon, a 1,020-acre property that was slated for development. This land will now be 

available to the community for open space and recreational uses. Corner Canyon is 

located within Draper’s city limits and is nestled in the foothills below the Lone 

Peak Wilderness Area, in the ‘‘corner’’ between the Wasatch Range and Traverse 

Ridge. Following our acquisition, it will offer a variety of trails for hikers, bikers, 

and equestrians, and provides public access to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Such 

recreational uses will be incorporated in a master plan for Corner Canyon and is 

scheduled for completion by August 2006. 

The Corner Canyon project is the largest ever conservation purchase by Draper 

City, and the $7 million bond passed to fund it is the largest bond measure passed 

in Salt Lake County for a single open space acquisition. The landowners agreed to 

sell the property to the City for approximately $13.6 million, with the agreement 

that a conservation easement would be placed on the property once the City acquired it. In addition to City funds, funding applications for $500,000 each were successfully made to both the State of Utah’s Quality Growth Commission and Salt 

Lake County to assist in the acquisition of the property. With the assistance of this 

additional $1,000,000, the city was able to come up with the additional funds to acquire the property. For a City of approximately 35,000 residents, the purchase of 

Corner Canyon was obviously a very large investment and demonstrates both the 

commitment of the City and importance of protecting this critical land. 

Corner Canyon is truly a public treasure, and has become an investment for each 

of us in the future of Draper. I am convinced that ‘‘Our Corner Canyon’’ will stand 

as a monument to our community, to our past and those who settled here and to 

our quality of life. 

A significant portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail/Bear Canyon property, 

which the Forest Service would acquire with the requested 2007 Land and Water 

Conservation Funds, lies immediately adjacent to the Corner Canyon property and 

is a very important connection to our efforts to protect Corner Canyon and the land 

between City limits and the Lone Peak Wilderness Area. Additionally, the Bonneville Shoreline Trail/Bear Canyon property contains significant stretches of the Bon-
276 

neville Shoreline and therefore will fill important gaps in completion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Salt Lake County. The combination of the city’s protection 

of Corner Canyon and the planned Forest Service acquisition of Bear Canyon represents an important federal and local conservation partnership in southern Salt 

Lake County. 

In fiscal year 2007, additional funds are needed for the Forest Service to acquire 

the remaining portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail/Bear Canyon property. If not 

protected, this area could be developed, public access to this portion of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail could be lost forever, and adjacent forest and wilderness lands 

would also be put at risk. 

Because of the afore stated reasons, I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $3 million for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in the fiscal year 2007 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for your time, consideration, and attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

On behalf of the County of Riverside, please support full funding for the Payment 

in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program in fiscal year 2007. 

With your assistance, Congress provided $233 million for PILT in fiscal year 2006. 

This funding provides important compensation to local communities that have significant amounts of Federal land in their counties. There are over 2.5 million acres 

of Federal land within the borders of the County of Riverside. PILT funds partially 

offset the costs of supplying many valuable services such as search and rescue, law 

enforcement, and road maintenance. 

The authorization for PILT would provide funding at approximately $340 million 

annually, which is warranted by the fiscal pressures felt by counties, particularly 

in California. The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal would cut PILT by 

$35 million. The County of Riverside strongly urges you to oppose this proposal. 

Please continue to work to increase the funding necessary for this program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

I am writing on behalf of the County of Ventura to urge you to include provisions 

to extend the existing moratorium against new activities on the California Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS) in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

On September 20, 2005, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors unanimously 

voted to oppose federal bills and regulations that reduce the role or authority of 

State and local governments in the siting and approval of offshore energy facilities 

or diminish the public and environmental review process. The Board also voted to 

oppose time extensions of existing undeveloped offshore oil & gas leases. 

Exploration and development activities on the OCS raise many unique and complex environmental issues. In order to avoid the potential ecological disaster risks 

inherent in offshore oil production, avoid the air quality impacts to the Ventura 

County air shed of increased offshore oil exploration and production, and to preserve 

the scenic, recreational, economic, and environmental resource values of our coast, 

the Board opposes the extension of existing undeveloped offshore oil & gas leases 

and the lifting of the existing moratorium on new leases. 

The Board of Supervisors urges you to continue to work with your colleagues on 

the subcommittee to oppose efforts to modify the moratorium, and to ensure that 

the role or authority of State and local governments in the siting and approval of 

offshore energy facilities is not diminished. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Support for fiscal year 2007 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 $1,500,000 to be expended on identified salinity control related projects and studies. 

Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal year 2007 

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 
277 

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 geologic conditions, much of the land 

that is controlled and managed by the BLM is 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, with proceeding with 

programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River. BLM’s rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures 

available. These measures may be more cost-effective than some of those 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. 

Since the Congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has been 

learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. The USBR estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages to United States’ water 

users alone is about $330 million per year and that there are very significant additional damages yet to be quantified. For example, damages occur from: 

—A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for 

leaching in the agricultural sector, 

—A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector, 

—An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector, 

—An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector, 

—A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector, 

—Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, an 

increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 

in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the 

water due to groundwater quality deterioration, 

—Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of desalination and 

brine disposal for recycled water. 

For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity concentrations, there are $75 

million in additional damages in the United States. In addition, the federal government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven 

Colorado River Basin states with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. 

In order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2007 

and in future fiscal years, that the Congress provides adequate funds to the Bureau 

of Land Management for its activities related to salinity control in the Colorado 

River Basin. 

The BLM budget, as proposed by the Administration in the BLM budget justification document, includes five long-term vision components for the Soil, Water, and 

Air Management Program. One of these components is meeting state water quality 

standards in all stream miles flowing on BLM lands. Reducing saline runoff to meet 

the interstate, federal and international agreements is a critical element of the Soil, 

Water and Air Management 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 to BLM in fiscal year 2007 for activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado 

River Basin. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of this funding for proposals 

submitted by BLM staff to the BLM’s salinity control coordinator for projects that 

focus on salinity control. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council report states that the BLM has now identified specific projects and studies that 

in fiscal year 2007 totals $1.5 million. The Colorado River Board urges the Subcommittee to specifically designate, $1.5 million for BLM identified projects and 

studies. 
278 

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 2007 funding request and justification statements for BLM as set forth in the Forum’s testimony. 

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 and the other states that rely on the Colorado 

River. 

The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding for this vital program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

In Support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity Control, Title II from 

the Soil, Water and Air Management effort, and with support for the President’s request for that activity. Also a request that $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity 

control related projects and studies. 

This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program authorized by the Congress. The BLM budget, as proposed by the Administration in the BLM budget justification document, calls for five principal program 

priorities within the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program. One of these priorities is reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, federal and international 

agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River. 

The BLM’s 2007 Budget Justification document states, with respect to 2005 

Planned Program Performance, that the BLM continues to implement on-the-ground 

projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(USBR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and report salt-retaining 

measures in order to further the Plan of Implementation of the Federal Salinity 

Control Program in the Colorado River Basin. The Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum (Forum) believes that fiscal year 2007 funds appropriated by the 

Congress for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Program should be used, in part, 

for reducing saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin. 

The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Forum, have engaged the 

BLM in a partnership with the Basin states as has been done previously with the 

two other federal agencies implementing salinity control in the Basin. The Forum 

has requested and the BLM has selected a salinity control coordinator for this 

basinwide effort. This person now serves with the two full-time coordinators in place 

for the USBR and the USDA efforts. This enhanced working relationship has taken 

advantage of the availability of Basin states’ cost-sharing monies to leverage federal 

funds. The Forum is encouraged by the words in the BLM budget document. The 

Forum supports the funding request of $32,053,000 for the Soil, Water, and Air 

Management Subactivity. As one of the five principal Soil, Water, and Air Program 

priorities, the Forum believes that the BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 

to activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the 

Colorado River Basin. In the past, the BLM has used $800,000 of the Soil, Water 

and Air Program funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM’s salinity control coordinator for projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council report states that the BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal year 2006 could use $1.5 million. For years, Congress has 

dedicated $800,000 on the effort and now the Forum believes $1.5 million should 

be so designated. 

The success of the BLM in controlling erosion and, hence, salt contributions to the 

Colorado River and its tributaries is essential to the success of the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program, including adherence to the water quality standards 

adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin states and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will 

result in very significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate funding so that the BLM 

program can move ahead at a pace that is needed to sustain these water quality 

standards. 

OVERVIEW

This testimony is in support of funding for a portion of the Title II program. The 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by the Congress in 
279 

1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act responded 

to commitments that the United States made, through a minute of the International 

Boundary & Water Commission, to Mexico specific to the quality of water being delivered to Mexico at the international boundary. Title II of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water users in the 

United States and to comply with the mandates of the then newly enacted Clean 

Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior and the USBR were given the lead 

federal role by the Congress. 

After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. In response to the Basin 

states’ requests, the Congress revised the Act in 1984 to give new salinity control 

responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. That revision, while leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, gave new 

salinity control responsibilities to the USDA and to the BLM. The Congress has 

charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective program 

practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The Basin states are 

strongly supportive of that concept and have proceeded to implement salinity control 

activities for which they are responsible in the Colorado River Basin. 

Since the Congressional mandates of over two decades ago, much has been 

learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. The USBR estimates that the quantified economic impacts and damages to United States’ water 

users alone is about $330 million per year and there are very significant additional 

damages yet to be quantified. Damages occur from: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for leaching in the agricultural sector, 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector, 

—an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector, 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector, 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector, 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, an 

increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 

in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to groundwater quality deterioration, 

—increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of desalination and 

brine disposal for recycled water. 

For every 30 mg/l increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75 million in additional damages in the United States. 

The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the sevenstate coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and the Congress in 

support of the implementation of the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation 

with the USEPA and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three 

years the Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado 

River, anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the 

salinities at or below the concentrations in the river system in 1972 at Imperial 

Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. 

In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system, the salinity concentrations at these three locations have been identified as the numeric criteria. The 

plan necessary for controlling salinity and reducing downstream damages has been 

captioned the ‘‘Plan of Implementation.’’ The 2005 Review of water quality standards includes an updated Plan of Implementation. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed upon plan. If adequate funds 

are not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salt concentrations in the 

water will be more widespread in the United States and Mexico. 

JUSTIFICATION

The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the Colorado River 

Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed by the BLM is heavily 

laden with salt. Past management practices, which include the use of lands for 

recreation; for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and mineral exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional processes. When soil and 

rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for some distance and 
280 

ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, are dissolved 

and remain in the river system causing water quality problems downstream. 

The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions from public lands. The 

Congress has explicitly directed specific federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with measures to control the salinity of the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-effective options. It has been determined that rangeland improvements can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures may be more cost-effective than 

some now being considered for implementation by the USBR and by the USDA. 

They are very environmentally acceptable as they will prevent erosion, enhance 

wildlife habitat, increase dependable stream flows and increase grazing opportunities. 

Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah, Colorado and 

Wyoming, consortiums of federal and state agencies, including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts could be 

implemented immediately. In keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize 

the cost-effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the Congress 

appropriate and the Administration allocate adequate funds to support the BLM’s 

portion of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program as set forth in the Forum’s 

adopted Plan of Implementation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION OF NEVADA

As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, 

the Colorado River Commission of Nevada (CRC) supports funding for the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program. The CRC supports the fiscal year 2007 funding request of $33,343,000 for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity. As one 

of the five principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the CRC believes the 

BLM needs to specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. 

Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River. Congress has 

recognized the need to confront this problem with its passage of Public Law 93–320 

and Public Law 98–569. Your support of the current funding recommendations that 

support the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is essential to move the 

program forward so that the congressionally directed salinity objectives are 

achieved. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the Committee, on behalf of the Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

present our views on the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. The Commission also endorses the testimony of our four member tribes on their natural resource program 

needs. We respectfully request that Congress reverse the downward trend in program funding that supports tribal well being including the protection of our natural 

resources. We also encourage this committee to take note of the on-going collaborative effort ordered by the federal judge within the region under the Biological 

Opinions on the Federal Columbia River Power System. For fiscal year 2007, the 

Commission has identified the following funding needs: 

$4,570,185, an increase of $1,435,000 over fiscal year 2006, for Columbia River 

Fisheries Management (a subcategory under the Rights Protection Implementation, 

Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring Programs Area), plus pay cost adjustments. Of 

this increased amount: 

—$500,000 is required for base programs to address salmon listings under the Endangered Species Act, including genetic stock identification work required for 

hatchery reform programs. 

—$535,000 for enforcement officers to patrol In-lieu and Treaty Fishing Access 

Sites on the Columbia River. 

—$400,000 to assist in the start-up of a commercial fish processing center and expand marketing efforts to increase the value of the commercial treaty fisheries 

through processing and marketing. 

$1,500,000 is required for Conservation Officers, either as a new program category/line item included under Wildlife and Parks or as a base increase to the Columbia River Fisheries Management line item. 
281 

1Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951; Treaty with the Tribes of Middle 

Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963; Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 

945; Treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957. 

$4,650,000, an increase of $608,485 over fiscal year 2006, plus pay-cost adjustments, for the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty program. 

BACKGROUND

In 1977, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs 

and Yakama Tribes) formed the Commission to provide coordination and technical 

assistance to the member tribes. 

In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four tribes 1 to ensure 

the mutual peace and security of our peoples. For the four tribes’ cession of millions 

of acres, the United States promised to protect and honor the rights and resources 

the tribes reserved to themselves under those treaties. Our rights and our religious 

beliefs are tied to the salmon which is being destroyed by process and delay by those 

blocking the adoption of necessary recovery and restoration actions and programs 

consistent with the Endangered Species Act and federal trust obligations. We have 

a plan designed to restore salmon to healthy sustainable levels. 

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) continues to fall short in funding the 

fish and wildlife efforts proposed by the region’s co-managers. This January, 541 

project proposals were submitted to the Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

(NPCC) for the 2007–09 funding cycle. These proposals followed an extensive 

subbasin planning effort involving tribal, state and federal co-managers as well as 

a growing number of local conservation groups and watershed councils. The 2007– 

09 proposals total $354 million, $338 million and $324 million over the three-year 

period. Under BPA’s proposed artificial funding cap of $179 million, many projects 

will not be funded and ongoing projects may be at risk of not getting funded. We 

are recommending that BPA fish and wildlife funding levels be set at least at $200 

million, $225 million, and $240 million respectively in 2007 to 2009. Unfortunately, 

because of BPA’s artificial funding cap, we must now ask Congress to fund the 

project proposals identified by the region’s fish and wildlife agencies. 

CRITFC’s principles for fisheries protection and restoration are outlined in a restoration plan titled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit of the Salmon). Wy-KanUsh-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit can be viewed at www.critfc.org. The plan’s objectives are to 

halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild salmon 

runs to levels that support tribal ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. 

To achieve these objectives, the plan emphasizes strategies and principles that rely 

on natural production and healthy river systems. The plan utilizes the cooperative 

collaborative conservation approach that the White House has encouraged parties 

to use to address natural resource issues. The tribes can point to several successes 

in watershed-based restoration of salmon working with state, federal and private 

entities. 

Columbia River Fisheries Management Program Needs.—The member tribes have 

identified programmatic funding shortfalls that undermine efforts to fulfill their 

self-determination goals and objectives for ESA recovery planning, hatchery reform, 

treaty fishing access sites, salmon marketing, and conservation enforcement. These 

funding shortfalls require an increase of $1,435,000 over fiscal year 2006 for a new 

program base of $4,570,185 for Columbia River Fisheries Management as explained 

below. 

ESA Recovery Planning.—$500,000 is required for base programs to address salmon listings under the ESA, including extensive coordination with federal agencies regarding recovery planning for listed salmon. In 1991, at the BIA’s request, we submitted a needs assessment regarding outstanding hunting and fishing rights. At 

that time, we requested $1,000,000 to determine the allocation of the conservation 

burden among all sources of salmon mortality caused by hydropower, habitat, hatcheries and harvest impacts and for implementing hatchery production reform. The 

BIA provided only $700,000. The funding has supported ongoing effort to participate 

in multiple processes and forums for salmon recovery planning. 

Hatchery Reform.—While we have been calling for hatchery reform since 1976, the 

White House recently recognized reforming hatchery production programs is an integral part of salmon restoration. The tribes are leaders in restoration efforts utilizing methods such as supplementation and welcome the White House’s new interest to advance this useful tool as part of a comprehensive restore salmon program. 

This broader mandate carries responsibilities to monitor and evaluate the results 

of management actions taken to reform production. To meet regional obligations and 

high standards under this broader mandate, the tribes must develop the capacity 
282 

to analyze a broad base of genetic data essential for conservation and restoration 

of salmon populations, without impacting remaining wild stocks and request 

$200,000 for this requirement. This funding is part of the $500,000 program increase identified for ESA recovery planning. 

In-Lieu Treaty Fishing Access Sites.—We request new base funding of $535,000 

specifically for the Treaty Fishing Access Sites, putting four officers on patrol to provide full coverage. This funding will cover dispatch support, vehicles with equipment, and four new uniformed officers. In-lieu and treaty fishing access sites were 

developed to replace fishing and access sites lost to the tribes as a result of federal 

construction of hydropower dams. While the BIA provides two enforcement personnel for these sites, they are not a dedicated resource and often called away from 

the river area for extended periods of time. Problems include illegal drugs, assaults, 

domestic violence complaints, damage to government property (the in-lieu and access site facilities), and numerous trespass violations by non-tribal members using 

the sites. All four tribes passed formal resolutions requesting that the Bureau provide funding to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Enforcement Department 

to take over protection and enforcement responsibilities at these sites. 

Salmon Marketing.—$400,000 to assist in the start-up of a commercial fish processing center and expand marketing efforts to increase the value of the commercial 

treaty fisheries through processing and marketing. Over the years, tribal fishers 

have been relegated to the bottom of the retail chain, with little compensation for 

their efforts. It is imperative that the tribal fishers have the opportunity to increase 

the economic value of their fisheries through processing, specialty product development, and marketing. The Corps of Engineers, in coordination with the four tribes, 

is building a commercial fish-processing center along the Columbia River. This facility should be finished by early 2007. A business plan to guide operations is being 

completed, and funding is needed for start-up capital needs for equipment and initial staffing, and for expanded marketing activities to process and move a value 

added salmon product. 

Conservation Enforcement Program Restoration.—Due to funding cuts made by 

the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), we have a conservation enforcement request of $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2007 for a new program category under Wildlife 

and Parks for Conservation Officers, or as a base funding increase to the Columbia 

River fisheries management line item, to restore the tribes’ coordinated fisheries enforcement program, and for cultural resource protection. This program was previously funded by BPA but was reduced due to BPA’s artificial limitation on fish 

and wildlife program funding. The BPA and the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council have both endorsed Congressional funding for this successful program. This 

funding would allow enable the Nez Perce Tribe to maintain a well qualified staff 

that provides conservation enforcement in the tributaries in the Snake River Basin, 

would allow the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation to provide 

conservation enforcement in tributaries in northeastern Oregon, and would allow 

the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Enforcement branch to continue conservation enforcement and safety programs on the mainstem of the Columbia River between 

Bonneville and McNary dams. The NPCC acknowledged these program needs in its 

1994 ‘‘Strategy for Salmon,’’ calling for ‘‘an expanded enforcement program to provide additional protection to Columbia River salmon and steelhead.’’ The program 

has been successful in both reducing violations and educating tribal and non-tribal 

fishers and continues to receive the strong endorsement of NPCC, the BPA, and 

NOAA Fisheries. 

U.S.-Canada Salmon Treaty Program.—The 24 treaty fishing tribes that participate in the implementation of the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985 have 

identified a program need of $4,650,000, an increase of $608,485 over fiscal year 

2006, plus pay-cost adjustments, for the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty program. This 

funding supports salmon harvest monitoring and evaluation, mark tagging programs, and research carried out by the tribes on Chinook, coho, chum, sockeye and 

pink salmon stocks originating in the Snake, Columbia River, Washington Coastal 

and Puget Sound rivers and streams. This work is coordinated with state and federal efforts through the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission in order to 

ensure cost and program efficiencies. Continued funding reductions in this program 

area have forced the twenty-four tribes to cut staff in order to maintain critical research needs. 

In summary, through a governing body of leaders from the four tribes working 

together to protect our treaty fishing rights, with a staff of biologists, hydrologists, 

law enforcement personnel, and other experts advising tribal policy-makers, the 

tribes have become proven leaders on natural resource issues, provided that adequate resources are available. These activities are essential to meet the federal 

mandate of co-management reaffirmed by federal court order. We ask for your con-
283 

tinued support of our efforts and we are prepared to provide any additional information you may require on the Department of the Interior budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHUGACH REGIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC), a non-profit Alaska Native coalition for managing 

Tribal natural resources, with its seven member Tribes located in the Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet, respectfully requests restoration of its base funding of $350,000 to the fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Program and an increase of $150,000 for the continued operations 

of the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery. Thus, CRRC is seeking a total of $500,000 

for fiscal year 2007 Appropriations. We have attached a budget of our appropriations request. 

The Tribes of the Chugach Region, who make up CRRC, appreciate the support 

of the Subcommittee in reinstating our fiscal year 2006 funding, which was zeroed 

out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Unfortunately, the Administration has once 

again zeroed out our funding in the President’s proposed BIA fiscal year 2007 budget. Therefore, we are respectfully requesting the support of the Appropriations Subcommittee to restore the $350,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal year 2007 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks budget for CRRC and add it to the base budget as permanent funding. We also request an additional appropriation of $150,000 to support 

the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery until it becomes economically self-sustaining. 

The mission of CRRC is to work with our seven member Tribes to promote and 

develop sound economic resource based-projects and to work collectively to address 

any natural resource and environment-related issues that affect the Native people 

of the Chugach Region. 

Until fiscal year 2002, funding for CRRC had been included in the BIA’s Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks budget for the previous 12 years. In fiscal year 2002–2006, this 

fiscal year funding was not included, but was restored by Congress. Last year, however, our funding was reduced by $50,000, significantly jeopardizing the program’s 

continued operation. CRRC funding, over the past 16 years, has supported the development and operation of many programs that have assisted communities in providing meaningful employment opportunities as well as valuable services and products to the people of the State of Alaska. 

If this funding is not restored, 35 Native people in the Chugach Region will lose 

their jobs. With the scarcity of employment opportunities in rural Alaska, the impact of approximately six families per village losing this income in a village with 

an average population of 100, strikes a devastating blow to the local community 

economy. In addition, these 20 families will create a much larger burden on state 

and federal financial resources as they will be forced to depend upon state and federal welfare programs to provide funding for necessary living expenses. 

This funding also supports the base operating expenses of CRRC, and without it, 

our work will not be able to continue. A summary of some of these programs supported by this funding is provided to give you a better understanding of the integral 

role this funding plays in Tribal community development. 

Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.—The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery is the only 

shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska. A 20,000 sq. ft. shellfish hatchery located 

in Seward, Alaska, the hatchery houses shellfish seed, brood stock, and algae production facilities. Originally known as the Quteckak Shellfish Hatchery, the hatchery employs 4 individuals and is operated by the Chugach Regional Resources Commission. The Hatchery needs an additional $150,000 to facilitate its self-sustaining 

operations. 

Alutiiq Pride has been successful in culturing goeduck and razor clam species but 

additional research and development funding is needed to assist in the nursery, 

growth and marketing stages. Last year, Alutiiq Pride produced 4 million oyster 

seeds. This year, the Hatchery anticipates sales of 8 million oyster seed. Revenue 

from such sales, however, is quite modest ($35,000). The goeduck shellfish farming 

industry is expected to grow rapidly. If Alutiiq Pride can sell goeducks and razor 

clam seeds, the production potential from only 2 million seed sales can approach 

$400,000, a tenfold revenue increase. 

The shellfish industry in Alaska has not yet grown to the point where seed sales 

cover the cost of operations. Oyster sales have matured and goeduck seed sales will 

coincide with the expected growth of that industry. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking 

hatchery, nursery and grow out operations research to adapt mariculture techniques 

for the Alaskan shellfish industry. Until the hatchery is self-sufficient in 3–5 years, 
284 

however, it requires operations and research and development funds if it is to meet 

the State’s growing demand for shellfish seed. The Hatchery seeks annual funding 

of $150,000 for hatchery operating expenses research and development funding to 

develop new shellfish species until we are self-sustaining. 

In addition to our work at Alutiiq Pride, the CRRC has established a host of other 

projects that have restored salmon and sockeye runs to important areas, created important employment opportunities through mariculture project development, and 

initiated important educational projects that will lead to meaningful involvement of 

the Tribes in the management of their resources. These projects include: 

Port Graham Salmon Hatchery.—The Port Graham Salmon Hatchery has been in 

operation since 1990, and raises sockeye, pink, and coho salmon. CRRC provided 

Port Graham with the technical and administrative assistance necessary to build 

the hatchery program. The hatchery’s goal is to rebuild local salmon runs and provide economic opportunities for village residents. CRRC has funded the hatchery operations for many years and employed the hatchery staff consisting of 5–7 full time 

and seasonal employees. 

The original hatchery was located in the net loft of the salmon cannery building. 

This building was completely destroyed by a fire in January of 1998. CRRC worked 

closely with the Port Graham Village Council to obtain funding and help to build 

a new hatchery. The new hatchery was completed in 2000 and is now in the process 

of bringing salmon production to full capacity, which is 110 million pink salmon 

eggs, 5 million sockeye salmon eggs and 2 million coho salmon eggs. The hatchery 

currently produces local stock pink and coho salmon and incubates sockeye salmon 

eggs for the nearby Native Village of Nanwalek. The hatchery is expecting about 

300,000 adult pink salmon to return this year, which will be enough to fill it to capacity. 

Tatitlek Mariculture Project.—The Tatitlek Mariculture Project has grown over 

the past few years to the point of the community constructing a processing facility 

for oysters, with plans to expand to Littleneck clams, scallops, mussels, and cockles. 

The project employs eight community members to care for the oysters until they 

reach a marketable size, at which time they are prepared for market. Another component of the project is to expand upon the existing marketing plan to ensure continuous funding for the project. This project has several funding sources as well, including the BIA, DCED, and revenue received from selling their oysters from the 

Tribal farm, after subsistence needs are met. Tatitlek has also received ANA funding in the past, which assisted them in getting the project started. This grant was 

administered by CRRC. 

Tribal Education Initiative Project.—Under this project, the principal partners, 

CRRC, University of Alaska-Fairbanks and NOAA will work together to establish 

a coastal resources management technician training degree program. CRRC and its 

member villages are committed to greater employment and business development 

and to improving their capacity to play a meaningful role in research, monitoring 

and management of those resources on which their livelihood and culture depend. 

This project will integrate traditional knowledge and western science by involving 

Native Elders and traditional knowledge bearers from the region in curriculum development and project implementation. 

As you can see, federal funding has played an integral role in allowing CRRC to 

develop and implement important community-based programs such as those described above. The Native people employed under this funding, the majority of 

whom live in remote villages, will lose their jobs if this funding is not restored; 

CRRC will be without operating funds, thus unable to facilitate the development of 

local community economies, and Tribes will no longer have a collective voice to address the environmental and resource issues that affect their lives. 

We are respectfully requesting the Committee’s support to restore the original 

amount of $350,000 to the BIA Fish, Wildlife and Parks Budget for the Chugach 

Regional Resources Commission and make it part of the recurring base budget. We 

also request a $150,000 increase to fund the continuing operations of the Alutiiq 

Pride Shellfish Hatchery. Due to the magnitude of this program to the people of the 

Chugach, as well as its far reaching impacts and high cost to benefit ratio, we are 

also requesting that this funding be included in the budget as part of the permanent 

base. We believe that making our funding a part of the permanent base will alleviate the need for us to spend what little funding we have on getting our BIA funding 

restored rather than on meaningful projects that will benefit the communities. 

Once again, we ask the Subcommittee to restore these funds in behalf of the Native people of the Chugach Region and thank you for your support of our programs, 

as well as this opportunity to provide our written testimony. 
285 

BUDGET 

Amount 

Personnel .............................................................................................................................................................. $177,435 

Travel for Board of Directors and Staff .............................................................................................................. 21,000 

Mariculture/Fisheries/Office Supplies .................................................................................................................. 49,970 

Technical Biological and Legal Assistance ......................................................................................................... 43,200 

Miscellaneous Expenses (Telephone, Office Space, etc.) .................................................................................... 58,395 

Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery Operations ........................................................................................................ 150,000 

Total request ........................................................................................................................................... 500,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE

As Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, I am pleased to present this testimony on the Department of the Interior budget for fiscal year 2007. A summary 

of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s fiscal year 2007 funding request for Interior is 

as follows: 

1. To promote improved range management, an increase of $1,322,203.00 for 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe’s Prairie Management Program is requested. 

2. To improve service to sixteen (16) communities serviced by the Cheyenne River 

Sioux Law Enforcement Division in order to come into full compliance with the 

Tribe’s 638 Law Enforcement Contract, $416,351.30 to meet minimum staffing levels for its Law Enforcement Division is requested. An increase of $1,225,698.70 is 

requested for adequate staffing levels. 

3. To meet increased volume of caseloads and to address case backlog, an increase 

of $818,431.00 to hire minimum staff for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court 

System is requested. An increase of $1,164,290.00 is needed to bring the budget up 

to adequate staffing levels. 

4. To fund Phase I of the Trust Asset Management Project for agency-level management of rangeland resources, $1,710,867.00 is requested. 

5. To restore the Welfare Assistance Program funding to fiscal year 2006 levels 

and to specifically fund the Miscellaneous Assistance portion of the Program, 

$250,000.00 is requested. 

6. To provide funding for expansion of the Indian Child Welfare Act Program to 

address a dramatic increase in caseload, $558,093.00 is requested. 

7. To fund BIA Road Maintenance, $1,212,101.00 is requested in order to provide 

adequate maintenance for over 316 miles of reservation roads. 

NARRATIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR FUNDING REQUEST INCREASE

Prairie Management Program.—This Program is responsible for restoring and preserving the mixed grass prairie ecosystem on the Reservation. Its goals are to improve land productivity by implementing range management practices that focus on 

the reduction of erosion, improvement of wildlife habitat, control of noxious weeds 

and the black-tailed prairie dog, as well as bison enhancement and endangered species recovery. This Program has been funded annually by a special congressional appropriation since 1995, however, it has been under-funded since its inception. During fiscal year 2006, its funding was reduced to approximately $416,000—far below 

the level necessary to sustain the Program. As a result of this reduction in funding, 

the Program was forced to reduce its workforce in fiscal year 2006 to 10 full-time 

workers from 18 full-time employees, six contract employees, and six seasonal employees in fiscal year 2005. Indeed, without adequate funding in fiscal year 2007, 

the Program will be forced to close down completely. Accordingly, we are requesting 

$1,322,203.00 to operate the Program so that improvements to the sustainable resource of our rangelands can continue. 

Law Enforcement Division.—The Tribe is requesting $416,351.30 in order to meet 

minimum staffing levels for its Law Enforcement Division. An increase of 

$1,225,698.70 is needed to bring the budget up to adequate staffing levels. The Division in its current state is unable to provide adequate police protection to the 16 

communities it serves. Emergency response time suffers due to the size of the Reservation and the distance between communities. Coverage is further limited by the 

staffing level—6 sergeants and 16 patrol officers. This is the same number of patrol 

officers the Tribe had in 1998—only now the Reservation population is over 20 percent larger. 
286 

BIA appropriations have not increased for Law Enforcement in the past five 

years. The Law Enforcement Division needs additional funding to increase staffing 

levels, so that is can come into compliance with the Tribe’s 638 contract. With an 

increase in funding, salaries can be increased (patrol officers currently start at 

$25,771/year; that starting salary can be raised to $31,830/year) and new officers 

can attend certification training to better serve the public. 

Tribal Court System.—The Tribe is requesting $818,431 in order to bring its Trib- al Court System to minimum staffing levels. An increase of $1,164,290.00 is needed 

to bring the budget up to adequate staffing levels. In fiscal year 2006, the Tribe had 

to fund its Tribal Courts when the $458,345.21 total budget was expended on salaries and fringe benefits alone. The Tribe paid for supplies, communications, and 

building expenses from the CRST General Fund. 

Inadequate staffing levels result in lengthy delays in trial, the issuance of orders, 

and appeals. This interferes with defendants’ right to a speedy trial. The Tribal 

Courts are overburdened—there are 57 cases for every 100 Reservation residents. 

The additional funds would be used to hire one civil court judge, one staff attorney 

or law clerk, one additional criminal court judge, one additional juvenile court judge, 

one mediation clerk, one appellate court clerk, two probation officers (adult/juvenile), one compliance clerk and two court process servers. Money is also needed for 

basic operational costs such as communications, office supplies, and equipment. 

Unless base funding is increased, a high number of cases will continue to be carried out into the next year resulting in violations of criminal defendants’ sixth 

amendment rights, reduction in effective victim protection, and negative impacts on 

reservation businesses that must rely on the civil court for collection actions. 

Trust Asset Management Program.—The Great Plains Region secured $1.825 million for fiscal year 2005 in Public Law 108–447 (Consolidated Appropriations Act) 

for use at the Agency level for staffing in the area of rangeland management. This 

Program, which focuses on the specific needs of large land-based agricultural tribal 

economies, is necessary since lease income from lands for agriculture and livestock 

grazing is a main source of revenue for the Tribe and requires intensive, on site operation to ensure range productivity. Neither the Region nor any of its tribes received funds for fiscal year 2006, however, and a result vital land management services, including lease compliance, resource management planning and IIM account 

management at the agency level, were not adequately addressed for that fiscal period. We are requesting $1,710,867.00 to complete Phase I of the Program. 

Welfare Assistance Program.—The Administration is proposing to reduce funding by $11 million from the 2006 enacted level to $74.1 million for this Program, which 

will negatively impact many critical services and completely eliminate others. For 

instance, the General Assistance (GA) program, which was established by the BIA 

to provide necessary financial assistance to Indians in need when such assistance 

is not available through state or local agencies, would be reduced by $5.8 million 

in fiscal year 2007. Such reduction in funding will have a devastating effect on a 

majority of our most needy members, as we have an over 80 percent unemployment 

rate on our Reservation. Supportive services through the GA Program also provide 

assistance to individuals in overcoming personal or environmental handicaps that 

may inhibit their employability. Such services include transportation assistance, 

shelter costs, legal assistance and other critical tasks related to employment. 

Miscellaneous Assistance would be eliminated under the Administration’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget. Miscellaneous Assistance provides indigent Indians with burial 

assistance, disaster assistance and emergency aid, which are services that are not 

adequately addressed under local, state or Federal programs. Accordingly, retaining 

the BIA’s responsibility for providing these services is critical. Accordingly, we request the Subcommittee’s assistance in assuring that the Welfare Assistance Program is restored to its fiscal year 2006 enacted level and that Miscellaneous Assistance is re-funded. Specifically, we request $250,000.00 for Miscellaneous Assistance. 

Indian Child Welfare Act Program.—The Administration is proposing to reduce 

funding for this Program by $690,000 from the 2006 enacted level, significantly impacting critical support from tribal social workers who have responsibility for providing counseling and other services to Indian families. The Tribe’s Program determines which off-reservation proceedings involve our Tribal families and then decides 

whether to transfer the case to Tribal Court or to intervene and participate in state 

proceedings. Most importantly, the Program finds family placements for our Lakota 

children who are removed from their homes. 

The Tribe received $79,563.47 in fiscal year 2006 for its Program. This amount 

is well below the funding necessary to run our program at adequate levels. The Program currently has 80 active cases (including three appeals to the State Supreme 

Court) and annually receives over 1,300 requests for assistance in 11 states and 8 

counties in South Dakota. Due to a dramatic increase in caseload, the current budg-
287 

et is inadequate to provide for more staffing. We are therefore requesting 

$558,093.00 to bring the budget up to adequate staffing levels to provide salaries 

for five additional staff positions (one attorney, two social workers, and one receptionist). 

BIA Road Maintenance.—In 2005, through the enactment of SAFETEA–LU, Congress made a major commitment to address the poor state of transportation infrastructure on Indian reservations by increasing funding for road construction and improvement. The five year SAFETEA–LU authorization makes critical advances in 

reversing the historical neglect and underfunding for road construction on Indian 

reservations. While investing in the construction and improvement of reservation 

roads is vital to tribal economic development and self-determination, preserving that 

investment by maintaining the integrity of these roads is just as important. The Administration is proposing to cut the Tribal Priority Allocation amount for BIA road 

maintenance by $2.1 million from its 2006 enacted level. This proposal simply does 

not make sense as the lack of maintenance funding, for snow removal for instance, 

can put reservation road out of commission for significant periods of time—in the 

Northern Plains, snow covers roads for, on average, six months out of the year. 

The BIA Agency received $462,101.00 for fiscal year 2006, an amount that has 

proven inadequate for actual road maintenance after deductions for staff salaries, 

transportation costs, building utilities, office supplies and contractual services. 

There are over 316 miles of road in the Tribe’s Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) inventory. This leaves approximately $209.00 per road mile for annual maintenance, 

well below approximately $5,000.00 per road mile the amount that is spent by the 

State for the exact same purpose. The Tribe estimates its unmet need, at a minimum, of $750,000.00 for fiscal year 2006 alone. Thus, we are requesting that the 

annual allocation for the Tribe’s road maintenance be increased to $1,212,101.00 annually for fiscal year 2007, which would allow for an annual average allocation per 

road mile of $2,582.00. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY

PROJECT REQUESTS 

Project Amount 

Funding for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay Wildlife Refuge (FWS, Partners for Fish and Wildlife) ........ $1,540,000 

Monitoring of San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds (USGS, Biological Research and Monitoring) .............................. 900,000 

SUMMARY

The following testimony is in support of the California State Coastal Conservancy’s fiscal year 2007 Interior and Environment Appropriations request. The Conservancy respectfully requests needed funding for the following critical projects: 

$1.54 million, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Pro-
288 

gram (Base Budget would be preferable; Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is 

second choice) and $900,000, U.S Geological Survey, Biological Research and Monitoring. Both of these requests are for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. 

CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND

The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a state agency that 

uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal 

resources, and to provide access to the shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners. 

To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects along the 1,100 

mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay. Through such projects, the 

Conservancy: protects and improves coastal wetlands, streams, and watersheds; 

works with local communities to revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities. 

Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has: helped build more 

than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more than 80 miles of coastal and 

bay lands for public use; assisted in the completion of over 100 urban waterfront 

projects; joined in partnership endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and 

other nonprofit groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the 

Coastal Conservancy’s work and completed projects in every coastal county and all 

nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the citizens of California. 

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT POND RESTORATION PROJECT

This project is of national significance because in conjunction with the Napa River 

Salt Marsh Restoration project it will create the largest restored wetland on the 

west coast of the United States. In addition, the project will provide extensive habitat for federally endangered species and migratory waterfowl and will also provide 

tidal and fluvial flood protection in South San Francisco Bay protecting approximately 42,800 acres, 7,400 homes and businesses, and significant urban infrastructure, to include major highways, hospitals and airport facilities. Finally, the project 

will also improve wildlife-oriented public access and recreational opportunities. The 

combination of these extensive benefits make the project of critical importance to 

the State of California and the region which is evidenced by the amount of support 

this project enjoys in local, state and federal circles. 

In order to continue to advance this important study it is imperative that local 

interests and the federal government work together to ensure a reliable funding 

stream for the project. In accordance substantial cost-sharing has already begun 

among the land management agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed $8 million toward the $100 million acquisition of the salt ponds. The State of 

California provided $72 million and the Hewlett Foundation, Packard Foundation, 

Moore Foundation, and Goldman Fund provided $20 million. The foundations are 

providing an additional $15 million for restoration planning and $9 million for land 

management. The State of California is providing over $8 million for planning and 

$6 million for land management. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE FUNDING

For the upcoming fiscal year, we respectfully request the inclusion of $1,540,000 

in funding for the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge for continued management and maintenance. 

The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge is now managing 

9,600 acres of the recently acquired South Bay Salt Ponds that were acquired from 

Cargill in 2003. In order to effectively manage these lands, including installation 

and management of water control structures, levee maintenance, and monitoring of 

salt ponds increased funding is needed through the Department of Fish and Wildlife. In 2004 $460,000 was added by the President to the Refuge’s base budget in 

and $540,000 in appropriations in fiscal year 2005 and 2006 have allowed for the 

successful implementation of interim management of the site. The cost of maintenance has increased over what had originally been estimated by Cargill and an additional $1,000,000 is needed for levees maintenance to protect Silicon Valley from 

tidal flooding prior to implementation of the permanent flood control solution by the 

Corps, which will not commence until at least 2012 and will require years to complete. 
289 

USGS FUNDING

We respectfully request the inclusion of $900,000 in funding for the United States 

Geological Survey for the purpose of monitoring the San Francisco Bay. 

The funds being requested for fiscal year 2007 would be used by the Geological 

Survey to conduct interdisciplinary monitoring, specifically USGS will be engaging 

in biological, hydrological, and water quality studies of Salt Ponds in San Pablo Bay 

and San Francisco Bay. This monitoring is essential to the health of the Bay Area 

and the future of the project as it will be critical in shaping the outcome of the feasibility study and future design and implementation of the project. Without the proposed monitoring activities, there will be little to no understanding of the benefits 

and impacts of the restoration activities that are being planned by the Army Corps 

of Engineers and local sponsors. The State of California is providing gap funding 

to USGS, but cannot continue to fund the monitoring without assistance from the 

Federal Government. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

On behalf of the County of San Diego, please support full funding for the Payment 

in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program in fiscal year 2007. With your assistance, Congress provided $233 million for PILT in fiscal year 2006. 

This funding provides important compensation to local communities that have significant amounts of Federal land in their counties. PILT partially offsets the costs 

of supplying many valuable services such as search and rescue, law enforcement, 

and road maintenance. 

The County of San Diego strongly supports full funding for this program. The authorization for PILT would provide funding at an estimated $340 million annually, 

which is warranted by the fiscal pressures experienced by counties. 

Please continue to work to increase the funding necessary for this program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA

Dear Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $2.2 million 

from the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program for the Cedar Springs property near Flagstaff, Arizona. As you may know the President’s budget is requesting 

$880,000 for Phase I of this project. 

The conservation of the 800-acre Cedar Springs property is the top priority project 

for the Forest Legacy Program in Arizona. Riparian forests, including those on the 

property, are home to the most biologically diverse natural communities in the 

state. The project will also help maintain important habitat and migration corridors 

from the mixed conifer forest of the higher elevations, across the mid-elevation 

pinyon-juniper forest, to the grasslands at lower elevations. 

Natural springs on the property provide important sources of water for wildlife 

on thousands of surrounding acres. These catchments are a potential refugia for the 

Little Colorado spinedace, a federally-listed, threatened fish species. A number of 

other important wildlife species rely on the springs and the property for wintering 

habitat. 

The property is also home to a number of historical resources from pioneer days. 

Historical constructions include a homestead barn and corral, a cedar-post flume, 

the Grand Canyon Stage Coach line, and the Beale Wagon Road, built between 1857 

and 1859 across New Mexico and Arizona as a route to California. Remnants of this 

road remain on the property, and the Forest Service has developed parts of the road 

into the 19.5-mile Beale Wagon Road Historic Trail. 

The Cedar Springs project is consistent with Coconino County’s regional conservation strategy and links protected lands in the Coconino National Forest, Northern 

Arizona University’s Centennial Forest, and the Coconino Plateau Natural Reserve 

Lands. The project complements larger conservation easements to the north and 

west, and protects one of the last remaining private parcels of significant size in a 

landscape of otherwise conserved lands. 

An appropriation of $2.2 million from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 

2007 will protect the Cedar Springs property in its entirety and preserve forestlands 

vital to the region’s natural and historic character. The Forest Legacy Program and 

their non-governmental partners are working with the landowner to best conserve 

this property with the requested federal funding. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Cedar Springs project. 
290 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES OF THE

FLATHEAD NATION

Honorable Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan, and members of the subcommittee, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation 

(CSKT) appreciates this opportunity to present you with testimony on the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Interior. Before offering 

remarks on the overall budget for Indian programs and providing more information 

about the specific projects for which the CSKT request funding, here is the basic 

information about our budgetary requests: —$100,000 for a feasibility study on the establishment of a Salish and Kootenai 

Judicial Center and Regional Detention Facility 

—Continued funding for the CSKT land consolidation program 

—$500,000 for tribal water rights negotiations 

—Funding for the Indian Health Service to achieve parity with other federal beneficiaries 

Background.—The CSKT reservation is a result of the cession of tribal lands 

made by the Salish, Kootenai, and Pend d’Oreilles Indians under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855. In the Hellgate Treaty the Tribes ceded over 20 million acres of ancestral 

land (much of what is now considered western Montana) in exchange for a reservation of title to lands within an area of 1.3 million acres in northwestern Montana. 

In 1904, Congress opened up the Flathead reservation to allotment and widespread 

transfer of tribal land into the hands of individual tribal members and ultimately 

to non-Indians took place. Beginning in the 1940’s, the CSKT began to recover some 

of the lands over which the Tribes had lost ownership. Currently, we have over 

600,000 acres of land in trust, almost 71,000 owned by the Tribe in fee, as well as 

over 36,000 acres owned in fee by individual tribal members, within the reservation. 

The Flathead Nation has been on the cutting edge not only of land consolidation 

in Indian Country, but also in the exercise of tribal self-determination. 

The CSKT is a Self-Governance Compact tribe, which means that we operate almost all of the programs and services that the federal government, mainly through 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service, would be required to provide were the Tribes not operating them on behalf of the federal government. In addition to the more traditional programs that many tribes operate, we operate the 

Land Realty program, operate and manage the power utility (Mission Valley Power), 

and the Financial Trust Services program, including Individual Indian Money (IIM) 

accounts, as well as some IHS functions but not all of them. We recently had to give 

the Contract Care program back to the IHS to operate because we were going bankrupt operating this program for the IHS While we are confident that the Tribe is 

the entity best suited to carrying out all of these activities, they require major obligations of financial support from the federal government. 

Fiscal Year 2007 Interior Budget.—We will not spend time in this testimony going 

over the national scope Indian programs but will say that we agree with the analysis of the budget prepared by the National Congress of American Indians and the 

other large Indian organizations. We share their concern about the degree to which 

the proposed budgets are wholly insufficient to do the job that the Congress has assigned the BIA and the IHS. We are concerned about programs slated for total 

elimination such as Johnson O’Malley education funding in the BIA. 

For the Indian Health Service, the President’s overall budget for service programs, including direct services and contract support costs, proposes an increase of 

approximately $130 million for the amount enacted for fiscal year 2006. While the 

majority of the budget items in the service programs subcategory remain flat, which 

is itself disappointing given the lack of acknowledgement of inflation and pay cost 

adjustments, it is also disconcerting to see the urban Indian health program subject 

to elimination. This program provides service to thousands of Indians throughout 

the United States that live in cities and certainly serves some CSKT tribal members. Among other things, this will lead to those people returning to the reservation 

for services and there is no corresponding increase that will allow us to serve them. 

The continuation of an effective moratorium on construction of new health facilities 

in Indian Country is another concern to the Flathead Nation, as we stand together 

with our fellow tribes in the position that health care facilities, as well as health 

care services, in Indian Country are lagging far behind the acceptable standards for 

the public at large. 

Public Safety and Justice.—In BIA Construction of public safety and justice facilities, the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $11.6 million. The National 

Congress of American Indians in its budget request for fiscal year 2007 has proposed a much more ambitious table that would fund 15 new detention facilities in 

Indian Country within the next three years, at a total cost of $150 million. Obvi-
291 

ously, under the President’s request, which is basically flat from the amount enacted 

by Congress for construction of public safety and justice facilities in fiscal year 2006, 

there is funding for little more than one facility per year. The CSKT have for over 

10 years been considering the possibility of developing a tribal judicial center that 

better meets the needs of tribal police, prosecutors, courts, and probation officers, 

and now request $100,000 in funding for a study to determine the feasibility of a 

new judicial and regional detention facility on the Flathead Reservation. 

The CSKT court system processes around 2,300 criminal cases annually and has 

concurrent jurisdiction with the State of Montana for felony cases under Public Law 

280. While the tribal court generally takes a rehabilitative approach to criminal sentencing, referring offenders to services for alcohol treatment, mental health treatment, or anger management when appropriate; some violent offenders who we 

would prefer to be in jail have instead been released because of a lack of jail space. 

This is definitely not in the best interests of the Tribe or the surrounding communities, but is a reality of the limited capacity of our system. There are many other 

tribes in Montana, the Northwest, and throughout Indian Country, that have similar problems, and that is why the Interior budget for construction of public safety 

and justice facilities must reflect a much more ambitious effort to construct and improve facilities in Indian Country. This problem is not limited to Indian Country either, as the CSKT knows that some Montana counties, including Flathead, Lake 

and Missoula Counties have been forced to send their prisoners out to other jurisdictions because of a lack of capacity. The need for a new regional and tribal facility 

is clear, but a more formal study of the situation is needed to move forward. 

In 1998 the Flathead Nation entered into a contract with EKM, Incorporated to 

conduct an assessment of the current and future needs of the CSKT court and detention services. The assessment showed that the existing facility that the Tribe has 

in place is insufficient to keep up with the needs of tribal justice system currently 

and into the future. The space at the existing facility is simply too limited to provide 

adequate services. Further, the assessment concluded, the mechanical and electrical 

systems are completely outdated and should be replaced entirely. The CSKT also 

does not have a juvenile facility, which results in additional expenditures of 

$250,000 to detain juveniles at off-reservation locations. The feasibility study we 

propose is a reasonable step to take in determining the likely benefits to not only 

the CSKT but to neighboring localities and counties of a new judicial and detention 

facility. Attached for your information and files is a more detailed description of 

what we would like to do with this study. 

Indian Land Consolidation.—Indian lands are increasingly owned by a number of 

heirs who each hold a fractionated interest in parcels of property. This result of the 

allotment era when tribal lands were divided and parceled out to individual tribal 

members has resulted in a system where hundreds or even thousands of people hold 

property interests in a given parcel of land. The allotment period also resulted in 

‘‘checkerboarding’’ of Indian land ownership between Indians and non-Indians and 

has created an entanglement of jurisdictional issues that the federal government, 

tribes, states, counties, and localities must work through together. The substantial 

increase in the overall budget for the Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) program is a positive step for Indian Country. We are one of the tribes involved in the 

BIA’s ILCA program. The Bureau approached our tribes to get involved because (a) 

we have plenty of fractionated land and (b) we are using our limited tribal dollars 

to repurchase land on the reservation whenever it comes up for sale. We are therefore able to use tribal dollars as a local match to BIA ILCA funds. We believe we 

may be the only tribes in the country doing so. OMB is pressuring the BIA to only 

target ILCA funds on the most fractionated reservations and we are not in the top 

10 in that regard. Nonetheless we have a lot of fractionation and again are ensuring 

the BIA gets a good bang for its buck by supplementing the program with tribal 

funds. We therefore request that the Appropriations Committee include language in 

the fiscal year 2007 Interior Report directing the BIA to continue funding the ILCA 

program on our reservation at the same level at which is has been previously funded. 

Water Rights Negotiations Funding.—The Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes are actively negotiating water rights with the Montana Water Rights Compact Commission. These negotiations began in the mid 1980’s. During the late 

1980’s and early 1990’s the State of Montana shifted priorities to other Montana Indian reservations. Then in 1995 the CSKT renewed active negotiations and the 

United States created the Federal Flathead Water Rights Negotiating Team. Negotiations have continued since this time and are getting progressively active requiring increasing funding especially with the Montana Water Rights Compact Commission scheduled to terminate in 2009. 
292 

The Tribes prepared a proposal for assistance in funding this effort in 2006 to the 

Portland Regional Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be funded under the 

Water Resources Planning and Pre-Development Program for $707,625. The Tribes 

have been notified that only $31,694 will be made available to the Tribes. The 

Tribes have reviewed the proposal and have determined that $500,000 would be 

adequate per year to support our water rights negotiations effort. 

While the level of negotiation activities increases the level of federal support continues to decrease. This continues to be a concern for the Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes especially with the Montana Water Rights Compact Commission 

terminating in 2009. 

IHS Budget.—As everyone knows, good health care systems are essential for 

maintaining health, and healthy individuals are the keystone of healthy families 

and healthy communities. Despite the federal governments trust obligations owed 

to Indian Tribes in the field of health care, Indians remain the minority population 

with the highest rate of a number of serious diseases in the United States. Further, 

Indian people have by far the lowest life expectancy of any minority population in 

the United States. Alcoholism, diabetes, drug abuse, cancer, heart disease, accidental deaths, and suicide are all rampant in Indian Country. While not all of the 

burden can be placed on the federal government for the well-being of Indian people, 

the federal government does have a legal obligation to fund Indian health care services, among other populations. 

While Indian people rank highest among occurrences of a number of major diseases, among all of the groups for which the United States must pay for health care, 

Indians rank the lowest in terms of per person funding. According to a recent study 

conducted by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, ‘‘A Quite Crisis: Federal Funding 

and Unmet Needs in Indian Country,’’ the Federal Government pays $5,915 annual 

per Medicare recipient. It pays $5,214 on average annual per veteran through VA 

health care. The U.S. even pays $3,803 annually in health care for each federal prisoner. For Indian people, though, the federal government contributes only $1,914 per 

person annually. This disparity is completely unacceptable. The government is essentially saying we are only worth half as much a federal prisoner! The Congress 

must begin to address this stunning inequity and commit to parity funding between 

tribes and other federal health care beneficiaries. At this time, the CSKT would like 

to call for a ramping up of the IHS service budget over the next five to seven years 

to reach parity with other federal health care recipients. This is going to require 

a concentrated political effort on behalf of advocates for Indian Country in Congress, 

as nothing less than an increase of $500 million per year for the next five years 

will get Indian health care to a level of equity with other federal health care recipients. This must be a coordinated approach between the Budget Committees, the Authorizing Committees and the Appropriations Committee but it really must start in 

fiscal year 2007. 

Section 122.—We do request that the language now appearing as Section 122 of 

the fiscal year 2006 Interior Appropriations be extended again in fiscal year 2007 

and that the Committee consider an appropriate level of funding for the participating tribes so that we can fully meet trust standards as we are required by the 

language of the section. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budet. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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.. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 
293 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA

NATION

Forestry.—The Yakama Nation seeks commitments from the Federal Government 

to ensure adequate funding to implement forest management measures designed to 

protect, maintain and enhance our sacred forest resource. 

Background.—The Yakama Indian Reservation is located in south central Washington (Figure 1) on the east slope of the Cascade Mountain range. The reservation 

is approximately 1.3 million acres, of which more than 600,000 acres are forested. 

The Yakama forested area contains an estimated 10 billion board feet of timber and 

approximately 150 million board feet is harvested annually. It is the largest forestry 

operation nationally within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The Yakama forest plays a vital role for the Yakama People. Our forest is used 

for subsistence living which includes traditional foods and medicines, big game and 

fish, and a spiritual setting for our enrolled members (Figure 2). It also is essential 

for both the Tribal economy and surrounding communities. 
294 

The Yakama Nation forest resource is the absolute core of our Tribe’s economy. 

The timber harvesting program creates economic opportunities and includes employment within the forestry and natural resource programs, tribal logging operations, 

and tribal enterprises such as the lumber mill, Yakama Forest Products (YFP). YFP 

alone employs over 340 people, over 90 percent are tribal affiliated, with an annual 

payroll and benefits exceeding $11 million. More than 2,000 jobs are directly related 

to the Yakama forest and an estimated five times that amount indirectly benefit. 

Although the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) continues to carry out its trust responsibility, the Yakama Nation is increasingly participating in the management of 

our forest resources. The BIA has contributed significantly to the management of 

our resources despite the budget limitations. The BIA forestry budgets have remained relatively flat over the past decade, while our forest has increasingly been 

impacted by insect and disease problems and a compounding increase in the risk 

of catastrophic wildfire. 

From 1980 to the late 1990’s, the BIA failed in offering the full amount of timber 

that was scheduled for harvest. The effects of this shortfall contributed to overstocked stands that were ravaged by a Western Spruce Budworm outbreak during 

the 1990’s. The Yakama Nation accelerated the harvest levels in 1999 through 2001, 

but we are once again falling short of our annual allowable harvest levels. Although 

we achieved our allowable cut of 147 million board feet in 2004, we fell well short 

of this level in 2003 harvesting 131 million board feet. This past year in 2005, we 

were able to harvest only 128 million board feet. 

These reduced harvest levels can be attributed directly to the funding levels. 

Along with BIA federal funds, the Yakama Nation retains 10 percent of the total 

value harvested and uses these administrative fees to fund nearly half of our forestry program. The combination of falling timber prices and the BIA failing to meet 

its trust obligation to offer the annual allowable harvest is causing severe budget 

shortfalls. 

Many of the budget shortfalls are being met with tribal funds. In fiscal year 2006, 

the Yakama Nation will contribute more than $315,000 to pay for the shortfall in 

salaries of our tribal employees who receive their funding from the administrative 
295 

fees. Additionally, the Yakama Nation assists in the funding of many of our natural 

resource programs including archeology, cultural resources, fisheries and wildlife. 

Forestry Recommendations.—The Yakama Nation requests a stronger commitment from the federal government in meeting its trust obligation to the Yakama Nation. At minimum, the BIA should offer the annual allowable harvest to the Yakama 

Nation. In order to prepare these timber sales to meet the standards in the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic 

Preservation Act, additional funding is imperative. The Yakama Nation therefore requests the following. 

—Reallocation of the Increased Harvest Initiative Funds.—These nonrecurring 

funds are allocated for the specific purpose of allowing tribes to achieve their 

annual allowable harvest levels. The Yakama Nation receives a portion of these 

funds but requests an additional $300,000 increase. 

—Reallocation of the Endangered Species Act Funds.—These nonrecurring funds 

are allocated for the purpose of meeting the requirements of federally listed animal species. The Yakama Nation is required under federal law to survey for the 

Northern Spotted Owl, a federally listed species. We request an additional 

$200,000 increase. 

—Forest Development Funds.—These funds are allocated for the maintenance and 

enhancement of commercial timberland to support the desired level of annual 

timber harvesting. Since the Yakama Nation operates the largest forestry program nationally, the Yakama Nation should receive the highest level possible 

from this funding source. We request an additional $200,000 increase. 

The Yakama Nation further recommends supporting the ‘‘Indian Forest Management Assessment Team’’ report, December 2003. The report is a requirement of the 

National Indian Forest Resources Management Act, Public Law 101–630, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to obtain an independent assessment every 10 

years. The report is the second independent congressionally mandated report on the 

state of Indian forests and forestry. The report contains an analysis of funding on 

Indian forest lands compared with similar federal and private forests. 

The support of these recommendations will serve to better meet the trust obligations of the BIA and protect our sacred resources that are so vital to our traditional 

values and economic viability. 

Johnson O’Malley.—The Yakama Nation strongly opposes the proposed total 

defunding of Johnson O’Malley (JOM) education funds. In fiscal year 2006, JOM 

was funded at $16.4 million. JOM provides financial assistance to Tribes through 

their Tribal Priority Allocations to supplement funding received by tribes from other 

federal, states, and tribal sources. Tribes have used JOM to help Indian students 

succeed in school by providing counseling, cultural activities, remedial education, 

and crucial school supplies, even extending to things like eyeglasses. JOM is a crucial program to the Yakama Nation because of the flexibility it provides in helping 

us meet the needs of our students. JOM should definitely not be eliminated, and 

should at least be funded at the level for fiscal year 2006, if not higher. 

Attorney Fees.—We urge the Congress to return the $7 million that came from 

BIA accounts to pay the Cobell attorneys, most importantly the $2 million that was 

taken from attorney fees account and the $1 million from other across the board 

cuts in BIA programs. Tribes desperately need attorney fees funding to protect their 

natural resources and there are other sources that would have been far more appropriate to use to pay the Cobell attorneys 

The Yakama Nation relies on the Interior litigation support and attorney fees to 

protect our treaty rights to fish, hunt, and gather in the Hanford Reach portion of 

the Columbia River Basin. In some cases, such as that concerning cleanup of the 

Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the United States has a conflict of interest that prevents it from bringing a suit on behalf of a tribe. This is the purpose of the litigation 

support and attorneys fees funds: to facilitate the ability of Indian tribes to litigate 

to protect their interests when they United States cannot do so. The Hanford Reach, 

located along the Columbia River within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, is one 

of the most heavily contaminated sites of nuclear waste materials in the world. 

However, it also happens to be an area of usual and accustomed use for the Yakama 

people that carries major cultural, social, and spiritual significance. The Tribe continues to lead efforts to force the Department of Energy to abide by the terms of 

the Yakama’s treaty with the United States through a professional cleanup of the 

Hanford site. We have used the funds to assess injury and recover damages to our 

trust resources harmed by nuclear waste facilities located on the Hanford Reach 

along the Columbia River. We request $750,000 for Litigation support and $450,000 

for Attorneys Fees under the Rights Protection Implementation category of the Interior budget. 
296 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE

RESERVATION

Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan and members of the Subcommittee, on 

behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (‘‘Colville Tribe’’ or the 

‘‘Tribe’’) I thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony to the Subcommittee. As you may know, the Colville Tribe has been working with Senators 

Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell to restore $630,000 in Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (‘‘BIA’’) that were not requested in the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request. These funds, administered in the ‘‘Other Recurring Programs’’ account of the BIA’s budget, are vital to 

the continued public safety and the security of the United States/Canadian border. 

Before discussing how the Colville Tribe uses these funds and why the funds are 

vital to ensure public safety, I would like to take this opportunity to provide some 

brief background on the Colville Tribe. Although now considered a single Indian 

tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation is, as the name states, a 

confederation of twelve smaller aboriginal tribes and bands from all across eastern 

Washington State. The Colville Reservation encompasses approximately 1.4 million 

acres and is located in north central Washington State. The Colville Tribe has over 

9,200 enrolled members, making it one of the largest Indian tribes in the Pacific 

Northwest. About half of the Tribe’s members live on or near the Colville Reservation. 

LAKE ROOSEVELT MANAGEMENT/ENFORCEMENT FUNDS

Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds enable both the Colville Tribe 

and the Spokane Tribe to employ law enforcement officers to patrol Lake Roosevelt 

and its shoreline to enforce federal laws (through cross-deputization arrangements) 

and tribal health and safety laws. Lake Roosevelt is the 151-mile reservoir of the 

Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric power plant in the United States and 

the third largest in the world. As a national tourist destination, Lake Roosevelt receives approximately 1.5 million visitors annually. 

Homeland Security 

The law enforcement patrols funded by Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement 

funds have become increasingly critical since the September 11 terrorist attacks. As 

you can imagine, the Grand Coulee Dam is considered a ‘‘high-value’’ terrorist target. Indeed, in early 2002 media outlets reported that U.S. troops recovered materials relating to the Grand Coulee Dam in the rubble of Al-Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan. Tribal personnel funded by Lake Roosevelt Management funds have in 

recent years worked cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation and the National 

Parks Service to increase their patrols to correspond with the heightened security 

of the Grand Coulee Dam. To this end, Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement 

funds play a direct role in protecting public safety by ensuring that a key access 

point to the Grand Coulee Dam, Lake Roosevelt, remains patrolled. 

Border Security 

The patrols funded by Lake Roosevelt/Management funds are also an integral 

part of securing the United States’ northern border with Canada. The northern 

boundary of the present-day Colville Reservation is approximately 70 miles long and 

is within 35 miles of the U.S./Canadian border. In addition, the Tribe owns two 

large tracts of trust land and numerous smaller parcels that are either contiguous 

to or within 5 miles of the U.S./Canadian border. One of these tracts, a 562 acre 

parcel, abuts the U.S./Canadian border. Another 592 acre tract is within 5 miles of 

the border. Drug smuggling along the U.S./Canadian border, particularly in rural 

eastern Washington State, has become an increasing problem in recent years. 

In recent weeks, numerous sightings of unmarked fixed-winged aircraft capable 

of landing on water have been reported on lakes and waterways within and near 

the Colville Reservation. Most significantly, on March 14, 2006, tribal law enforcement officers funded by Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds seized an 

unmarked float plane from Canada that was attempting to smuggle illegal drugs 

into the United States through the Colville Reservation. After being alerted to the 

plane and after a long chase, the Tribe’s officers captured and detained the pilot the 

next day and handed over to federal law enforcement authorities an estimated $2 

million in illegal drugs that had been dropped by the plane on the bank of Columbia 

River near the Grand Coulee Dam. The U.S. Border Patrol recently honored the 

Tribal officers that participated in this seizure. 
297 

In addition to this incident, three other incidents involving similar float planes 

smuggling drugs via waterways on the Colville Reservation have also resulted in arrests in recent weeks: 

—On February 19, 2006, a float plane was spotted landing and depositing bags 

of illegal drugs on Omak Lake, a small lake within the Colville Reservation. Although that plane and its pilot managed to escape, the Tribe’s law enforcement 

officers apprehended the driver of a vehicle that retrieved the bags and recovered an estimated $400,000 worth of illegal drugs. 

—On March 23, 2006, a float plane landed on Soap Lake, another small lake within the Colville Reservation, and dropped yet another load of illegal drugs. That 

plane and its pilot were also able to escape but authorities were able to arrest 

two Canadian citizens who retrieved the drugs. The drugs seized in this incident were valued at $1.5 million. 

—Earlier this month, the Tribe’s law enforcement gave chase to yet another float 

plane, though the plane managed to escape. 

The Colville Tribe’s law enforcement personnel receive two to three reports of 

float plane sightings per week on the Colville Reservation. The Colville Tribe has 

reason to believe that up to 25 aircraft may be involved in cross-border drug smuggling activities using the Colville Reservation. The fact that these float planes are 

focusing their smuggling activities on waterways and other bodies of water within 

the Colville Reservation makes funding for Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds all the more critical. 

FUNDING HISTORY AND MATCHING FUNDS

Congress has appropriated Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds to the 

BIA every year since the five parties executed the agreement in 1990. In turn, the 

BIA apportions the funds between the Colville Tribe (approximately two-thirds) and 

the Spokane Tribe (approximately one-third). From fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 

year 2005, Congress funded the program at $630,000. Congress funded the program 

at $350,000 in fiscal year 2006. 

Matching funds for the Colville Tribe’s activities under this program for fiscal 

year 2007 include the following: (1) the Tribe will contribute approximately 

$500,000 (the Spokane Tribe similarly contributes substantial tribal resources to its 

program); (2) the U.S. Department of Justice will contribute $175,000 through the 

COPS grant program; (3) the Tribe reprogrammed $170,000 in BIA tribal priority 

allocation funds from other BIA programs; and (4) the program will generate an estimated $90,000 from fines and fees. The Colville Tribe uses all the funds from the 

direct appropriations to fund the salaries of the program’s 12 full-time officers. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue and to describe 

how important Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds are, both to the 

Tribe and to the continued public safety. The Colville Tribe appreciates the Subcommittee’s consideration of the Tribe’s request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Sub-activity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery Operations & Maintenance 

Sub-activity, Hatchery Operations Project) to support the ongoing operation of the 

FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 
298 

1 USGS identified this report as ‘‘in press’’ in 2001 (USGS Professional Paper 1653). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO WATER CONGRESS

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; En- dangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery Operations & Maintenance 

Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to support ongoing operation of the FWS’ 

Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah. 3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DUCHESNE COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

We are writing to request your support for continued funding for the Colorado 

River Salinity Control Title II Program. This program has greatly assisted in removal of many tons of salt from the Colorado River, but there is still a great deal 

of work to be completed that will require an adequate level of funding. The seven 

Colorado River Basin states, as well as Mexico, have greatly benefitted from this 

important program. For many years high concentrations of salt in the Colorado 

River had severely damaged agricultural production in the West as well as resulting 

in poor quality water being delivered to Mexico. 

Great strides have been made in improving water quality in the Colorado River 

since the inception of this program but we strongly feel that there is still a great 

deal to be done. We understand that the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum is requesting $17,500,000 in funds be appropriated for this program for fiscal 

year 2007 and we would like to add our full support to that funding level request. 

We would also like to express support for the continued funding of the Natural Resource Conservation Service program, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program 

(EQIP) which works closely with the Salinity Program. It is very important that 

adequate funding levels be maintained for it also. 

We request the Subcommittee’s assistance to ensure that the Colorado River Salinity Control Title II program and EQIP program are provided with continued adequate funding. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID J. BARDIN

Chairman Burns and Members of the Subcommittee: I urge Congressional actions 

of great potential benefit to citizens of Montana and North Dakota and to the national security of the United States. 

—In 2000, USGS ‘‘misplaced’’ two virtually-finished studies that could help augment our country’s domestic oil and gas supplies—studies made with taxpayer 

support by a prolific U.S. government scientist. 

—Please direct the U.S. Geological Survey in the Department of the Interior to 

share with the entire exploration and development community (not just the private consultants to whom USGS transferred possession in 2000) two studies involving large amounts of crude oil in the Bakken Source System of the Williston 

Basin. 

—Bakken oil is a very high quality, low sulfur, low asphalt, no tar crude oil. 

—The two studies, prepared by the late Leigh C. Price, an award-winning scientist who died in August 2000, untimely ending a 27-year career at the USGS, 

are: 

—A comprehensive report, ‘‘Origins and characteristics of the basin-centered 

continuous-reservoir unconventional oil-resource base of the Bakken Source 

System, Williston Basin’’—a 1999/2000 manuscript.1
299 

2Price described this valuable map and its preparation in the report referred to above (e.g., 

at pages 217–218) and in a posthumous USGS publication (Chapter H in DDS–67, a book funded in part by the Department of Energy). USGS has received a FOIA request for the Hydrogen 

Index mapping information. 3 USGS located internal copies of the manuscript only when furnished one of the external copies, this year. 4The Price manuscript details mass-balance calculations (while stressing inherent limits on 

its accuracy, at pages 210–211); it lays out estimates of in-place oil resources—413 BBO within 

a wide range of 271 to 503 BBO—and uses a recovery factor of at least 50 percent (page 235). 

The NOGA does not disclose estimates of oil resources in place or recovery factors for this unconventional, continuous-type resource. 5 Annual growth of Elm Coulee Field, MT—actual production of Bakken oil (in barrels)—follows: 

2000— 21,164 

Continued 

—An extensively-researched Hydrogen Index contour map of the Williston 

Basin, assembling results of analyzing some 1,700 rock samples.2

—Please also encourage USGS in its scheduled 2007/2008 reassessment of undiscovered, continuous-type, unconventional crude oil and associated gas resources 

of the Williston Basin to consider those studies (which supported 1,000 times 

more barrels of potential crude oil resource than the official USGS assessment) 

or openly explain its reasons for disregarding them. 

These studies (and results of successful exploration by independent producers 

since 2000) cast doubts about an official ‘‘National Oil and Gas Assessment’’ (NOGA) 

as first issued by USGS in 1995 and updated in 2005. In 1995, USGS did not regard 

Price’s resource assessment as sufficiently documented to be worthy of considering. 

Price laid it all out in the 1999/2000 manuscript, explaining bases for his assessment and criticizing flaws in the NOGA assessment (at pages 177–183). USGS silently buried the manuscript until 2006.3

Accepting Price’s estimate of a recoverable, 200∂ billion barrel continuous-type 

recoverable resource in Montana and North Dakota would multiply the official 

USGS NOGA estimate of total USA technically-recoverable resources onshore and 

state waters. 

POTENTIAL UNDISCOVERED, TECHNICALLY-RECOVERABLE CRUDE OIL RESOURCES 

Estimate 

Assessment made Mean estimate 

Crude oil barrels by year 

NOGA (onshore & state waters, total USA) ......................................................... USGS ......... 1995 ... 112,600,000,000 

Including: 

Undiscovered conventional fields (includes North Slope ANWR) ............... ............. ....... 30,300,000,000 

Reserve growth in conventional field ......................................................... ............. ....... 60,000,000,000

Continuous-type accumulations ................................................................. ............. ....... 2,100,000,000

Of which Williston Basin Bakken oil ................................................. ............. ....... 150,000,000 

Measured (proven) reserves ....................................................................... ............. ......... 20,200,000,000 

Williston Basin Bakken oil .................................................................................. L.C. Price .. 1999 ... 206,500,000,000 

NOGA (onshore & state waters)—sum of conventional and continuous-type 

resources (includes North Slope ANWR at 10.36 BBO).

USGS ......... 2005 ... 47,340,000,000 

Outer Continental Shelf: 

Alaska OCS ................................................................................................. MMS .......... 2006 ... 26,610,000,000 

Atlantic OCS ............................................................................................... MMS .......... 2006 ... 3,820,000,000 

Gulf of Mexico OCS ..................................................................................... MMS .......... 2006 ... 44,920,000,000 

Pacific OCS ................................................................................................. MMS .......... 2006 ... 10,530,000,000 

Proven reserves (onshore, state waters, OCS) .................................................... EIA ............. 2004 ... 21,371,000,000 

Of course, Price’s figures (like the NOGA) are just estimates. They are subject to 

uncertainty.4 But hard evidence has mounted. The Bakken Source System is now 

a very hot ‘‘play.’’ Although USGS was unaware until this year of the Elm Coulee 

Field, discovered in 2000, it is the largest onshore discovery in the lower 48 States 

in 50 years. USGS did not grasp that this rapidly growing Bakken oil production 

(which passed 50,000 barrels of oil per day late in 2005) is based on horizontal drilling of hundreds of oil wells into dolomites immediately adjacent to source rocks 

(where Julie LeFever, of the North Dakota Geological Survey, and Leigh Price predicted in the early 1990s that abundant oil would be found) rather than into the 

Bakken shale source rock layer which seems to be all that USGS considered in its 

NOGA assessment.5
300 

2001—277,784 

2002—798,075 

2003—2,710,095 

2004—7,565,126 

2005—15,713,513 

Source: Jim Halvorson, Montana Oil & Gas Conservation Board. 

USGS has shown extreme caution as to continuous-type resources. A USGS culture of ‘‘scientific’’ and ‘‘unbiased’’ and ‘‘impartial’’ estimates may consider a high estimate to be ‘‘going out on a limb’’ but a low estimate to be just fine. For example, 

the 1995 NOGA assessment of undiscovered, continuous-type non-associated natural 

gas resources in the Barnett Shale formation in north Texas was zero—yes, nothing 

(‘‘justified’’ by deliberately excluding from NOGA consideration the very prolific East 

Newark Field field near Dallas, TX). Yet development of this Barnett Shale resource 

into proven reserves (not merely potential resources)—one of the most successful 

natural gas projects in our country—checked and reversed a decline in Texas gas 

production. USGS was wrong—too low—and felt obliged to reassess in 2003 (at 26 

trillion cubic feet). 

In 2000, after Price’s death, USGS transferred possession of much of his USGS 

research products to a private consultant associated with a private consulting firm— 

both in Colorado. As I wrote to USGS Acting Director Leahy on February 24, 2006, 

because the USGS ‘‘lost track of Price’s extensive report [i]t is available to very few 

geoscientists and members of the exploration and development community. USGS 

should make it equally available to one and all.’’ It is high time to retrieve Leigh 

Price’s outputs and disseminate them. USGS should have released Price’s outputs 

51⁄2 years ago. Now USGS should repair its omissions promptly rather than demand 

patience while it finds excuses for withholding information or further delays. 

Congress can serve the national interest by helping convince USGS to air professional disagreements within its ranks and to foster professional debate in the sunshine. 

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 2007 budget and make recommendations in the following 

priority areas. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Endangered Species (ESA) Program.—Defenders 

urges a total of $215.8 million for the four endangered species operations accounts, 

an increase of $68 million over fiscal year 2006 as follows: $30 million for Listing, 

an increase of $12.4 million; $113.6 million for Recovery, an increase of $40 million; 

$55.5 million for Consultation, an increase of $7.5 million; and $13.6 million for 

Candidate Conservation, an increase of $5 million. We are extremely disappointed 

that even though FWS biologists have estimated that about 200 currently listed species are on the verge of extinction primarily due to insufficient recovery funding, the 

president’s budget cuts the Recovery account by $7.7 million or 10 percent and requests amounts far below the need for the other 3 accounts. Even though more than 

280 candidates await proposal for protection under the Endangered Species Act, the 

president’s request for programs that list new species as endangered or threatened 

and designate their critical habitat is virtually level. Many of these plants and animals have been waiting years for protection. While consultation does receive a modest increase, it is paid for by the cut in the Recovery budget; and Candidate Conservation is cut by more than $500,000. 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; and 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 about 77,000 

in 2005 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 grow, with funding critically needed to help ensure timely and effective development and monitoring of 500 existing and nearly 

300 new HCPs that together will cover about 72 million acres when complete. 

FWS: 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 2007 

increase of $35 million over fiscal year 2006, a total of $417.5 million, to address 

fixed costs and to make progress on a small portion of the $2.46 billion operations 

and maintenance backlog. We are concerned that the president’s budget includes a 
301 

nearly $1 million cut for operations and maintenance and fear that recent progress 

made in the refuge system budget will now be lost. Moreover, during the past year, 

more than $8 million has been reprogrammed to pay previously underestimated refuge system bills. We hope that this accounting problem has been addressed and that 

similar measures will not be necessary in the future. In addition, 61 refuges suffered unprecedented damage from last year’s hurricanes, including the deposition of 

hazardous debris on a number of refuges. The worst impacts were to Sabine National Wildlife Refuge in Southwest Louisiana from as much as 350,000 gallons of 

hazardous materials in a six-mile debris field. FWS reported initial damages of 

$173.6 million to facilities, while habitat stabilization and monitoring needs total 

$96.7 million. The cost of hazardous materials cleanup remains unknown. We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s support in providing supplemental funding to 

begin to repair this extensive damage and urge your continued strong support to 

once again make the Refuge System whole. 

FWS: State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.—Defenders joins the Teaming With Wildlife Coalition in requesting at least $85 million, $17.5 million above the 

2006 level, for this important program that channels money to states to protect atrisk wildlife before Endangered Species Act protection becomes necessary. The upcoming year is very important since each state for the first time has just completed 

a State Wildlife Action Plan under this program to help guide wildlife conservation 

more strategically and effectively. Funding increases are needed to begin implementation of key actions in the plans. The Action Plans are the key to the program’s 

success in its ability ultimately to avert the need to list numerous species in the 

future. We urge the Subcommittee to continue its oversight of the plans and their 

implementation. 

FWS: Migratory Bird Programs.—Defenders urges $45.2 million for Migratory Bird Management, an increase of $7 million over fiscal year 2006 and $5 million 

for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an increase of $1.1 million. 

The recommended increases for Migratory Bird Management include $1 million to 

begin implementation of new conservation plans for nine focal species, $500,000 to 

begin development of the next set of plans for focal species, $1 million to begin to 

address recent declines in webless game birds, $4 million to protect habitat through 

the Joint Ventures program and $500,000 for fixed costs. The president’s budget 

does request a $3.1 million increase for Migratory Bird Management, but it falls far 

below the need. As funded, these programs cannot fulfill their mandates to adequately monitor and plan for the conservation of 825 species of migratory birds, including the 25 percent of all U.S. migratory birds in serious need of conservation 

to assure their long-term survival. 

FWS: International Programs.—Defenders urges $12.9 million, an increase of $3 million over enacted for the International Affairs program and $8 million, an increase of $1.6 million over fiscal year 2007, for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF). 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. In addition, the president’s request provides only level funding for 

International Affairs, actually a cut when including fixed costs, and slashes the 

small but effective Multinational Species Conservation Fund by 33.4 percent below 

fiscal year 2006. Recommended increases in the International Affairs program 

would be allocated as follows: $1.4 million to replace key personnel; $1.1 million allocated among the four highly successful Wildlife Without Borders programs that 

work with resident peoples and develop locally adapted, long-term wildlife management and conservation programs; and $500,000 for fixed costs. 

FWS: Law Enforcement.—Defenders requests a total of $61.5 million, an increase 

of $5.4 million over fiscal year 2006, allocated as follows: $2.5 million for needed 

special agents and wildlife inspectors; $500,000 for security clearances for inspectors 

so that they can have access to the International Trade Data System, an e-government interagency trade enforcement initiative; and $2.4 million for fixed costs. Although the administration requests a $1.2 million increase, it does not even fully 

fund fixed costs. With globalization, e-commerce and the ever-increasing complexity 

of our world, wildlife here at home and around the world are targets of escalating 

criminal activity. Increases are desperately needed to help the Law Enforcement 

program address these rapidly proliferating threats. 

FWS: ESA Related Grant Programs.—Defenders recommends $100 million for the 

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, $20 million over the 2006 level; $50 million 

for Landowner Incentive Grants, an increase of $28.3 million; and $10 million for 

Private Stewardship Grants, an increase of $2.7 million. Non-federal lands are crucial to the conservation of rare species. At least 65 percent of federally listed plants 
302 

and animals are found on non-federal lands, with many absolutely dependent upon 

these lands for their survival. 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. Funding for these programs falls far below current demand. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM): Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) 

and Threatened and Endangered Species Management (TESM).—Defenders urges 

$45.5 million for WFM, an increase of $5 million above fiscal year 2006; and 23.8 

million, an increase of $2.6 million for TESM. BLM manages more land, and more 

wildlife and fish habitat, than any other federal agency, administering half of the 

remaining habitat for the imperiled sage grouse and almost 15 million acres of prairie grasslands vital to many declining grassland dependent species. Yet funding and 

resources for these two key wildlife programs have been increasingly diverted to 

support energy development on BLM lands at the expense of their own proactive 

conservation projects—30 percent of funds are allocated to other programs. Given 

the major expansion of energy development on BLM lands included in the president’s budget and proposed level funding for wildlife programs, it is highly likely 

that resources will continue to be siphoned away from wildlife conservation. An alternative to providing increased funding would be to include language in the committee report prohibiting the continued diversion of funds to other programs. 

BLM: Challenge Cost Share.—Defenders recommends $14.4 million, an increase 

of $5 million over fiscal year 2006 for this effective program that allows the agency 

to work with partners to restore wildlife, habitat and other resources and averages 

a $2 match. Level funding in the president’s budget fails to address gaping needs 

for sage grouse conservation, off-highway vehicle management and invasive species 

control. 

BLM: Native Plant Materials Development.—Defenders recommends $9 million, 

an increase of $4.4 million over fiscal year 2006. This funding critically is needed 

as part of the Burned Area Rehabilitation account to provide for restoration of native plants after wild fires and other disturbances, and is vital to preventing the 

spread of invasive plants which degrade habitat. 

Forest Service: Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.—Defenders urges 

$188.5 million, an increase of $55.6 million. The president’s budget slashes this account by almost $9 million, a 6.8 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 3200 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. 

BLM and Forest Service Land Sales.—The president’s budget contains two highly 

controversial proposals to raise funds for the federal treasury and rural schools 

through an expanded BLM land sale program and a new program to sell national 

forest lands. Defenders is opposed to these two proposals. Federal lands provide valuable resources for our nation’s wildlife, unparalleled outdoor recreational opportunities for all Americans, and protection for our communities’ water supplies. Selling 

these lands will deprive Americans today and in the future of these important recreational opportunities and essential national resources. Rather than selling off individual parcels of federal lands, the Bush administration should exchange isolated 

parcels for other lands connected to or near existing federal lands. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).—The president’s budget eviscerates 

LWCF, funding it at only $85.1 million. Yet habitat and wild places across the country are increasingly threatened and in dire need of protection. Defenders evaluated 

hundreds of federal land acquisition projects to determine some of the highest priority needs for wildlife conservation based on their importance to threatened and 

endangered species, nexus with the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program’s State 

Wildlife Action Plans, and their degree of threat. Based on this analysis, Defenders 

recommends the Subcommittee fund the following 16 projects totaling $51.3 million. 

However, these projects are only a subset of the overall enormous need; we urge 

total federal LWCF funding for fiscal year 2007 to be no less than $220 million. 

[Dollars in millions] 

Project Description Agency State Funds 

Blackwater NWR ...................................................... Provides habitat for the endangered 

Delmarva fox squirrel and bald 

eagle.

FWS .. MD ...... $1 .8 
303 

[Dollars in millions] 

Project Description Agency State Funds 

Cache River NWR .................................................... The site of the recent rediscovery of 

the endangered Ivory-billed woodpecker.

FWS .. AR ....... 1 .485 

Driftless NWR .......................................................... Protects remaining populations of two 

listed species.

FWS .. IA ........ .550 

Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR ................................ Protects over 480 species of birds and 

at least seventeen listed species.

FWS .. TX ....... 1 

Silvio O. Conte NWR ................................................ Supports ten listed species in the Connecticut River watershed.FWS .. CT, MA, 

NH, 

VT.

4 

St. Marks NWR ........................................................ Protects habitat for several endangered 

species, including the wood stork.

FWS .. FL ........ 1 1 .5 

Upper Klamath NWR ............................................... Protects wetlands for waterfowl and 

the largest bald eagle population in 

the Lower 48.

FWS .. OR ....... 1 3 .4 

Gulf Islands NS ....................................................... The last remaining breeding habitat for 

the endangered diamond-backed 

terrapin.

NPS .. MS, FL 2 .1 

Saguaro NP ............................................................. The Park’s only riparian hardwood forest for several listed species.NPS .. AZ ....... 4 .2 

Wind Cave NP ......................................................... Protects mixed-grass prairies for large 

herds of bison, deer, and elk.

NPS .. SD ....... 5 

Cascade Checkerboard ............................................ Secures wildlife migration corridors for 

the greater Cascade Mountain area.

NFS ... WA ...... 3 .3 

Flathead NF ............................................................. Provides habitat for listed species such 

as grizzly bear, lynx, and bald eagle.

NFS ... MT ....... 16 .2 

Gallatin NF .............................................................. Establishes crucial habitat connectivity 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

NFS ... MT ....... 1 .6 

Suwannee Wildlife Corridor ..................................... Protects habitat and migration corridors for the imperiled Florida black 

bear.

NFS ... FL ........ 5 

Carrizo Plains NM ................................................... One of the largest grouping of listed 

species on public lands in the U.S.

BLM .. CA ....... .700 

Coachella Valley Preserve ....................................... Protects sand source vital to maintain 

endangered fringe-toed lizard habitat.

BLM .. CA ....... 1 .250 

1 Fiscal year 2007 presidential request. 

NWF:National wildlife refuge, NF: National Forest, NP: National Park, FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service, FS: Forest Service, NPS: National Park 

Service, BLM: Bureau of Land Management 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENVER WATER

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 
304 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EASTERN FOREST PARTNERSHIP

On behalf of the Eastern Forest Partnership and our member groups representing 

citizens from Mississippi to Maine, I would like to offer testimony concerning fiscal 

year 2007 appropriations for the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior—specifically the Forest Legacy Program and Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. We feel that recent federal studies, most notably the U.S. Forest Service’s recently released Forests on the Edge report, support our call for the strongest possible mark for conservation funding programs in the fiscal year 2007 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, including $80 million for the 

U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program and $220 million for the Department 

of Interior’s federal side of the Land & Water Conservation Fund. We have included 

at the end of this testimony a list of priority eastern projects that we feel are meritorious of fiscal year 2007 funding from these programs. 

EASTERN FORESTS ON THE EDGE

Over the past fifteen years, federal agencies have been studying our eastern forests and the unique value of these lands as ‘‘green infrastructure’’ for the American 

people. In particular, forested watersheds play an essential role in the crowded eastern states providing clean drinking water supplies for rural communities and distant cities alike. Recent U.S. Forest Service studies have highlighted the acute 

threats to some of the most important forested water supply areas across the East, 

including the Southern Appalachians, Highlands, and Northern Forest. 

However, until the release of the Forests on the Edge report this summer, the 

U.S. Forest Service had not been able to provide a clear and scientific assessment 

of exactly where and to what extent future development might compromise watersheds and other important forest resources, such as timber supply areas, wildlife 

habitat, and public recreation like hunting and fishing. The report gives a stark 

view of the future: it projects that through 2030 the nation will lose 44 million acres 

of private forestland to development. According to the report, the effects will be particularly acute in the East, with all of the top fifteen watersheds for projected future 

development in the eastern forests and three of those just in the State of Maine. 

This rampant and likely increasing parcelization of forestland will continue to 

produce some short-term economic returns for landowners and in some important 

instances may produce needed housing units in undersupplied areas. However, 

much of this new development is often far from appropriate growth areas, especially 

development of large rural parcels of former working forestland for second homes, 

and will lead to long term economic decline and increasing threats to natural resources like drinking water. Parcelized forestlands are less valuable for forestry and 

often closed off from timber harvest or even basic forest stewardship. Parcelized 

lands are also more often posted and closed to any public recreational access like 

hunting—here in my home state of Vermont, the number of landowners controlling 

less than ten acres has doubled in the last fifteen years and posted land has increased by more than 1,200 percent over the same period. Finally, parcelized 

forestlands have significantly reduced value for watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and other natural values. 

CONTROLLING FOREST PARCELIZATION: FOREST LEGACY AND LWCF

It is clearly in the national interest to manage this growing trend of forest 

parcelization on multiple fronts. The Eastern Forest Partnership is deeply engaged 

in conversations about forest programs in the 2007 Farm bill, and believes that 

technical assistance and cost-share programs through the U.S. Forest Service and 

our state foresters will play a significant role in helping landowners more effectively 

steward their lands while also lowering costs and increasing benefits of ownership 

so that these private owners will continue to hold their lands. 

We also feel that an increased commitment to funding land conservation projects 

through Forest Legacy will play a significant role in keeping our eastern forestland 

and traditional way of life intact. Forest Legacy has now conserved more than one 

million acres of land, most often through conservation easements on private lands 

that allow public access and continued forestry operations. The program has leveraged one dollar of state, local, and private funding for every dollar spent. This catalytic role is appropriate and effective for the federal government. 

Our top priority Forest Legacy projects for fiscal year 2007 are well-represented 

on the President’s list, most notably the Grafton Notch project in Maine that was 

top-ranked, Cumberland Mountains project in Alabama, and Birdsboro Waters 

project in Pennsylvania. These three projects represent the kind of strategic landscape conservation that is the hallmark of the Forest Legacy Program. All three 
305 

projects will leverage past Forest Legacy investments, link to other conserved areas, 

and deliver critical conservation of high priority lands for multiple-use, including 

forestry, recreation, and natural resource protection. 

These projects are also notable for the enthusiastic local support that has been 

evidenced through letters, communications with elected officials, and attendance at 

public meetings. In November, I traveled to Washington with local supporters for 

each of these projects to deliver their messages of support directly to key officials 

in the Bush administration. Back home the support and public interest in these 

projects is overwhelming. We had 112 local residents turn out for a recent public 

meeting on a cold February night in Bethel, Maine to discuss the Grafton Notch 

project and other local conservation efforts along the Mahoosuc Range of Maine and 

New Hampshire. I personally attended an event in Birdsboro, Pennsylvania that 

drew local, state, and federal officials into the pouring rain alongside local citizens 

to celebrate this popular project. 

Due to conservation funding shortfalls in recent years, important Forest Legacy 

projects have been eliminated in conference, even some included in the House, Senate, and administration lists, as occurred with Birdsboro Waters in fiscal year 2005. 

Many other projects have been severely under-funded and end up coming back for 

a second phase of funding, including Connecticut’s Skiff Mountain project that was 

only partially funded in fiscal year 2006 and returns in fiscal year 2007. The result 

is a severe loss of momentum in these states as the same projects continue to clog 

the pipeline. Even the President’s strong Forest Legacy appropriation of $61 million 

and good list of projects excludes fourteen states entirely and many critical projects, 

such as North Carolina’s Clarendon Plantation, the Skiff Mountain, Phase II and 

Sparta Mountain South, Phase II projects to complete important work in the Highlands, and the Phillips Brook project on New Hampshire’s side of the Mahoosuc 

Range that lies just a few miles from the top-ranked Grafton Notch project. 

For the federal side of the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), the rapid 

reduction below authorized levels 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. The agency describes this dire situation well in its testimony in support 

of the Georgia Mountains fiscal year 2007 LWCF project on the Chattahoochee National Forest: 

‘‘The watersheds of the Chattahoochee National Forest supply the drinking water 

for the largest urban areas in the State of Georgia... also provide unexcelled recreational opportunities for forest visitors, and are critical habitats... The Chattahoochee is an urban forest and under intense pressure from second home 

development... The cumulative impact from this development and population 

growth surrounding the Forest is seriously threatening water quality by generating 

non-point source pollution.’’ 

Eastern refuges are also in dire need of acquisition dollars: the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge ranks fifth in the Land Acquisition Priority System (LAPS), 

in part because the Connecticut River watershed that the refuge covers is projected 

by the Forests on the Edge report as one of the top twenty in the nation for future 

development. Yet the refuge was excluded from the President’s fiscal year 2007 list 

and only received a fraction of needed funding in fiscal year 2006. 

In conclusion, it is our belief that the national interest demands continued investment in land conservation programs that will help protect the eastern forests. Forest Legacy has a proven track record of conserving private forestlands and assisting 

state acquisition as federal match to locally-led cooperative conservation efforts. We 

again urge an appropriation of $80 million with funding for the strong list of eastern 

projects at the end of this testimony. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is 

less widely applicable in the East, but critically important—at least $220 million 

should be available for federal acquisition of high value natural and recreational 

value lands from willing sellers, including the projects listed below. These acquisitions will benefit the public interest and greatly lessen management challenges for 

fragmented eastern federal lands. Thank you very much for your consideration of 

this testimony and the projects listed below. 

EFP FOREST LEGACY—FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUESTS 

State Project Request 

AL Cumberland Mountains Preserve .......................................................................................................... $1,185,000 

AL Mobile Delta .......................................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

AR Morrow Big Pine .................................................................................................................................... 500,000 
306 

EFP FOREST LEGACY—FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUESTS—Continued 

State Project Request 

CT Skiff Mountain, phase II ....................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

DE Green Horizons ...................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

FL Northeast Florida Timberlands ............................................................................................................. 2,225,000 

GA Paulding County Land Area .................................................................................................................. 2,225,000 

KY Marrowbone Creek State Forest ............................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

MA Southern Monadnock Plateau ............................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

ME Grafton Notch ........................................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

ME Lower Penobscot Forest ........................................................................................................................ 5,500,000 

ME Machias River, phase III ....................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

NC Whitehurst State Forest ........................................................................................................................ 4,500,000 

NC Clarendon Plantation ............................................................................................................................ 2,500,000 

NH Phillips Brook ........................................................................................................................................ 3,500,000 

NH Willard Pond/Robb Res. ........................................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

NJ Sparta Mountain South, phase II ......................................................................................................... 2,100,000 

NJ Mountain Gate ....................................................................................................................................... 1,050,000 

NY Tahawus ................................................................................................................................................ 5,000,000 

PA Birdsboro Waters ................................................................................................................................... 300,000 

RI North-South Corridor ............................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

SC Pee Dee River ........................................................................................................................................ 2,500,000 

SC Savannah River ..................................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

VA New River Corridor ................................................................................................................................ 2,100,000 

VT Orange County Headwaters .................................................................................................................. 1,542,000 

VT Adams Pond .......................................................................................................................................... 1,167,000 

Total ......................................................................................................................................... 58,094,000 

EFP LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND—FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUESTS 

State Project Request 

AL Alabama National Forests ...................................................................................................... $1,500,000 

AL Bon Secour .............................................................................................................................. 1,500,000 

AR Ozark-St. Francis & Ouachita NF ........................................................................................... 834,000 

FL St. Marks NWR ........................................................................................................................ 1,700,000 

FL Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp .......................................................................... 2,000,000 

FL Florida National Scenic Trail .................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

GA Georgia Mountains .................................................................................................................. 2,700,000 

KY Daniel Boone NF ...................................................................................................................... 4,615,000 

KY/TN Cumberland Gap NP (Fern Lake Watershed) .......................................................................... 2,500,000 

MS Lower Yazoo Basin, Delta NF .................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

MS Horne Island ............................................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

NC Croatan NF (Onslow Bight) ..................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

NC Uwharrie National Recreational Trail ..................................................................................... 1,600,000 

NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................ 1,000,000 

NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................... 4,000,000 

OH Wayne Select Lands ................................................................................................................ 500,000 

PA Flight 93 Memorial ................................................................................................................. 5,000,000 

SC Francis Marion Sumter NF ...................................................................................................... 4,685,000 

TN Tennessee Mountains .............................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

VA Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR ............................................................................................... 2,277,000 

VA Jefferson NF (Black Lick & Appalachian Trail) ...................................................................... 2,850,000

VT Green Mountain National Forest (Broad Brook Phase II) ....................................................... 1,100,000 

Total ........................................................................................................................... 54,861,000 

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. 

On behalf of Friends I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity 

to testify. Friends urges you to appropriate $1.5 million from the Land and Water 
307 

Conservation Fund for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to acquire a conservation 

easement for Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge. The tract this appropriation would protect is key habitat for the Golden-cheeked Warbler, a songbird 

Audubon lists as one of the ten most endangered. Its acquisition would be a significant step towards the long range goal of completing the Refuge. Acting now is extremely important, as the window of time for protecting habitat is closing rapidly 

in the face of accelerating urban expansion, and the opportunity for protecting this 

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 

organization’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 fourteen years old, is not yet half complete. It is particularly important to act now as time is a critical consideration in 

completing the Refuge. Because of the proximity of the Refuge to the rapidly expanding Austin metropolitan area, urban expansion is a serious threat to habitat 

needed by the Refuge. There are already three outlying real estate developments 

within the acquisition boundary of the Refuge and a rapidly advancing blanket of 

urban residential and commercial development is within sight. 

This year, we would like to go forward with the partially completed acquisition 

of the Armstrong conservation easement, which contains substantial Golden-cheeked 

Warbler habitat. The property is in a strategic location, will 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 $1.5 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 rapidly growing source of eco-tourism for the surrounding area. The Refuge’s annual songbird festival continues to grow with record attendance predicted 

for this year. Our first annual winter sparrow festival also was a sell out. Over the 

longer term, Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major draw for birders interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and Vireo, as well as other bird species 

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 $1.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for Balcones Canyonlands Refuge for fiscal year 2007. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this statement to the Subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE BOUNDARY WATERS WILDERNESS

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 critical land protection in the Superior 

National Forest in Minnesota. 
308 

Long Island is the largest undeveloped island in Burntside Lake. Located 30 miles 

southeast of Crane Lake and 3 miles northwest of Ely, Burntside Lake is over 

10,000 acres in size. The lake is an important recreational area, with two entry 

points into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), five public 

campsites and six public canoe launching points. The lake is also the start of a popular 11-mile canoe trail outside of the BWCAW, referred to as the Burntside-Dead 

River-Everett Trail. One of the few lakes in Minnesota that support 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. 

Beyond its current recreational and natural qualities, Burntside Lake holds significant historic and cultural value. It is the location of writer and conservationist 

Sigurd Olson’s legendary Listening Point. As Walden was to Thoreau and Sand 

Country to Aldo Leopold, Listening Point was a place of inspiration for Olson and 

where he wrote many of his books and crafted aspects of the 1964 Wilderness Act. 

Long Island is situated directly across from Olson’s beloved Listening Point. When 

he first discovered the point, he had been looking for a long time throughout northern Minnesota for a place to listen, to contemplate ‘‘the grandeur of creation,’’ and 

a place that would evoke the spirit and beauty of the northern wilderness. When 

he came to the point he wrote: ‘‘From the top of one of [the rocks] I could see the 

vistas across to the islands and knew the search was over. Here was everything I 

had ever hoped to find. I would never own the water or the horizons, but the sunsets, the moonrises and the vistas would belong as much to me as though written 

into the deed itself.’’ Listen Point, Alfred A. Knopf, 1958. 

While Listening Point is protected today, Long Island is not. Without that protection, the vista and much of what Sigurd Olson wrote about in his book will be lost. 

Long Island would be an outstanding addition to the Superior NF, boasting one 

mile of undeveloped lakeshore. The island has a beautiful sand beach, which would 

be utilized by the public for recreation. There are limited numbers of public beach 

areas within the forest boundaries, and this would be a rare opportunity for the 

public. The island is home to nesting osprey, blue heron and nesting loons, and has 

potential for 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 old-growth Great Lakes pines forests that are extremely rare outside of the BWCAW. Public acquisition of the Long 

Island property will ensure that the attributes of the northwoods region so treasured by its many visitors will be protected in perpetuity. 

Furthermore, Long Island, if protected, will offer the public a near-wilderness experience, a wonderful benefit to those who can not or choose not to go into the 

BWCAW itself. 

An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 

fiscal year 2007 will secure the acquisition of Long Island, protect its critical natural 

resources for the public, and maintain the integrity of the great northwoods. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE

I thank you for the opportunity today to present this testimony in support of critical land acquisition projects in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Appropriations totaling $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the 

Forest Service will go a long way to protect a number of identified high-priority 

properties in the Gorge, including the Bridal Veil and Russell properties in Oregon 

and the Hopper and Grazini properties in Washington. 

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (CRGNSA) was created by Congress in 1986 ‘‘to protect and provide for the enhancement of the scenic, cultural, 

recreational, and natural resources of the Columbia River Gorge’’ and to encourage 

economic growth in nearby urban areas. The scenic area protects nearly 300,000 

acres in both states and receives hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. 

The 1986 act also declared the White Salmon River in Klickitat County, Washington as a National Wild and Scenic River. In 2005, Congress extended this designation to its headwaters on Mount Adams. The White Salmon is one of only three 

rivers in Washington to have such a listing. 

The acquisition of key properties in fiscal year 2007 will benefit recreational access to areas in the Gorge and White Salmon: 

The 17-acre Bridal Veil property in Oregon is located near Multnomah Falls at 

an intersection of Interstate 84. Protection of this property would conserve land 
309 

along the historic Columbia River Highway, serve as a potential site for interpretation, and would greatly improve public access to Bridal Veil Falls. 

The Russell property is a 50 acre parcel located near Mosier just south of the Historic Columbia River Highway on the lower two-thirds of an open, grassy hillside, 

locally known as Hudson Hill. This north and west facing property provides a stunning panorama of the Columbia River Gorge with the show capped volcanic peaks 

of Mt. Adams and Mt. Hood visible in the distance. Acquisition of this property 

would provide an excellent recreation opportunity. 

The 4.5-acre Hopper property in Washington is adjacent to a planned public boat 

launch site on the river. With the White Salmon River renowned for its kayaking 

and whitewater rafting opportunities, this acquisition is critical to ensuring recreational access to the river. 

An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will 

protect these priority parcels in and around this a vital recreational and ecological 

corridor. 

We thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this testimony in 

favor of the appropriations for the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers administered by the NSA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF CONGAREE SWAMP

On behalf of: Friends of Congaree Swamp; South Carolina Wildlife Federation; 

Audubon South Carolina; Columbia Audubon Society; South Carolina Coastal Conservation League; Sierra Club—South Carolina Chapter; and Congaree Land Trust 

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $4.5 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the National Park Service for land 

acquisition at Congaree National Park in South Carolina. 

Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a unit of the National 

Park Service in 1976. In 2003, Public Law 108–108 designated Congaree as a National Park—South Carolina’s first and only national park—and also authorized a 

boundary expansion of 4,576 acres. 

Congaree National Park rests on a floodplain of the Congaree River in central 

South Carolina, and is recognized as an International Biosphere Reserve, a National 

Natural Landmark, a Wilderness Area, and a Globally Important Bird Area. With 

its 75 species of trees, Congaree hosts the nation’s largest tract of old-growth bottomland hardwood forest, and nurtures some of the tallest trees in the eastern 

United States with some pines reaching over 160 feet. 

More than 190 species of birds have been observed within the park. Following rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas, Congaree National Park is 

considered prime habitat for recovery of this species. Currently, the South Carolina 

Ivory-billed Woodpecker Working Group is coordinating searches within Congaree 

National Park. 

Congaree National Park also offers excellent opportunities for recreation. A 2.5- 

mile boardwalk loop provides easy access into Congaree’s forest, and more than 20 

miles of trails are available for hiking. Visitors enjoy canoeing and kayaking on 

Cedar Creek, currently nominated for designation as the first Outstanding National 

Resource Waters in South Carolina. Outdoors enthusiasts can also enjoy fishing, 

camping, birding, and picnicking. 

In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $6 million from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund to purchase the 2,395-acre Bates Fork tract—at the confluence 

of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers. This is the largest tract within the Congaree 

boundary expansion, authorized in 2003. The National Park Service completed this 

acquisition in November 2005. 

Fiscal year 2007 presents the opportunity to acquire the 1,886-acre Riverstone 

tract—also within the boundary authorized in 2003. The Riverstone tract will connect the previously-acquired 22,000 acres of Congaree National Park with the recently-acquired 2,395-acre Bates Fork tract. The Bates Fork tract, in turn, adjoins 

the 16,700-acre Upper Santee Swamp Natural Area, owned by the South Carolina 

Public Service Authority. So, the Riverstone tract is the link to connect Congaree 

National Park and the Upper Santee Swamp Natural Area. 

Resources on the Riverstone tract—including Bates Old River, Big Lake, Little 

Lake, Running Creek and Running Lake—have significant natural, recreational, 

and historical values. Bates Old River is the longest oxbow lake (4 miles) in the 

Congaree River floodplain and one of the longest oxbows in South Carolina. An unusual mix of sweetgum, bald cypress, water tupelo, and green ash dominates the 

Bates Old River ridge and swale system. The Riverstone tract harbors extensive 
310 

areas of early- and mid-successional plant communities rarely found in Congaree 

National Park, plus dwarf cypress and planer tree communities not represented at 

all on existing park lands. In addition, there are numerous large specimen swamp 

cottonwoods and water hickories. Acquisition of the Riverstone tract will provide 

new and diverse recreational and historical interpretation opportunities for park 

visitors while adding to the park’s natural resources. 

A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $4.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will provide the National Park Service with funds to purchase this 

critical Riverstone tract, thereby ensuring permanent protection of its outstanding 

natural and cultural resources, and connecting the 22,000 acres upriver with the 

19,000 acres downriver. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony and for 

your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Peter J. Defoe. I am the 

Chairman of the Reservation Business Committee of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake 

Superior Chippewas and would like to thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on fiscal year 2007 Appropriations. The Fond du Lac Band occupies a reservation in northeastern Minnesota, which encompasses 100,000 acres and was established by the Treaty of September 30, 1854. The Fond du Lac Band provides 

health, education, social and other governmental services to a population of 6,500 

Indian people that live on or near the Fond du Lac Reservation. 

We are deeply concerned about the very substantial cuts proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget. Those budget cuts—if they stood—would severely reduce our ability to educate our children, care for our elderly and infirm, prevent 

crime, and protect and manage our natural resources. We urge Congress to restore 

or increase the funding on which we depend to provide essential services to our 

Band members. In particular, we ask that funding be restored or increased in the 

following areas: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Johnson O’Malley—restore $16.3 million. 

Early Childhood Development—restore $3.2 million. 

Education Construction—restore $49 million. 

Tribal Colleges & Universities—restore $824,000. 

Tribal Colleges & Universities—reaffirm funding for the Fond du Lac Tribal College. 

Circle of Flight—restore $600,000. 

Tribal Courts—restore $5.3 million. 

Fond du Lac Law Enforcement & Resource Management—increase by $9 million. 

General Assistance Program—restore $11.3 million. 

Indian Health Services 

Increase funding for Indian health care. 

Increase funding for contract support costs. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Education: Johnson O’Malley program, Early Childhood Development program, 

Education Construction and Tribal Colleges & Universities. Johnson O’Malley 

(JOM) funding helps Indian children with tutoring, cultural enrichment and Native 

language education, and is critical to tribal education programs. We request that 

Congress restore full funding to these vitally important education programs. A complete cut of funding for this program, as is proposed, would severely erode this irreplaceable source of funds for essential educational services. The Department has attempted to justify this amount by claiming that JOM funding duplicates funding 

provided by the Department of Education, but this is not the case. The Department 

of Education has testified that it has not adjusted its budget to cover this loss of 

funds. 

The Early Childhood Development program, which enhances the school readiness 

of our young children, is also critical to preparing our youth for school and in meeting the President’s ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ standards. We ask Congress to restore 

$3.2 million to this program. 

Additionally, we do not support the Bureau of Indian Affair’s decreased funding 

for Education Construction, including significant cuts to Facilities Operations 

(O&M). Facilities O&M funding must be increased for fiscal year 2007 to the level 
311 

necessary to provide for the continued safety and utility of our educational facilities. 

Current funding levels are not keeping pace with the escalating costs of operating 

educational facilities. Rising fuel, utility costs, and the cost of living adjustments for 

skilled maintenance and custodial staff must be considered in adjusting adequate 

levels of Facilities O&M funding. 

We ask Congress to restore the Tribal Colleges and Universities endowment grant funding by $824,000 to the fiscal year 2006 level. More importantly for the Band, 

we ask Congress to reaffirm funding to the Fond du Lac Tribal College. In 1987, 

the Fond du Lac Tribal College was chartered by the Band to provide post-secondary education to Indian students. The Tribal College currently provides post-secondary education to close to 500 Indian students. For many years, the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs provided funds to the Tribal College, recognizing it as an entity eligible for federal financial assistance for Tribal Colleges under the Tribally Controlled 

College or University Assistance Act. The President’s Budget includes funding for 

Tribal Colleges under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act 

but it has not been determined whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs intends to include continued funding for the Fond du Lac Tribal College. Without the funds provided to the Tribal College under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act, the College will not be able to carry out its valuable mission: to provide 

higher education opportunities for its Indian students. Therefore, we ask Congress 

to reaffirm funding to the Fond du Lac Tribal College for fiscal year 2007. 

Natural Resources: Circle of Flight.—We ask Congress to restore the Circle of 

Flight Wetland/Waterfowl Enhancement Program in the BIA’s fiscal year 2007 

budget to at least the fiscal year 2006 level of $600,000, and to consider providing 

the amount of $1,113,000 to cover actual program needs. Circle of Flight has been 

one of Interior’s top trust resource programs for more than a decade. 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 Circle of Flight 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. 

Public Safety and Justice: Tribal Courts.—We urge Congress to restore Tribal Court funding by increasing the appropriated amount by $5.3 million to fiscal year 

2006 levels. We also support additional funding to meet detention facility needs, but 

believe that this increase should not come at the expense of a reduction in funding 

for Tribal Courts, which have been historically under-funded and which are essential to effective law enforcement efforts. 

Public Safety and Justice: Fond du Lac Law Enforcement and Resource Management Program.—We request a one-time appropriation of $9 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 $6 million for 

expansion of office space to serve both). This additional funding is needed because 

of the Band’s increased law enforcement responsibilities. Following a Minnesota Supreme Court decision in 1997 holding that the State did not have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws on roads within Indian reservations, State v. Stone, 572 N.W.2d 

725 (Minn. 1997), the Fond du Lac Band needed to establish a Tribal law enforcement department to address on-reservation law enforcement needs. The Band has 

done this, using a combination of tribal funds and federal funds (made available 

through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs), and by entering into cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies. However, because of the short-term limited financial resources 

available, there are significant unmet needs in this area. At Fond du Lac, we need 

long term funding to pay for staff and equipment to adequately ensure the safety 

of the Reservation population. With the increased responsibility assumed by the 

Band there is an increased need 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. 

Related to this are the Band’s responsibilities for enforcing conservation laws that 

protect natural resources and regulate Band members who hunt, fish and gather 

those resources both within and outside the Reservation pursuant to rights reserved 

under Treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1854. The Band’s rights to hunt, 

fish and gather on lands ceded under these treaties have been recognized and 

upheld by the federal courts and the United States Supreme Court. Under established Band conservation law, the Band is responsible for enforcing regulations over 

approximately 8,000,000 acres in northern and central Minnesota. It is also essential that the Band continue to manage its on-reservation resources in order to meet 

the demands of an increasing population. The on-reservation resources are vitally 
312 

important to Band members as they provide the foundation for our culture, subsistence, employment and recreation. Therefore, we are seeking an additional $1.5 million be added to the Band’s base budget for the Fond du Lac Resource Management 

Division, for its Resource Management programs to enable us to continue to protect 

these resources for the future generations at Fond du Lac. The funds for this program have not been increased since 1991. We also request a one-time allocation of 

$6 million to the Band for the expansion of the office space, as our current building 

is inadequate to house both law enforcement and natural resource management 

staff. 

General Assistance Program.—We urge Congress to restore $11.3 million in funds 

to this program. The General Assistance Program helps the Band ensure that its 

tribal members’ health and general welfare needs are met by providing another 

form of assistance. The General Assistance Program is especially important for the 

Band’s families with children, elders and tribal members with disabilities. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

While we support the President’s proposal to increase the budget for Indian 

Health Services, the amount of that increase ($130 million from fiscal year 2006 

funding levels) still will not meet the actual costs of providing health care to Indian 

people. The proposed increase fails to address the high rates of medical inflation and 

the substantial unmet need for health care among Indian people. For instance, Indians at Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation, face disproportionately 

higher rates of diabetes and the complications associated with diabetes, than the 

rest of the population. Heart disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency and mental health problems are also prevalent among our people. While other federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, have seen annual increases in funding of 5–10 

percent to address inflation, the budget for IHS has never had comparable increases, and, as a result, IHS programs have consistently fallen short of meeting 

the actual needs. 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 5,800 

Indian people at its clinics, but the current funding level meets only 40 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. In addition, while this Administration seeks the use of electronic health records for all Americans, this is a seriously 

unfunded mandate for tribal organizations.. Therefore, the Band requests an increase in funding to continue the implementation of our Electronic Health Record 

(EHR) so that we may reduce medical errors and increase the quality of our patient 

care. We also urge the Committee to provide increased funding for contract support 

costs comparable to that provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASES

Fish and Wildlife Service: Tribal Wildlife Grant program and Landowner Incentive Program.—We strongly support the President’s proposed $5 million increase in 

funding for the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) program, and the $2.7 million increase 

to the Landowner Incentive Program in the Interior Department’s budget for the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Fond du Lac has received grants in these two programs this year, which will be used for important fisheries, wildlife, and wild rice 

management and restoration projects. These increases will help to address the considerable need for managing our shared natural resources. 

In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country remain 

massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA funding levels is essential to our 

ability to maintain vitally important programs. Your support 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. 

Miigwech. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

COMMISSION

We are seeking your support for the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request 

of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we are asking you to support an additional $3 million to be appropriated to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast 

Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Asso-
313 

ciation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, seeks to develop a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on 

the successful North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is currently 

developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will help guide the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for other regions of the 

country. The SARP, through its aquatic habitat planning process, will identify and 

establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the objectives of the NFHI in 

the Southeast. 

The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the southeastern United States. This partnership developed from the realization that (1) the Southeast has the highest diversity of 

aquatic species and habitats of any region in the country; (2) that these resources 

are facing serious threats to their future existence; and (3) that no one state or federal agency has all the necessary resources and authority to address this impending 

aquatic crisis. It is only by working together through partnerships that we will 

make a difference. 

The SARP is comprised of those state and federal agencies and organizations with 

management authority for fisheries and aquatic resources. It includes the fish and 

wildlife agencies from 13 states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. These entities have signed an unprecedented 

Memorandum of Understanding pledging to work together for the conservation and 

management of aquatic resources in the Southeast. No similar multi-state, multiagency partnership exists. To date, SARP has been successful in receiving over 

$700,000 in grant monies as well as contributions from the agency members. This 

unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to aquatic 

conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in additional funding for 

the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast Aquatic 

Habitat Plan. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should have any questions 

or need further information, please contact Mr. Jim Estes at 850–488–5460. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF INDIAN HEALTH

The Friends of Indian Health is pleased to submit testimony on the fiscal year 

2007 appropriation for the Indian Health Service. The Friends is a coalition of over 

50 health organizations and individuals dedicated to improving the health care of 

American Indians/Alaska Native (AI/AN) people. 

The Friends thanks the Committee for its past support for the Indian Health 

Service (IHS). The Committee’s action has sent a strong message that addressing 

the health care needs of Indian people is a high priority of the federal government. 

With that thought in mind, we are recommending a funding level of $3,361,787,000 

to sustain clinical and preventive services and to attract a viable workforce of health 

care providers that will lead to eliminating the disparity of disease and health care 

among AI/ANs. 

Numerous studies have shown that the disparity in health care for Indian people 

has continued to increase since the early 1990’s. AI/AN people have a lower life expectancy—nearly four years less—when compared to other populations. This occurs 

for a variety of reasons: 

—Native American youth are more than twice as likely to commit suicide, 

—AI/AN people are 670 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 

—650 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 

—318 percent more likely to die from diabetes and 

—204 percent more likely to suffer accidental death 

At the center of this disparity is an inequity in funding for health care. The IHS 

operates with an estimated 55 percent of what it needs to provide adequate health 

care using the Federal Employee Health Benefits Programs as the benchmark. The 

service spends $2,130 per person per year for health care, which is more than 50 

percent below similar expenditures by public and private health insurance plans. As 

organizations and individuals involved in health care, we know that additional funding can make a difference in eliminating disparities in disease rates and access to 

care. 

The Friends recommends an increase of $192,000,000 above the President’s request for IHS for fiscal year 2007. We believe that by targeting this increase to al-
314 

ready proven IHS programs, access to health care can be improved and the rise in 

mortality rates reversed. Specifically, we recommend the following increases: —∂$22,000,000 for loan repayment. The quickest way to close the gap in health 

care access is to hire an adequate workforce. The current vacancy rate for IHS 

health professionals overall is approximately 16 percent with critical shortages 

in all fields. The IHS conducts an excellent recruiting program but there are 

more applicants than there are funds available. The ability to offer loan repayment is essential for recruiting and retaining health care professionals, many 

of whom graduate with over $200,000 of student loan debt. —∂$8,000,000 for prevention. The Friends is very pleased that the President’s re- quest includes $2,000,000 for prevention activities. The IHS has proven that 

being able to prevent disease can save lives. Surveys show that the average 

death rate for the AI/AN populations dropped 28 percent between 1972 and 

2002. Additional resources are needed to reduce these rates even further. —∂$2 million for Tribal Epidemiology Centers. Activities of Tribal Epidemiology 

centers include the development of surveillance systems for disease conditions, 

investigation of disease outbreaks, development and implementation of disease 

control and prevention programs and coordination of activities with other public 

health authorities in the region. The data gathered by the centers helps the IHS 

to better target its prevention resources. 

The Friends is pleased to see that the Administration has accounted for inflation, 

contract support costs and population growth in its fiscal year 2007 budget. These 

figures help provide a more realistic approach for budgeting for the IHS. However, 

in several of these accounts are still below actual need. If they are not fully funded 

then mandatory needs will drain resources from current programs creating even 

more disparity in health care for AI/AN people. We believe that the following increases reflect the actual level of need: —∂$31 million for Pay Act costs. The President’s budget provides for a 2.2 percent salary raise for civil service employees and commissioned officers. However, it does not contain sufficient funding to cover ‘‘within-in grade’’ (WIGIS) 

increases. —∂$18 million for Contract Health Services (CHS). Funding for this program is 

used to purchase health care services outside IHS facilities through private 

health care providers in places where an IHS facility does not exist, or is not 

staffed or equipped to meet the health care needs of the AI/AN patients. CHS 

funding is used to address health care that has been deferred or denied such 

as: treatment for diabetes, cancer, heart disease, injuries, mental health, domestic/community/family abuse/violence, maternal and child health, elder care, refractions, physical therapy, and elective orthopedic services The President’s 

budget provides for an increase of $36.9 million but it still leaves this fund 

short. One of the consequences of underfunding this account is that it creates 

a financial drain on non-IHS health communities. 

—∂$67 million for Health Care Facilities. The Friends of Indian Health was very 

pleased that last year this Committee appropriated $38 million for IHS health 

facilities construction. However, the agency still needed an additional $47 million to meet the facilities construction schedule. We are disappointed to see that 

the Administration is again proposing to decrease this account. The IHS has 

carefully planned its construction schedule and an interruption in that planning 

will only result in higher construction costs in the future. 

—∂$33 million for Urban Indian Health Program (UIHP). While the Friends appreciate the need not to duplicate federal programs, we do not agree with the 

Administration’s analysis that the Community Health Center program can accommodate urban Indians. Indeed, the National Association of Community 

Health Centers has also opposed this proposal stating that, ‘‘the fiscal year 2007 

budget [for the Community Health Centers] is not designed to meet the needs 

of the more than 1 million AI/ANs currently living in communities served by 

the UIHP.’’ We strongly urge the Committee to restore this program until a better approach can be developed so that health care for urban Indians is not compromised. 

—∂$11 million for Indian Health Care Improvement. The President’s budget for 

fiscal year 2007 does not include an increase for this fund, which was created 

to address deficiencies in health status and resources for all tribes. Funds are 

allocated using the Federal Disparity Index, which benchmarks the cost of providing personal health services by a mainstream health plan in comparison to 

the IHS. 

Below are additional statements by groups represented by the Friends detailing 

the need for improved Indian health care. As health care organizations and providers, we know that there will ultimately be a cost savings to the government if 
315 

the disease disparity rates can be reduced and access to health care improved for 

AI/ANs. 

The Friends recommends that the Committee continue its consistent funding approach for the IHS so that it can continue to address the health care needs of the 

AI/AN populations. Weakening the IHS public health infrastructure can only lead 

to even greater increases in mortality and morbidity rates of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives. 

MENTAL HEALTH

Poverty is a significant contributing factor toward mental and substance abuse 

disorders. The poverty rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) in 

2001 was 24.5 percent, as compared to 7.8 percent for non-Hispanic whites. The median household income estimate for AI/ANs was $32,000 as compared to $46,000 for 

non-Hispanic whites. 

Inadequate mental health and substance abuse services contribute to a suicide 

rate for AI/AN that is about 1.7 times the rate for all races in the United States 

and the suicide rate for males 15 to 34 years of age is over two times the national 

rate. 

The suicide rate for Indian people is 60 percent higher than the general population. 

Studies have shown that 69.9 percent of all suicidal acts (completions and attempts) in AI/AN country involved alcohol use. 

KIDNEY DISEASE

American Indians have one of the highest rates of chronic, irreversible kidney failure or End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) of any population with a prevalence rate 

3.5 times that of white Americans. 

Diabetes is the leading cause of all new cases of kidney failure for all Americans, 

and the explosion in the incidence of type 2 diabetes among American Indians is 

the driving force behind the AI/AN kidney disease prevalence rate. 

ORAL HEALTH

79 percent of children aged 2–5 years had a history of decay. 

78 percent of adults 35–44 years old and 98 percent of elders 55 years or older 

had lost at least one tooth because of dental decay, periodontal (gum) disease or oral 

trauma. 

DIABETES

Today diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among Native Americans. Each 

year 54,000 people lose their feet or legs to diabetes. Amputation rates among Native Americans are 3–4 times higher than the general populations. 

An Arizona tribe has the highest rate of diabetes in the world. About 50 percent 

of the adults between the ages of 30 and 64 have diabetes in this tribe. 

VISION AND EYE HEALTH

A recent three year study of Navajo people (the largest native population) revealed that within the prior two years only about 33 percent had an eye exam and 

that only 20 percent had visual acuity good enough to qualify for a driver’s license, 

even with their present eyeglasses. 

With the high rate of diabetes, it is imperative that timely detection and treatment be available in Indian country. Diabetic retinopathy occurs in 24.4 percent of 

Oklahoma Indians. 

PHARMACY

Pharmacists play an important role in disease state management, particularly the 

monitoring of patients suffering from diabetes. 

Through the pharmacy training program, now in 13 sites, the IHS plays a significant role in the education of pharmacists interested in pursuing careers in the IHS. 

WOMEN’S HEALTH CARE

AI/AN girls up through the age of 19 are approximately 3 times more likely to 

commit suicide than their white counterparts. 

Although AI/AN women across Indian country have lower cancer death rates than 

United States all races, in Alaska and Northern Plains, the rates for AI/AN women 

are 22 percent and 42 percent higher, respectively, than for United States all races. 
316 

The 2002 United States prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in women 20 and over 

was 7.1 percent. For AI/AN women, it was 15.9 percent, more than double. This disease is devastating to the health of these women; in addition, it increases complications in childbearing, and elevates the risk that their children will also become diabetic. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE

More than one-third of the nation’s AI/AN population is under the age of 15, and 

the health of these children consistently lags behind other populations. For example, 

the SIDS rates among AI/AN infants are nearly twice that of the general population. 

AI/AN children are more than twice as likely to die in the first four years of life 

than the general population, and remain twice as likely to die through age 24. 

The rate of type 2 diabetes among AI/AN teens aged 15–19 has increased 109 percent since 1990. 

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE (CVD)

While the general U.S. population has seen a 50 percent decline in cardiovascular 

mortality, the AI/AN population rates are rapidly and dramatically increasing. 

CVD is the leading cause of death among AI/ANs and is double the rate of the 

general U.S. population. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION

SUMMARY

This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2007 appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,200,000 be appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management 

for activities that benefit the control of salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and 

of that amount, $1,500,000 be marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. In addition, I support the President’s requested appropriation of $33,343,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management, but request an increase of $700,000 in that amount to provide for the 

needed Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of the Bureau of Land Management. 

STATEMENT

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by the respective 

Governors of the States. The Forum has examined all of the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado River. Those features include activities by the cooperating States, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The salinity control program has been 

adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the EPA as a 

part of each state’s water quality standards. Also, water delivered to Mexico in the 

Colorado River is subject to Minute 242 of the U.S. treaty with Mexico that sets 

limits on the salinity of the water. 

About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River basin is owned, administered 

or held in trust by the federal government. BLM is the largest landowner in the 

Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands that are heavily laden with salt. 

When salt-laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and remain in the river system, affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin States 

and Mexico. BLM needs to target the expenditure of at least $5.2 million for activities in fiscal year 2007 that benefit salinity control in the Colorado River Basin. In 

addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure of $1,500,000 of the $5.2 million specifically for salinity control projects and technical investigations. Experience in past 

years has shown that BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the salinity 

control projects. 

As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Management program activities, 

BLM needs to specifically target $5.2 million to activities that benefit the control 

of salinity on lands of the Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has allocated 

$800,000 of the Soil Water and Air Management appropriation for funding specific 

project proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM salinity control coordinator. 

However, some of that funding has been eliminated in recent years by budget rescissions or transfers to other uses to balance budget needs. Consequently, the $800,000 

allocated by BLM from the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity for Colo-
317 

rado River Basin salinity control has been reduced, limiting the implementation of 

needed salinity control efforts. The recently released annual report of the federally 

chartered Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council reports that BLM 

has identified projects that could utilize funding in the amount of $1.5 million for 

fiscal year 2007. Consequently, I request that $1.5 million of the Soil, Water and 

Air Management Subactivity be marked specifically for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities. Achieving this level of appropriation for the critically needed 

cost effective salinity control work by BLM may require an increase of $700,000 in 

the BLM budget request of $33,343,000 for the Soil, Water and Air Management 

Subactivity. 

I believe and support past federal legislation that finds that the federal government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has charged the federal agencies to proceed with 

programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a strong mandate 

to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. BLM’s rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. In addition, these programs are environmentally acceptable and control erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat. 

The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin States contain 

a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM participation in the salinity control program 

is critical and essential to actively pursue the identification, implementation and 

quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public lands. 

Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado River to 

United States water users are about $330 million per year. For every increase of 

30 milligrams per liter in salinity concentration in the waters of the Colorado River, 

an increase in damages of $75 million is experienced by the water users of the Colorado River Basin in the United States. Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin 

States, including New Mexico, to continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States are proceeding with an independent 

program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River, in addition to up-front cost 

sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Agriculture salinity control 

programs. It is vitally important that BLM pursue salinity control projects within 

its jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of salinity control projects to avoid unnecessary damages in the United 

States and Mexico. 

At the urging of the Basin States, BLM has created a full time position to coordinate its activities among the BLM state offices and other federal agencies involved 

in implementation of the salinity control program. The BLM 2007 Budget Justification states that BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate 

progress in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and reports salt retention measures to implement and maintain 

salinity control measures of the federal salinity control program in the Colorado 

River Basin. BLM is to be commended for its commitment to cooperate and coordinate with the Basin States and other federal agencies. The Basin States and I are 

pleased with the BLM administration’s responsiveness in addressing the need for 

renewed emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to comply with BLM 

responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as 

amended. While it is commendable that BLM’s budget focuses on ecosystems and 

watershed management, it is essential that funds be targeted on specific subactivities and the results of those expenditures reported. This is necessary for accountability and effectiveness of the use of the funds. 

I request the appropriation of at least $5.2 million in fiscal year 2007 for Colorado 

River salinity control activities of BLM, and that $1,500,000 of that amount be 

marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, including projects and technical investigations. In addition, I request the appropriation of 

a minimum of $33,343,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air 

Management as requested by the President. However, I request that $34,043,000 be 

appropriated for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management 

to provide for the increase of $700,000 needed for a total of $1.5 million marked specifically for Colorado River salinity control activities without causing any reduction 

of other activities funded from the Soil, Water and Air Management appropriation. 

I very much appreciate favorable consideration of these requests. I fully support the 

statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted by Jack 

Barnett, the Forum’s Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for 

Colorado River salinity control activities. 
318 

1The Fort River Partnership participants include representatives from the USFWS Conte 

NFWR, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Kestrel Trust, Valley Land Fund, Franklin Land Trust, the Conservation Fund, and the Trust for Public Land. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF RACHEL CARSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On Behalf of the 

Friends of the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, I appreciate the opportunity 

to present this testimony in support of a $650,000 appropriation from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Rachel Carson National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

The Rachel Carson NWR plays a critical role in land protection efforts in southern 

Maine, serving as an anchor around which numerous local conservation organizations focus their efforts to protect land along the river corridors that flow through 

the refuge to the sea. The refuge and its supporters are working to effectively stitch 

together conserved properties into a greenbelt for habitat and water quality protection and public enjoyment. Previous years’ appropriations have allowed the USFWS 

to conserve several properties within the refuge at Biddeford Pool and Parson’s 

Beach, providing an important buffer between the intense development pressure 

along the southern Maine coast and its fragile coastal estuaries. While significant 

acreage within the refuge is protected today, additional areas of concern remain in 

need of protection. 

Available for immediate acquisition from a willing landowner in fiscal year 2007 

is the 49-acre Parsons Woods property, located in the Parson’s Beach area of the 

refuge near Kennebunkport. Consisting of wooded uplands, the property lies immediately adjacent to existing refuge lands and land being acquired with previously 

appropriated funds. The Parson’s Woods tract contains the headwaters of a tributary of the Little River, the bulk of which flows through existing refuge lands and 

empties into the Atlantic between Laudholm and Crescent Surf beaches. If acquired, 

this parcel will allow the refuge to protect important wildlife habitat and link it to 

already protected refuge lands. Located in a rapidly developing part of Maine, this 

acquisition offers the refuge an outstanding opportunity to conserve southern 

Maine’s coastal landscape and further consolidate the fragile habitat that exists on 

the marshes, uplands, creeks, and the estuaries of the coast. 

The Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is the longest standing 

Friends of the National Wildlife Refuge system groups in the northeast, voicing support for the acquisition and protection of lands vital to the health of the refuge and 

the communities of southern Maine. We are a 501c3 organization, and our board 

leadership represents all ten of the refuge’s districts. Our local roots recognize and 

speak for the benefits the refuge brings to our southern Maine communities, the 

critical plant and animal habitat of our unique coast, and the generations of visitors 

to the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge. 

We are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth in May 

2007, and urge you to ensure that her legacy of protection for critical coastal areas 

is honored through an appropriation to the refuge. Given the development pressures 

in this part of the state, the opportunity to permanently protect the Parsons Woods 

property only exists for a limited time. An appropriation of $650,000 for the Rachel 

Carson NWR in fiscal year 2007 will yield enormous public benefits for generations 

to come. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FORT RIVER PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee, I appreciate the oppor- tunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million appropriation to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the 

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Conte NFWR) in Massachusetts. 

The Fort River Partnership coordinates the work of federal, state, and nonprofit 

partners 1 to protect wildlife habitat, working farms, and water quality in the Fort 

River region of the Connecticut River valley in Massachusetts. As a board member 

of Valley Land Fund I strongly support the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to expand the Fort River Division of the Conte NFWR through land acquisitions that protect grassland bird habitat along and near the Fort River. 

Silvio O. Conte was a conservationist, fisherman, and champion of the Connecticut River who served as a U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’ 1st District 

from 1959 until his death in 1991. Just before he died, Congressman Conte introduced legislation to establish a national wildlife refuge in the Connecticut River watershed, and his congressional colleagues paid tribute to his conservation legacy by 
319 

authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to establish the Silvio O. 

Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in 1991. The refuge, officially established 

in 1997, protects native and endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species throughout 

the 7.2 million acre Connecticut River watershed, located in portions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire. 

Available for acquisition this year in the Conte NFWR in Massachusetts are three 

tracts in Hadley, that total 82 acres and complement the Refuge’s recent acquisition 

of 23 acres nearby. These parcels are part of the Grasslands Complex Special Focus 

Area and are prized for their potential to provide habitat to grassland bird species 

such as the grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and upland sandpiper, as well as for 

their frontage on the Fort River. The Fort River is the longest free-flowing tributary 

of the Connecticut River in Massachusetts. 

With roughly two and a half million people in the Connecticut River watershed, 

the threat from development poses a challenge to the mission of the refuge and the 

protection of the valley’s resources. Hadley, a traditional farming town rich in prime 

soils, is increasingly facing the challenges of rising land values and loss of rural 

character. The addition of these parcels to the Refuge’s Fort River Division will contribute strongly to the creation of a viable land base for grassland bird species and 

to the health of other critical Fort River species, including the federally endangered 

dwarf wedgemussel. Failure to protect these parcels will inevitably lead to housing 

developments in this sensitive area. The Select Board of the Town of Hadley has 

declared its support for the establishment and expansion of this Division. The FWS 

and its partners are working closely with local land trusts to ensure that the refuge 

additions are leveraged through local, state, and federal investments in farmland 

protection, creating a conservation mosaic in the focus area that preserves its rural, 

historic and scenic character and protects the quality of the town’s drinking water 

aquifer. 

The estimated value of the Fort River Grasslands properties is $2 million, which 

is part of a larger $4 million request to fund other conservation opportunities 

throughout the four Conte NFWR states in fiscal year 2007. The $2 million appropriation to protect these Fort River properties will allow the Conte NFWR to continue to provide valuable resource protection within the Connecticut River valley in 

Massachusetts. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $2 million for the Silvio 

O. Conte NFWR in Massachusetts in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I also support the request of the Friends of the Silvio O. 

Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge for a total of at least $4 million for the 

entire four-state refuge. This amount will help fund the $5.25 million in current 

high-priority Conte NFWR projects that are at risk of being lost in the Connecticut 

River watershed, a region comprising one sixth of New England’s land mass and 

providing over 70 percent of the freshwater inflow to Long Island Sound. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF THE SILVIO O. CONTE NATIONAL FISH AND

WILDLIFE REFUGE

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $4 million appropriation to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Silvio O. 

Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. This amount will help fund the $5.25 million in current high-priority Conte NFWR projects that are at risk of being lost in 

the Connecticut River watershed. 

The Friends of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (SOC 

Friends) respectfully request your support for our fiscal year 2007 budget priorities. 

The pages that follow summarize our collective vision for what it will take in the 

fiscal year 2007 budget cycle to achieve the conservation results that the late congressman and champion of the Connecticut River, Silvio O. Conte, dreamed of. 

While $4 million will not fully fund all of the priority projects listed below, we hope 

that it will be sufficient to leverage additional funding to complete these projects 

if the Service has sufficient flexibility to apply the funds where they are most needed. 

Our unified request reflects the unique nature of the Silvio O. Conte National 

Fish and Wildlife Refuge, which encompasses 7.2 million acres in New England’s 

largest watershed, comprising one sixth of New England’s land mass and providing 

over 70 percent of the freshwater inflow to Long Island Sound. The Refuge’s diverse 

natural habitats help it rank as the top refuge in the region in the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Land Acquisition Priority System. Uniting four states, encom-
320 

passing nine congressional districts and a constituency of more than 2 million citizens, the Conte Refuge is a New England treasure that provides tremendous opportunity to create permanent public benefits. 

The SOC Friends group includes the following organizations: The Nature Conservancy; The Trust for Public Land; The Conservation Fund; Society for the Protection 

of New Hampshire Forests; Connecticut River Watershed Council; Appalachian 

Mountain Club; Northern Forest Alliance; Connecticut Audubon; New Hampshire 

Audubon; Massachusetts Audubon; National Audubon Society; Friends of the Discovery Center; Friends of Pondicherry; Nulhegan Gateway Association; and Fort 

River Partnership. 

As conservation partners with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we stand ready 

to help make Silvio Conte’s vision a reality, and respectfully request the support of 

Congress in this effort. 

Our identified requests include: 

Connecticut.—Salmon River Division: 

—Cost: $2,000,000 

—Acreage: 289 acres 

The Salmon River division is comprised of a range of important natural features, 

including free-flowing rivers, thriving freshwater tidal marshes, forested wetlands, 

floodplain forests, and rare plant and animal species. The Elm Camp/Johnson property would be the first acquisition in this division and is a keystone property containing 3,360 feet of frontage on Pine Brook, a high-quality stream that provides 

remarkable cold-water fish habitat; and 1,440 feet on the west bank of Salmon 

River, site of extensive state and federal efforts to restore anadromous fish runs, 

including the Atlantic salmon. Pine Brook is the only major Salmon tributary free 

of artificial barriers to migratory fish. 

Massachusetts.—Fort River Division: 

—Cost: $2,000,000 

—Acreage: 82 acres 

These parcels are prized for their potential to provide habitat to grassland bird 

species such as the grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and upland sandpiper, and for 

more than a mile of frontage on the Fort River. The Fort River is the longest freeflowing tributary of the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, home to the federallylisted endangered dwarf wedgemussel and other rate mussels, fish, dragonflies, and 

turtles. At the center of a mosaic that includes over 600 acres of the protected farmland and new refuge holdings, these parcels are subject to development proposals 

that would drastically reduce the tremendous habitat potential of this rural landscape. 

New Hampshire—Ashuelot River Division: 

—Cost: $500,000 

—Acreage: 1,400 acres 

The Ashuelot River and its watershed are remarkable for their biodiversity and 

natural features, including: diverse freshwater wetlands, large unfragmented forest 

blocks, high quality wild brook trout streams, spawning habitat for anadromous 

fish, and rare species and natural communities, including the federally endangered 

dwarf wedge mussel. The subject property includes the headwaters of the high quality Roaring Brook stream system, and supports an exemplary wetland ecosystem 

containing a complex of emergent marsh, beaver flowages, scrub-shrub floodplain, 

riverbanks, and seepage swamps. Roaring Brook is a free-flowing tributary of the 

Ashuelot, supports a key Atlantic salmon stocking site, and provides excellent habitat for 63 species of birds and an abundance of other wildlife. 

—Pondicherry Division: 

—Cost: $180,000 

—Acreage: 98 acres 

Pondicherry was designated as a National Natural Landmark in 1974, and was 

recently designated as the first Important Bird Area in New Hampshire. The area 

has long been known to offer exceptional avian habitat supporting approximately 

230 species of birds of which 125 species have been confirmed as breeding. Species 

of particular conservation interest include common loon, northern harrier, sore, 

rusty blackbird, whip-poor-will, and American black duck. 20 species of reptiles and 

amphibians, 41 species of mammals, and 17 species of fish have also been documented to use the Pondicherry Refuge site. Recent ecological surveys have identified 

and documented a variety of exemplary natural communities including peat bogs, 

fens, deep emergent marshes, and increasingly threatened. 

—Mohawk River Division: 

—Cost: $320,000 

—Acreage:126 acres 
321 

This River, located in New Hampshire’s North Country is remarkable for its remote, boreal forests, rugged mountain peaks, abundant clear streams, lush wetlands, and rich lowland forests. Its habitats include mature conifer forests, mixed 

northern hardwoods, boreal peat bogs and freshwater wetlands. The Mohawk River 

provides nursery and rearing habitat for juvenile Atlantic salmon. It also provides 

high quality habitat for native brook trout. 

Vermont.—Nulhegan Division: 

—Cost: $250,000 

—Acreage: 116 acres 

The Nulhegan Basin includes a complex of bogs, freshwater wetlands and spruce 

forest. These habitats provide nesting areas for loon, hooded mergansers, black, 

ring-necked and wood ducks. The Nulhegan Basin supports the only viable population of spruce grouse in the Connecticut River Watershed. More than a dozen rare 

plants and animals are also known to occur in this area. 

On behalf of the SOC Friends, I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $4 million for the Silvio O. Conte NFWR in the fiscal year 2007 Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

I thank you in advance for your attention and your support as we endeavor to 

promote this investment in the natural and human environment. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee 

for this opportunity to present testimony before this Committee. I would like to take 

a moment to briefly acquaint you with Florida State University. 

Located in Tallahassee, Florida’s capitol, FSU is a comprehensive Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The University serves as a center for 

advanced graduate and professional studies, exemplary research, and top-quality 

undergraduate programs. Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment 

to quality in teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have 

a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors including Nobel laureates, 

Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members of the National Academy of Sciences. 

Our scientists and engineers do excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of 

the results of their research. Florida State University had over $182 million this 

past year in research awards. 

Florida State University attracts students from every state in the nation and 

more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed to high admission 

standards that ensure quality in its student body, which currently includes National 

Merit and National Achievement Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and universities 

in attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus. 

At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as well as our 

emerging reputation as one of the nation’s top public research universities. 

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about two projects we are pursuing at FSU. Our 

first project centers around the creation of a Coastal Marine Institute. 

Beach erosion and renourishment are critical issues in regions that are dependent 

on tourism and recreation. Florida’s beaches and barrier islands protect $150 billion 

in coastal structures and infrastructure. Beach-related tourism generates approximately $40 billion in direct and indirect annual spending. More than half of Florida’s sandy beaches are classified as critically eroding, the result of frequent storms, 

sea-level rise, and the loss of sand sources due to coastal development. Recent hurricanes have drastically added to the erosion problem. 

To that end, Florida State University propose to create an MMS Florida Coastal 

Marine Institute (FCMI), for the purpose of bringing researchers on southeastern 

coastal marine environments together with MMS scientists on projects related to 

MMS’ work on the marine resources of the outer continental shelf (OCS). 

Our work will predominantly entail research into the environmental effects of extracting OCS sand resources for beach renourishment in the Southeast. Sand for renourishment is nearly always sought offshore, where the extraction process is potentially disruptive to the marine environment. The state’s beaches comprise a quarter 

of America’s sandy shorelines. Beach renourishment is the principal tool employed 

in Florida to address coastal erosion. State government agencies alone spend about 

$30 million annually on beach renourishment-related activities. Similar amounts 

come from local sources and the federal government, for a total of nearly $100 million annually expended on beach restoration in Florida. 
322 

The readily available sand resources close to shore are rapidly being depleted. 

OCS sand is being used more and more frequently for replenishing Florida’s eroded 

beaches, on both coasts. Such use will accelerate in the future, as sources further 

and further offshore are tapped for sand. 

Research into the environmental effects of sand extraction is multi-faceted. The 

offshore resource itself needs to be quantified and evaluated. Environmentally sensitive zones on the shelf need to be identified. The potential biological and physical 

impact on offshore extraction sites needs to be carefully evaluated. The proposed 

Florida CMI would be a source of much-needed expertise into these issues. We are 

requesting $750,000 for this activity. 

Our second project involves the creation of a southeast regional Center to focus 

research on the long-term sources and fates of mercury delivered to the global atmosphere. We will focus on the most critical piece of the puzzle—gaseous elemental 

mercury. The Center will be partnered between Florida State University and Georgia Institute of Technology. FSU’s Oceanography Department and Geochemistry 

Program of the National High Magnetic Field Lab excel in the collection and analyses of ultra-trace element chemistry and isotopes globally—including mercury—in 

both atmospheric and aquatic environments. Georgia Tech’s Schools of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences and Civil & Environmental Engineering have extensive national 

and international programs in urban photochemical chemistry, tracing of ‘‘tailpipe’’ 

and ‘‘smoke stack’’ gases, and global atmospheric mapping of trace gases from research airplanes and satellites. The Center will be a component of the ‘‘Geotraces’’ 

program, a new international 10-year effort starting in 2006 to map for the first 

time the global distributions of ultra-trace elements and isotopes in the ocean. 

Mercury is one of two trace elements known to have a large source to the surface 

ocean via deposition from the atmosphere. Mercury is thus targeted by Geotraces. 

The source of lead is known to be tetraethyl-lead additives in gasoline (now banned 

in the United States). In south Florida, the anthropogenic lead source is European, 

the source of vapor mercury to the ocean’s surface is unknown. 

Although there is agreement that the atmosphere dominates the transport pathways for mercury, there is controversy regarding what fraction of mercury entering 

lakes and rivers is natural vs. man-made and global vs. local. Most mercury emissions are in the northeast United States, yet most mercury deposition is in the 

southeast. Patterns of mercury in rainfall have been interpreted as both ‘‘local 

source’’ and ‘‘global long-distance source’’. Local, regional, and global distributions 

of gaseous elemental mercury are unknown yet elemental mercury is thought to represent the most important source of anthropogenic mercury to the atmosphere. Because of the critical importance of mercury emissions to ecosystem and human 

health, and because of the increasing reliance of America’s electric power plants on 

coal, a concentrated and well-focused effort on the atmospheric portion of the mercury cycle is required. In order to correctly regulate the ‘‘correct’’ man-made source 

it is essential to establish a scientific basis for quantifying the global array of atmospheric sources. We are seeking $2,000,000 for this activity. 

Mr. Chairman, these are just two projects that Florida State University is working on that will have long reaching and positive outcomes for our country’s future. 

Your consideration is greatly appreciated. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF WESTWATER CANYON

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Friends of 

Westwater Canyon appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony in support 

of a $1.3 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the 

second phase of the Westwater Ranch conservation project in the Colorado River 

Special Recreation Management Area. 

Westwater Canyon and Colorado River SMRA.—The Colorado River has carved 

some of nature’s greatest wonders in its long and sometimes tortuous path: the 

Grand Canyon, the vanished but once hauntingly beautiful Glen Canyon and the 

fearsome waters of Cataract Canyon in Canyonlands National Park. Just as remarkable is Westwater Canyon in southeastern Utah, some 40 miles west of Grand Junction, Colorado and 40 miles northeast of Moab, Utah. 

Visitors to Westwater Canyon experience a wild whitewater river, a truly unique 

contrast of land formations as well as a remote, prospering habitat for both plant 

and wildlife. Treasures unfold in the canyon: beautiful geologic formations, ephemeral streams and seeps, wildflowers, petroglyphs and potholes. Its cliffs are home 

to the endangered Peregrine Falcon, Golden and Bald Eagles, and Desert Bighorn 

sheep. The canyon’s entrance hosts a unique Cottonwood-Willow forest—one of the 

rarest forest types in the United States. Critical habitat is found here for endan-
323 

gered native Colorado River fishes: the Colorado Squawfish, Bonytail Chub, Humpback Chub and the Razorback Sucker. 

Westwater Canyon is located within the Westwater Canyon Wilderness Study 

Area and Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Colorado River Special Recreation 

Management Area. The BLM Westwater Ranger Station, located on the Colorado 

River less than an hour’s drive from both Moab, Utah and Grand Junction, Colorado, serves as both a takeout for many rafters coming downriver from the McInnis 

Canyons National Conservation Area (in Colorado) and a launching point for the 

whitewater trip through Westwater Canyon. This canyon is the first whitewater 

stretch of the Colorado River in Utah and is an exceedingly popular trip due to the 

canyon’s relative proximity to metropolitan areas, its classic desert scenery, and numerous challenging rapids. 

Friends of Westwater Canyon.—The Friends of Westwater Canyon was incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1997 by community members to achieve a 

number of goals: 

1. Preserve the unique desert river canyon of Westwater, 

2. Educate the public as to qualities of Westwater Canyon, 

3. Work with the Bureau of Land Management to ensure Westwater Canyon is 

not impaired by development and indiscriminate destruction of its natural resources. 

The preservation of Westwater Canyon enjoys the ongoing support of many commercial and conservation organizations such as: the Utah Guides and Outfitters Association, Colorado Plateau River Guides Association, Colorado River Outfitters Association, Utah Rivers Council, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, American Rivers, Mineral Policy Center, Western Mining Action Project and Friends of 

Westwater Canyon. In addition, hundreds of individuals have taken action on behalf 

of Westwater Canyon. 

Support of LWCF Funding Request.—Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 

is the second phase of a conservation easement on the 1,100-acre Westwater Ranch 

at the mouth of Westwater Canyon on the Colorado River. The ranch is one of the 

largest remaining private parcels along the Colorado River between the McInnis 

Canyons NCA in Colorado and the Westwater Wilderness Study Area. The property 

has over three miles of river frontage, which is lined with cottonwood, willow and 

other riparian vegetation. For the thousands of rafters who put in at the BLM 

Ranger Station, located immediately upstream of Westwater Ranch, these three 

miles of river frontage on the ranch before entering Westwater Canyon itself are an 

important element of the recreational experience. Wildlife often observed on the 

ranch from the river include wild turkeys, deer and bald eagles, which frequently 

nest in the riparian corridor on the ranch property. 

New owners recently acquired the ranch and are working to restore the ranch to 

agricultural uses, including removal of invasive Russian knapweed and Tamarisk. 

BLM and The Trust for Public Land are now working with these new owners to protect the remainder of the ranch with the purchase of a conservation easement. In 

fiscal year 2006, Land and Water Conservation Funds were secured to protect 500 

acres of the ranch. 

Without protection, this property faces an imminent threat from rural residential 

development. Protecting the ranch will provide scenic benefits along the Colorado 

River, provide the public with additional camping and recreational facilities at the 

current ranger station, and protect the area’s unique richness of natural and recreational resources. I respectfully request you include an LWCF appropriation of 

$1.3 million in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill 

to complete the acquisition of the remaining acreage of Westwater Ranch. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRAND COUNTY, UTAH

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Grand County appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.3 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the second phase of the 

Westwater Ranch conservation easement project in the Colorado River Special 

Recreation Management Area. 

Grand County is located in eastern Utah with county seat in Moab, and population of approximately 8,700. The County contains some of the world’s most spectacular scenery. Within its boundaries lie Arches and Canyonlands National Parks, 

Dead Horse Point State Park, Manti-La Sal National Forest, the Colorado River, 

and an abundance of Bureau of Land Management Recreation Areas. This region 

is an outdoor wonderland for hikers, bikers, sightseers, photography buffs, rafters, 
324 

1The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC’s allocation of this line item that also funds the 

1854 Authority. 2The 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. 

golfers, four wheel drive enthusiasts and much more. Moab, the county seat, is the 

only town in Utah located on the Colorado River. 

The County has always had deep ties to the Colorado River, having been named 

after the river when the County was founded in 1890 (and river was then known 

as the Grand River). Over its history, Grand County’s economy has been greatly 

benefited by farming, ranching, mining, oil exploration and more recently, by tourism generated by the numerous natural resource and recreational and hunting opportunities in the area. 

The area along the Colorado River near BLM’s Westwater Ranger Station is one 

of those important recreation and hunting areas in Grand County. We understand 

that funding provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2006 federal budget will allow 

for the first phase of a conservation easement to be acquired by BLM, which will 

protect a portion of the privately-owned Westwater Ranch. Additional funding of 

$1.3 million is being requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for this Westwater 

Ranch conservation easement to be completed. The owners of Westwater Ranch 

have also indicated their willingness to sell a small portion of the ranch adjacent 

to the Ranger Station to BLM that would enable expansion of the public facilities 

at the Ranger Station. 

The purchase by BLM of a conservation easement on Westwater Ranch will enhance the visitor experience in Grand County by preservation of scenic values. The 

purchase of private land for expansion of BLM’s Westwater Rnager Station will do 

much to ease congestion at the Station. Additionally, the acquisition of other private 

parcels located between the Utah/Colorado state line and the Westwater Ranger 

Station will resolve public access problems on existing roads with locked gates, with 

which we are very familiar. 

We strongly support an LWCF appropriation of $1.3 million in the fiscal year 

2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, and BLM’s plans to acquire 

a conservation easement on Westwater Ranch, lands adjacent to the existing 

Westwater Ranger Station for expansion of the public facilities, and acquisitions of 

selected lands along the Colorado River and upstream of the Station to protect the 

riverfront and provide for improved public access. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH & WILDLIFE COMMISSION

(GLIFWC) 

AGENCIES—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1. BIA TREATY RIGHTS PROTECTION/IMPLEMENTATION: $4,174,000 

($382,000 above fiscal year 2006 enacted). 

Agency/Program Line Item: Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation 

of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource Management.1

Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. § 13; Indian Self-Determination 

and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and GLIFWC’s member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty 

of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and 

Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109.2

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. § 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, 

natural resource 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) 
325 

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: $4,174,000. As its 

primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act funding base, 

GLIFWC seeks to: 

a. Restore $157,000 in base funding lost over the last four years that is not included in the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal; 

b. Restore $75,000 of base funding for annual pay cost adjustments that the BIA 

routinely has not included in its budget request to Congress; 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; (iii) enforcement of tribal conservation codes in 

tribal courts; (iv) funding for tribal courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (v) 

development of natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; (vi) negotiation and implementation of agreements with state, federal and local agencies; 

(vii) invasive species eradication and control projects; (viii) biological and scientific 

research, including fish contaminant testing; and (ix) development and dissemination of public information materials. 

JUSTIFICATION & USE OF THE REQUESTED FUNDS

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. 

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: 
326 

3For 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. 4Since 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. 5GLIFWC 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. 6GLIFWC 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 implementation of agreements to regulate water diversions and 

withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001. 7With the requested fiscal year 2007 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 U.S. waters of Lake Superior. 

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 5 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

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

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. Fully Funded BIA Contract Support Costs: Since 1995, GLIFWC has experienced a $372,000 shortfall in contract support costs despite its historically low indirect cost rates that never exceeded 15.25 percent. This is unsustainable and, when 

combined with increased administrative costs, will force GLIFWC to increase its fiscal year 2006 rate by over 3 percent from its fiscal year 2005 rate. 

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. 
327 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES TASK FORCE

As members of the Great Lakes delegation, we are writing to express our strong 

support for the many programs in the Department of Interior, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry that 

protect the human health as well as fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes. 

In particular, we ask that you consider the following requests. —We urge the Committee to provide the fully authorized amount of funding ($54 

million) for the Great Lakes Legacy Program. 

The Great Lakes are plagued by contaminants from years of industrial pollution 

that have settled into the sediments of tributaries to the lakes. These pollutants degrade the health of both humans and wildlife. The worst of these polluted areas are 

known as Areas of Concern (AOC). The Great Lakes Legacy Act was enacted in 

2002 in order for the EPA to clean-up contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. 

The Great Lakes Legacy program will provide funds to the EPA in order to address 

contaminated sediments at AOCs, and we support funding at the fully authorized 

amount ($54 million) for the Great Lakes Legacy program as well as language to 

allow the life of these funds to extend beyond 2 years. The EPA completed the first 

Legacy project in November of 2005, and of the four projects that have received 

funding, EPA estimates that over 1.2 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment 

will be removed. This program represents how federal funding can leverage significant private funds. Although the President’s budget requested $50 million in fiscal 

year 2006, the program received $30.0 million, and the President included $49.60 

million in his proposed budget for fiscal year 2007. 

—We urge the Committee to provide $4 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program with language directing at least $2 million towards the grant program established by the Great 

Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 1998. 

The Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act calls for the implementation 

of proposals to restore the fish and wildlife resources in the Great Lakes Basin 

based on the Great Lakes Fishery Restoration Study and authorizes grants to encourage cooperative conservation, restoration and management of the fish and wildlife resources and their habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service will only be able to implement restoration projects and meet the purposes 

of the Act if funding is provided for the continuation of the FWS Great Lakes Regional Offices (authorized at $3.5 million) and for the grants program to implement 

restoration projects (authorized at $4.5 million). In fiscal year 2006, $1.27 million 

was appropriated for the FWS Regional Offices and $500,000 for the grants program, and the fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $1.27 million for the Regional Offices. 

—We request that the Committee provide $25 million for EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office. 

The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) is responsible for overseeing 

the U.S. commitment to the U.S.-Canadian Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, 

establishing a Great Lakes system-wide surveillance network to monitor water quality, serving as the liaison with the International Joint Commission, and coordinating EPA’s Great Lakes activities as well as coordinating those activities with 

other Federal, State and Local authorities. Additionally, GLNPO is responsible for 

implementing the Great Lakes Legacy Program, and it has considerable responsibility for implementing Executive Order 13340 which was signed in an effort to improve coordination of all of the federal Great Lakes programs. GLNPO carries out 

a program that combines research and monitoring with education and outreach, and 

supports grants for specific activities to enhance and protect the Great Lakes environment. Approximately 60 percent of GLNPO’s budget is allocated towards making 

grants and cooperative agreements to organizations in the state, tribal, or local sector. GLNPO received $22.072 million in fiscal year 2006, and the fiscal year 2007 

proposed budget provides $20.571, a $1.5 million decrease. To meet the growing demand for work on the Great Lakes, $5 million in additional funding is needed 

—We support the Administration’s request for $10 million for the BEACH Act. 

Each year state, local and tribal health and environmental protection agencies 

monitor the quality of water at our nation’s beaches. When measured bacteria levels 

in the water are too high, these agencies notify the public of beach warnings or closings. State and local monitoring and notification programs differ across the country 

and provide varying levels of swimmer protection. In an effort to improve water 

quality testing at the beach and public notification when water quality problems 

exist, the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) 

authorizes EPA to award grants to states, tribes, and territories to develop and implement beach water quality monitoring programs at coastal and Great Lakes rec-
328 

reational waters near beaches. These grants also provide support for the development and implementation of programs to reduce the risk of exposure to diseasecausing microorganisms in the water to users of the Nation’s beaches. There is a 

great demand for these grants throughout the Great Lakes states, and we support 

the Administration’s request for funds. 

The work carried out by the EPA, FWS and USGS is of critical importance to the 

sustainability of the Great Lakes’ natural resources. We urge the Committee to 

carefully consider these requests and thank you for your attention to this matter. 

If you have questions, please contact Joy Mulinex at 224–1211. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GLACIER PARK, INC. 

The purpose of this statement is to bring to your attention a very unfair amendment inserted into the 2005 Interior Appropriation Bill and continues today, and 

done so in secrecy and without congressional hearings, or concessionaires’ knowledge. In-other-words, done through the back door, undercover, and most importantly, in violation of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 known 

as Public Law 105–391. The violating amendment is known as the ‘‘De Novo’’ 

Amendment. Public Law 105–391 allows for binding arbitration between the National Park Service and concessionaires if a dispute arise over the value of the concessionaire’s assets. With the ‘‘De Novo’’ Amendment only the park service has the 

right to take the arbitrators ruling to the Court of Federal Claims for another ruling, which violates ‘‘Binding Arbitration.’’ It is totally unfair that concessionaires 

must respect the law, but the government (National Park Service) has a second 

chance to possibly get a more favorable ruling. This Amendment is one-sided, unfair 

and unethical. This Amendment must be eliminated and prevented from happening 

again. The 2007 Interior Appropriation Bill is underway now and I ask that you do 

all in your power to speak out against this type of unfair action and vote against 

any further ‘‘De Novo’’ Amendment. 

Thanks in advance for your immediate action before it’s too late! I appreciate your 

help and your consideration for fairness. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GALLATIN VALLEY LAND TRUST

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in 

support of a $1.6 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

for the second phase of the Bozeman Pass (Schmidt) conservation project in the Gallatin National Forest. 

Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) is a nonprofit land trust that serves Gallatin, 

Park, Madison, Jefferson, Broadwater and Meagher counties in Montana. Founded 

in 1995, GVLT has worked with willing landowners to secure conservation easements over 25,000 acres of land that provides exceptional habitat, unspoiled scenery, and protection of water and soil resources. Additionally, GVLT has been the 

catalyst behind a 45 mile long public trail system in the Bozeman area. In the heart 

of our service area, Gallatin County is the fastest growing county in Montana, and 

still is a vital part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Conservation and 

responsible use of our spectacular natural resources is also fundamental to our region’s continued economic development. I write to seek your support for the permanent conservation of a very critical element of that ecosystem and one of GVLT’s 

highest priority projects. 

Remarkably diverse, the GYE provides some of the best wildlife habitat in the 

country, including home for one of the last viable grizzly bear populations in the 

lower 48 states. It hosts the largest elk and free-roaming bison herds in North 

America, and provides the only U.S. wintering ground for the rare trumpeter swan. 

Wolverines, lynx, fishers, and martens still roam the GYE’s mountains, as do bighorn sheep, black bears, and mountain goats. Other flourishing species include 

pronghorn antelope, wolves, moose, mountain lions, mule deer, beavers, coyotes, osprey, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The rich biological diversity of the GYE is 

truly exceptional—nowhere else in the lower 48 states can you find a large and relatively intact ecosystem containing nearly all the living organisms present in preColumbian times. 

In addition to its impressive wildlife values, the GYE offers some of the best recreational opportunities in North America. Its fisheries are world-renowned and attract fly fishers from all over the globe. Big game hunting opportunities are abundant. In addition to these sporting opportunities, the GYE offers a wide range of 
329 

backcountry recreational opportunities including skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, 

hiking, camping, whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing. 

Available for acquisition in the GYE in fiscal year 2007 is the second phase of 

the 2,055-acre Schmidt property. Located five miles east of downtown Bozeman and 

straddling Interstate 90 between the Bear Canyon and Trail Creek exits, this property has become available for protection through a combination of fee and conservation easement acquisitions. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) has called this 

project one of the most unique and important acquisitions for wildlife and its habitat to be proposed in the Gallatin Valley, largely due to the property’s strategic location between the Gallatin Mountains to the south and the Bridger/Bangtail Mountains to the north, its close proximity to downtown Bozeman and I–90, and its high 

subdivision value. 

This project conserves important habitat and connects existing protected habitat 

for a wide range of species. A recent study shows that one of the most important 

highway crossing points for wildlife in the Bozeman Pass area is located between 

the Bear Canyon and Trail Creek exits and that this area offers the best route for 

connectivity between secure habitats on either side of the interstate. Three large 

properties, covering almost 1,100 acres, have already been protected adjacent to the 

Schmidt property through donated conservation easements. Completing this project 

will ensure that a fivesquare-mile, contiguous block of wildlife corridor between the 

two mountain ranges will be permanently protected. 

In the coming months, approximately 250 acres in the first phase of the project 

will be purchased and conveyed to the Forest Service using an appropriation of $1.0 

million from fiscal year 2006. Another 390 acres are available for purchase this year 

in the second phase of the project. If these acres are successfully acquired, another 

175 acres will be donated to the Forest Service outright. An additional 1,240 acres 

will also be conserved through a conservation easement to be purchased by Gallatin 

County and conveyed to the Gallatin Valley Land Trust for long-term monitoring 

and enforcement. Sufficient non-federal funding for this easement purchase has already been secured. While funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

will be used to purchase only 640 acres, it will ultimately be responsible for triggering the permanent conservation of almost 2,100 acres. 

The project will also provide significant public access benefits. A new trail easement is included which would allow a new public trail to be built, starting at the 

Trail Creek Road on the south side of Interstate 90 and leading up to the 640 acres 

that would be conveyed to the Forest Service as part of this project and to existing 

National Forest lands beyond. It also includes guaranteed public access to a popular 

local rock climbing area, which would be donated to the Forest Service. 

Given its spectacular views of the Gallatin Valley and the Bridger Mountains, its 

gently sloping terrain and its close proximity to downtown Bozeman, the Schmidt 

property is extremely vulnerable to development. If full-scale development were ever 

allowed to occur on this property, critical wildlife habitat and scenic open space 

would be lost forever. 

An appropriation of $1.6 million in fiscal year 2007 from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund will leverage more than $4 million worth of additional conservation and recreation benefits (paid for entirely with nonfederal dollars) and ensure 

that 2,055 acres are permanently conserved. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1.6 million for the 

final phase of the Bozeman Pass (Schmidt) conservation project in the Gallatin National Forest in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 

bill. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GRAND VALLEY WATER USERS’ ASSOCIATION

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery Operations & Maintenance 
330 

Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to support the ongoing operation of the 

FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah. 3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GATHERING WATERWAYS CONSERVANCY

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony for you today. On behalf of the land trusts of Wisconsin, Gathering Waters Conservancy supports the appropriation of $2.5 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition projects in the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin. 

The beauty and ecological importance of this area are impressive. And with the 

number of lakes, and trails, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest provides 

some of the best recreational opportunities in the country. We now have the opportunity to acquire two additional tracks, totaling 1,390 acres: Venison Creek and Indian Farms. This will continue the success of this landscape as an area where people can hike, camp, hunt, and ski. 

The protection of this area has been well-supported in the past. The Forest Service’s Wild Wisconsin Waterways program recognizes the special value of Wisconsin’s 

northern forests. This program works to protect undeveloped properties along lakes 

and rivers to enhance natural resources and to provide areas for recreation. Congress has provided annual funding for land protection through the Wild Wisconsin 

Waterways program through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So far, 8,500 

acres have been protected. This year, Congress has the opportunity to fund the acquisition of two additional parcels of land. 

The acquisition of this property has already been a model of private-public partnerships. When Plum Creek decided to sell the land, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation stepped up and agreed to purchase and hold the property for one year while 

funds are secured through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. An appropriation by Congress of $2.5 million will protect these properties in the ChequamegonNicolet National Forest and ensure the continued success of the Wild Wisconsin Waterways program. 

Thank you for your consideration of this testimony! We hope that you will help 

us save special places for the future by funding the acquisition of Venison Creek 

and Indian Farms. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HIGHLANDS COALITION

On behalf of the regional Board of the Highlands Coalition, which includes over 

150 organizations working together to conserve priority lands in the Highlands region of CT, NY, NJ, and PA, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2007 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related 

Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Our top priorities include: 

—$11 million for the Highlands Conservation Act, including $10 million for land 

conservation partnership projects through the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and 

$1 million for USDA Forest Service technical assistance and research programs 

in the Highlands; and 

—$80 million for the Forest Legacy program, including $1.22 million for Skiff 

Mountain—phase II (CT), $2.1 million for Sparta Mountain South—phase II 

(NJ), and $300,000 for Birdsboro Waters (PA). 

HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

In the fall of 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Highlands 

Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of the more than three-million acre Highlands region as a source of drinking water, productive forests and 

farms, wildlife habitat and recreation within an hour of major metropolitan areas 

including Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. The Act authorized $10 million annually to assist the Highlands states in conserving priority lands from willing 

landowners, and to continue USDA Forest Service research and assistance to private landowners in the Highlands. Under the Act, the states are required to match 
331 

federal funds for land conservation partnership projects on an equal basis to greater 

leverage these funds. In his budget for fiscal year 2007, President Bush has included $2 million for the 

Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), through the Fish & Wildlife Service, to support 

land conservation partnership projects in the four Highland states of Pennsylvania, 

New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. The Governors of the four Highlands States 

have jointly submitted projects totaling $10 million in need to the Department of 

the Interior for funding in fiscal year 2007, including: 

Litchfield Farms (CT) 

Cost: $10,000,000 

HCA Request: $2,500,000 

Size: 753 Acres 

Matching Funds: State of Connecticut; Town of Litchfield; private donations 

Description: The State of Connecticut requests funds for Litchfield Farms which 

contains large areas of wetlands, prime agricultural soils, and diverse forests. The 

site hosts a known state-listed endangered species and contains several vernal pools. 

Litchfield Farms lies within both the Bantam and the Naugatuck watersheds. All 

waterways on the property that drain into the Bantam River are AA, or the highestlevel water quality. Elevations on the property reach up to 1,300 feet making it one 

of the highest points in Litchfield. Preservation of this property would provide 

ridgeline and scenic vista protection for both the towns of Torrington and Litchfield. 

Wyanokie Highlands (NJ) 

Cost: $7,700,000 HCA 

Request: $2,500,000 

Size: Four parcels totaling 1,288 Acres 

Description: New Jersey requests funds for this focal area which is ranked highly 

due to its value for water resources and recreation, and secondarily for biodiversity 

and forest land. 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. These acquisitions 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. 

Oley Hills (PA) 

Cost: $5,000,000 

HCA Request: $2,500,000 

Size: 2,263 

Description: The Oley Hills is a Critical Treasure within the Highlands Region. 

This assemblage of properties is located within 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 encompasses three state-designated ‘‘Exceptional Value’’ streams (the Pine, Oysterville, and Saucony creeks). These pristine 

waterways provide drinking water to the surrounding communities, and important 

water quality protection for the Schuylkill River, Pennsylvania’s first designated 

Scenic River and the spine of the Schuylkill River Heritage Corridor. The Oley Hills 

are known to provide habitat that supports substantial populations of the endangered Bog Turtle. The area also contains sweeping scenic vistas of the Highlands 

Region and woodlands that are exceedingly rare in southeast Pennsylvania. 

Great Swamp and Sterling Forest Areas (NY) 

Cost: $10,600,000 

HCA Request: $2,500,000 

Size: 1,300 Acres 

Description.—Great Swamp: New York State requests funds to assist in the acquisition of properties that will further protect the Great Swamp, one of New York’s 

most important wetland complexes and the largest and highest quality red maple 

hardwood swamp in the State. It also contains breeding habitat for more than 80 

bird species and migratory habitat for more than 150 species of waterfowl and other 

birds. The Great Swamp also contains a south flowing section based on the East 

Branch Croton River, a critical part of New York City’s water supply system; and 

a north flow section based on the Swamp River which flows into the Housatonic 

and, ultimately, to Long Island Sound. 

Arrow Park: New York requests funds to assist in the acquisition of an addition 

to Sterling Forest State Park. The Arrow Park property is situated adjacent to the 

northeastern corner of Sterling Forest State Park and in close proximity to the Ap-
332 

palachian National Scenic Trail. The property contains a highly scenic lake, woodlands and wetlands, as well as significant frontage on Orange Turnpike. Portions 

of the property were acquired in 2002 as additions to the Park, while the disposition 

of the remaining 350 acres was being considered by the owners. 

The USDA Forest Service has been a valuable partner and catalyst in the region and $1 million is needed to allow the Forest Service to continue the expansion of 

the NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study to Pennsylvania and Connecticut, and to provide increased technical assistance to private landowners and local communities to 

advance stewardship and management of priority lands in the region. 

FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM AND PROJECTS

We also support funding for critical Forest Legacy projects in the Highlands re- gion including: $1.22 million for Skiff Mountain (phase II)—Connecticut, $2.1 million for Sparta Mountain South (phase II)—New Jersey, and $300,000 for Birdsboro 

Waters—Pennsylvania. In order to ensure that there is adequate program funding 

for these critical projects in the Highlands, we urge your support for funding Forest 

Legacy at $80 million in fiscal year 2007. 

Skiff Mountain (CT) 

$1.22 million in Legacy funding requested for phase II 

Conservation easement on 510 acres 

$1.2 million provided in fiscal year 2006 for easement on 427 acres 

Innovative project involving 8 contiguous landowners 

Directly abuts Appalachian Trail & 5,000 protected acres 

Sparta Mountain South (NJ) 

$2.1 million in Legacy funding requested for phase II 

Conservation easement on 800 acres, 200 acres in fee 

$1.8 million provided in fiscal year 2006—easement on 1,200 acres 

Key linkage between state parks and wildlife areas 

Recent development on adjacent parcels 

Birdsboro Waters (PA) 

$300,000 requested in the President’s budget 

Funding would complete $2.3 million project 

Conservation easement on 1,958 acres 

$500,000 received in fiscal year 2005 from PA startup funds 

Exceptional Value Watershed, Class A trout stream 

Part of larger 12,000 acre block of contiguous forest 

Finally, we are very concerned about the proposed cuts to the Land & Water Con- servation Fund, which is slated to receive only $85 million in the President’s budget, 

which would be the lowest level of funding in over three decades. Without adequate 

funding to the Highlands Conservation Act, Forest Legacy Program and Land & 

Water Conservation Fund, precious natural treasures of the Highlands may be developed and lost to conservation forever. 

Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year 2007 Interior, 

Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HUALAPAI INDIAN TRIBE

As the Chairman of the Hualapai Indian Tribe, I am writing to request your immediate attention concerning the inequity which exists with respect to the administration of the. Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s) Section 106—Water Pollution Control Program for Indian Tribes. The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments (i.e., Section 518 

of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) added a new section titled ‘‘Indian 

Tribes’’ which authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to treat 

Federally recognized Indian Tribes as States for certain provisions, including financial assistance under such programs as the Water Pollution Control Program. Section 518 is commonly known as the ‘‘Treatment as a State (TAS) section’’, and it 

would be an appropriate name for this section if in fact Indian Tribes were treated 

as States with respect to equity of funding. 

Currently, once an Indian Tribe qualifies to be treated as a State, it can receive 

Section 106 funds from EPA to administer its own water pollution control program. 

A few examples of the type of activities which are funded under Section 106 include: 

—Developing water quality management plans; 

—Hiring staff and purchasing equipment; 

—Conducting water quality monitoring; 

—Establishing water quality standards; and 
333 

—Developing and administering Nonpoint Source and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Programs. 

The inequity exists in the way, the EPA allocates Section 106 funds to Indian 

Tribes and the amount of funding which tribes receive. 

States receive Section 106 funds from EPA through an EPA funding formula 

which establishes funding targets for each state and territory of the United States 

(see Enclosures—Section 106 Funding Targets for Fiscal Years 2004–2006). These 

funding targets do not vary significantly from year to year especially since states 

and territories would not be able to maintain staffing levels if program funding were 

to be drastically reduced. 

Individual Indian Tribes on the other hand do not have funding targets provided 

by EPA once they have qualified to be treated as a State. Instead, Indian Tribes 

are required by EPA to play a guessing game on how much funding they will receive 

through Section 106 each year. 

The EPA has developed a funding formula which is used to allocate funds to each 

of the appropriate EPA Regional Offices and these allocated amounts appear as 

Tribal Set-Asides (see Enclosures). Region 9 now has ninety-seven (97) Sec. 106 TAS 

Tribes. This more than likely will mean that my Tribe’s Section 106 grant award 

for the coming fiscal year will be significantly reduced which could have severe negative impacts upon our Hualapai Water Pollution Control Program such as having 

to lay off key environmental program staff and delaying the implementation of the 

monitoring of our water quality standards attainment. 

If we were to be really treated as a state, we would have a funding target which 

would assure us level program funding from year to year such that staff and program continuity could be maintained. Indeed, each Indian Tribe who has met TAS 

qualifications should have a funding target just as states do. Notice that there are 

no funding targets for the Hualapai Tribe (see Enclosure) or any other of the other 

97 Indian Tribes within our Nation (see Enclosure) who have qualified to be treated 

as a state, but there should be. This arrangement is definitely neither fair nor equitable. 

The amount of Section 106 funding ($260,000 for fiscal year 2007) for the 

Hualapai Tribe is insufficient to administer an adequate water pollution program 

for 1,000,000 acres of reservation. Over a very short time span of the last eight to 

nine years, our Tribe has made tremendous strides with respect to our program accomplishments which are intended to restore and protect our waters. We believe 

that these accomplishments are significant especially when viewed from the perspective that states have been receiving Section 106 funds from EPA for over forty 

years. Some of these accomplishments are as follows: 

1. The hiring and training of our environmental staff. 

2. The identification and assessment of all of the waters within our Reservation. 

3. The development of our Nonpoint Source Assessment and Management Program. 

4. The development of the Tribe’s Water Quality Standards and enaction of our 

Water Resource Ordinance into Law for all Tribal Waters. 

5. The restoration of Tribal lands and waters through the implementation of 

nonpoint source projects. 

Four years ago, an EPA workgroup developed the following proposed criteria for 

determining eligibilty of Indian Tribes to receive a funding target or to be considered as a Mature Program. The target could then be set as a weighted average 

throughout the EPA Regions. The proposed criteria which we heartily endorse follows: 

1. Program Structure: The Tribe has programs, policies, procedures in place to develop and implement a water quality program. 

2. Program Management: The Tribe has a demonstrated ability to manage a continuing water quality program. 

3. Information Management and Reporting: The Tribe has ability to gather, assess 

and report on the conditions of tribal water quality. 

Our major concern with the Workgroup’s effort is that it has not addressed the 

methodology for determining funding targets for Indian Tribes. What is even more 

troubling is that Section 106 budget funding for fiscal year 2007 is proposed by the 

Administration to be reduced when the number of applicants within Region 9 is anticipated to increase significantly. If this occurs, I fear, many existing tribal programs maybe forced out of existence. 

For the Hualapai Tribe to implement an adequate water pollution control program, I request that you establish a reasonable funding target for us of $297,000 

per year. We appreciate the budget constraints that Congress has to deal with each 

year. We only hope, however, that Congress appreciates its Trust responsibilities to 

insure that the Tribe’s most precious Trust Asset, water, is not polluted and if it 
334 

is, we get your help. This is critically important after the events of September 11, 

2001 for Hualapai Homeland Security. As you probably already know the Tribe’s 

Northern boundary is 108 miles of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon. 

Water Sampling in this reach of the reservation to insure compliance of our water 

quality standards now also serves as a critical monitoring exercise for our Homeland 

Security and yours. The cities of Las Vegas, Los Angles and San Diego are the 

downstream users of our water resources and can also be protected by our monitoring for pollutants. We are equally certain that other tribes are also facing numerous threats from pollution and that there is a great need for additional funding to 

remedy these serious problems. 

I also personally want to thank you for lifting the one-third of one percent cap 

that was on Section 319 Nonpoint Source Funding to Tribes again this year. I only 

hope that this lifting of the cap can be permanent next year. Lastly, the Tribe wishes to continue to protect it’s critical Wetlands. We therefore ask you in your funding 

of EPA Office of Water allocations in 2007 to consider allowing a base amount for 

Tribes as you have in 319 funding to begin to protect these fragile environments 

in the southwest. Any assistance you can give us in this matter would be greatly 

appreciated. If you should have any questions or concerns please don’t hesitate to 

call myself or Don Bay, Director of Hualapai Natural Resources Department (928) 

769–2254. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

The Friends of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is an 

advocacy coalition of more than 100 national organizations, collectively representing 

millions of public health and health care professionals, academicians and consumers. Our member organizations strongly support the programs at HRSA designed to ensure Americans’ access to health services. 

Through its programs in thousands of communities across the country, HRSA provides a health safety net for medically underserved individuals and families, including 45 million Americans who lack health insurance; 49 million Americans who live 

in neighborhoods where primary health care services are scarce; African American 

infants, whose infant mortality rate is more than double that of whites; and the estimated 850,000 to 950,000 people living with HIV/AIDS. Programs to support the underserved place HRSA on the front lines in responding to our nation’s racial/ethnic 

and rural/urban disparities in health status. HRSA funding goes where the need exists, in communities all over America. We support a growing trend in HRSA programs to increase flexibility of service delivery at the local level, necessary to tailor 

programs to the unique needs of America’s many varied communities. The agency’s 

overriding goal is to achieve 100 percent access to health care, with zero disparities. 

In the best professional judgment of the members of the Friends of HRSA, to respond to this challenge, the agency will require an overall funding level of at least 

$7.5 billion for fiscal year 2007. 

The Friends of HRSA are gravely concerned about the president’s budget recommendation of a $255 million overall cut for fiscal year 2007, including over 12 

program eliminations. This is in addition to the 12 programs that were eliminated 

in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill and other programs that received deep 

cuts in both years. 

Through its many programs and new initiatives, HRSA helps countless individuals live healthier, more productive lives. In the 21st century, rapid advances in research and technology promise unparalleled change in the nation’s health care delivery system. HRSA could be well positioned to meet these new challenges as it continues to provide needed health care to the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. 

The Primary Care Bureau received a $181 million increase, all of which is designated for the Community Health Centers. Community-based health centers and 

National Health Service Corps-supported clinics form the backbone of the nation’s 

safety net. More than 4,000 of these sites across the nation provide needed primary 

and preventive care to nearly 13 million poor and near-poor Americans. HRSA primary care centers include community health centers, migrant health centers, health 

care for the homeless programs, public housing primary care programs and schoolbased health centers. Health centers provide access to high-quality, family-oriented, 

culturally and linguistically competent primary care and preventive services, including mental and behavioral health, dental and support services. Nearly three-fourths 

of health center patients are uninsured or on Medicaid, approximately two-thirds 

are people of color, and more than 85 percent live below 200 percent of the poverty 

level. Additional primary care is provided by 2,700 clinicians in the National Health 
335 

Service Corps. Corps members work in communities with a shortage of health professionals in exchange for scholarships and loan repayments. The Bureau of Health Professions received $342 million in cuts in fiscal year 2007 

budget which is 46 percent of its budget. Health professions and nursing education 

programs, authorized under Titles VII and VIII of the Public Health Service Act, 

are essential components of American’s health care safety net, bringing health care 

services to our underserved communities. An adequate, diverse, well-distributed and 

culturally competent health workforce is indispensable to our national readiness efforts. The health professions programs support the training and education of health 

care providers with the aim of enhancing the supply, diversity, and distribution of 

the workforce, filling the gaps in the health professions’ supply not met by traditional market forces. Through loans, loan guarantees, and scholarships to students, 

and grants and contracts to academic institutions and non-profit organizations, the 

Title VII and VIII health professions programs are the only federal programs designed to train providers in interdisciplinary settings to meet the needs of special 

and underserved populations, as well as increase minority representation in the 

health care workforce. We are concerned that cuts to Title VII health professions 

programs will exacerbate existing provider shortages in rural, medically underserved, and federally designated health professions shortage areas. While we applaud the $181 million increase in the President’s budget for Community Health 

Centers, these cuts to the Health Professions raise the question of whether there 

will be a sufficient number of health care providers to staff these clinics. These programs provide up-front incentives for dozens of types of health professionals—not 

only physicians, but mental health, public health and dental providers as well—encouraging them to pursue health careers in areas that would otherwise go unserved. 

Cuts will also impede recruitment of underrepresented minorities and students of 

disadvantaged backgrounds into the health professions. This action will have the 

further consequence of intensifying already problematic health disparities. We are 

also concerned about the impact health professions cuts will have on vulnerable populations such as the elderly. Adequate funding for HRSA Health Professions Programs under Title VII and VIII will help to create a prepared national workforce 

by reversing projected nationwide shortages of nurses, pharmacists, and other professionals. In addition to the dismay we have aboutthe Health Professions programs 

that were eliminated this year, we are deeply concerned about the program cuts and 

eliminations proposed in the Title VII and VIII programs in fiscal year 2007. We 

strongly encourage the Subcommittee to restore cuts to these vital Health Professions programs. The Maternal and Child Health Bureau was cut by $36 million to $780 million. 

Valuable programs like the Traumatic Brain Injury program, Universal Newborn 

Hearing Screening, and Emergency Medical Services for Children were zeroed out 

and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant was level funded. The Maternal 

and Child Health Block Grant is a source of flexible funding for states and territories to address their unique needs, and remains in great need of increased funding. The Title V Maternal and Child Health Block (MCH) Grant received a $31 million cut in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The president’s budget for fiscal year 2007 

proposed level funding for the block grant at the fiscal year 2006 level. Operating 

for a second year with less funds than in fiscal year 2005, and greater needs among 

more pregnant women, infants, and children, particularly those with special health 

care needs presents daunting challenges to the state maternal and child health programs. Furthermore, if programs like the Traumatic Brain Injury program, Universal Newborn Hearing Screening, and Emergency Medical Services for Children 

program are eliminated, those costs will be borne by the MCH Block Grant. Each 

year, a MCH program serves more than 26 million pregnant women, infants and 

children nationwide. Of the nearly 4 million mothers who give birth annually, almost half receive some prenatal or postnatal service from a MCH-funded program. 

MCH programs increase immunizations and newborn screening, reduce infant mortality and developmentally handicapping conditions, prevent childhood accidents 

and injuries, and reduce adolescent pregnancy. 

Nationally there are 1.4 million brain injuries per year, with an estimated societal 

cost of over $60 billion per year, including direct care and lost productivity. Research indicates that 50,000 individuals die as a result of Traumatic Brain Injury 

(TBI) each year in the United States and an additional 80,000 survive with residual 

long-term impairments. Today over 5.3 million Americans are living with a TBI-related disability. TBI can strike at anyone at any time—from falls, vehicle crashes, 

sports injuries, violence, and other causes. HRSA’s Traumatic Brain Injury program 

makes grants to states to coordinate, expand and enhance service delivery systems 

in order to improve access to services and support for persons with TBI and their 

families. Despite increasing numbers of soldiers returning from war with head inju-
336 

ries, increasing numbers of children being identified as disabled due to head injuries, and the release of an Institute of Medicine Report stating the importance of 

the program to brain injury survivors and their families, the Administration’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget eliminates the TBI State Grant program. We encourage the Subcommittee to restore cuts to the TBI State Grant program. Furthermore, individuals 

with traumatic brain injury have an array of protection and advocacy needs, including assistance with returning to work; finding a place to live; accessing needed supports and services, such as attendant care and assistive technology; and obtaining 

appropriate mental health, substance abuse, and rehabilitation services. Very often, 

these individuals are the victims of stigma and discrimination because so little is 

understood about the effects of TBI. In addition, many people with TBI—including 

returning veterans—are forced to remain in extremely expensive institutional settings far longer than necessary because community-based supports and services 

they need are not available. We encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding for 

the Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury Program. 

The Children’s Health Act of 2000 authorized funding for grants and programs 

to improve state-based newborn screening. Newborn screening is a public health activity used for early identification of infants affected by certain genetic, metabolic, 

hormonal or functional conditions for which there is effective treatment or intervention. Screening detects disorders in newborns that, left untreated, can cause death, 

disability, mental retardation and other serious illnesses. Parents are often unaware 

that while nearly all babies born in the United States undergo newborn screening 

tests for genetic birth defects, the number and quality of these tests vary from state 

to state. Screening programs coordinated through the HRSA Bureau of Maternal 

and Child health help to ensure that every baby born in the United States receives, 

at a minimum, a universal core group of screening tests regardless of the state in 

which he or she is born. However, the Administration again proposes eliminating 

the universal newborn hearing screening program. It goes without saying that more 

disorders will go unnoticed if the affected newborns are not screened. We encourage 

the Subcommittee to restore funding for the newborn hearing screening program. 

The proposed elimination of the Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) 

Program is also concerning to us, especially considering the many children who are 

eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP but who cannot enroll due to enrollment limits and 

budgetary pressures. The Emergency Medical Services for Children Program, administered by HRSA, is a national initiative designed to reduce child and youth disability and death due to severe illness and injury. The federal funds that are contributed to this program are supplemented by funding from private sources, including parents and volunteers. HRSA administers the program in partnership with the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. EMSC grants fund States and U.S. Territories to improve existing emergency 

medical services (EMS) systems and to develop and evaluate improved procedures 

and protocols for treating children. Children are not merely small adults. They have 

very unique and specific concerns that this programs works to address. We request 

that the $20 million funding level be restored. 

The Healthcare Systems Bureau received a cut of $13 million to $536 million. We 

are concerned with the funding level in the hospital preparedness program. Although the Administration proposes level funding, we are concerned with the $13 

million cut the program took in fiscal year 2006. In the post 9/11 era, all responders, 

providers and facilities must be ready to detect and respond to complex disasters, 

including terrorism, and HRSA must continue to support these vital hospital preparedness programs. 

Furthermore, HRSA’s Trauma-EMS Systems Program was eliminated in the fiscal 

year 2006 appropriations bill. This program facilitates the development of effective 

and comprehensive statewide trauma systems. This program is critical in order to 

ensure that our response to local, state and federal emergencies is effective and reflects the best clinical practice in trauma and emergency medicine. We request that 

the $3.5 million funding level be restored. 

The Office of Rural Health Policy was cut by 83 percent in the President’s budget. 

HRSA programs improve health care service for the more than 61 million people 

who live in rural America. Although almost a quarter of the population lives in 

rural areas, only an eighth of our doctors work there. Because rural families generally earn less than urban families, many health problems associated with poverty 

are more serious, including high rates of chronic disease and infant mortality. We 

encourage the Subcommittee to restore funding for rural health programs. 

An estimated 163,221 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests 

each year. Only an estimated 6 percent of them survive. Immediate CPR and early 

defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator (AED) can more than double 

a victim’s chance of survival. For every minute that passes without CPR and 
337 

defibrillation, the chances of survival decrease by 7 to 10 percent. The HRSA Rural 

and Community Access to Emergency Devices Program provides grants to states to 

train lay rescuers and first responders to use AEDs and purchase and place these 

devices in public areas where cardiac arrests are likely to occur. We encourage the 

Subcommittee to restore funding for this program to the fiscal year 2005 level of 

$8.927 million. 

The HIV/AIDS Bureau received a $95 million increase. The Ryan White CARE 

Act programs, administered by HRSA’s HIV/AIDS Bureau, are the largest single 

source of federal discretionary funding for HIV/AIDS health care for low-income, uninsured and underinsured Americans. Although we are pleased with the additional 

funds for comprehensive care and early intervention, we are concerned that previous 

years cuts has diminished the reach of the Ryan White CARE Act has been diminished. Since fiscal year 2003, funding to the most impacted cities has been cut by 

$15 million and funding to the states has been cut by $8 million. These cuts have 

forced state and local HIV/AIDS programs to stretch already thin CARE Act dollars 

to treat existing clients while trying to provide care and treatment to those newly 

diagnosed as HIV-positive. We request an increase of $577 million for CARE Act 

programs in fiscal year 2007. 

In fiscal year 2006 the AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) received a $2 million increase. Unfortunately, this program, which provides life-sustaining treatment 

to thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS, cannot be sustained on such an increase. By the end of fiscal year 2006 it is expected that hundreds more individuals 

will be added to ADAP waiting lists and that states will have had to institute other 

cost-containment measures such as reduced formularies, increased cost-sharing for 

ADAP clients and lowered eligibility requirements for enrollment. We request an increase of $197 million for the ADAP program. 

Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted to provide high-quality, subsidized contraceptive care to those who need but cannot afford such services, to improve women’s health, reduce unintended pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality and morbidity. Title X programs provide comprehensive, voluntary and affordable family planning services to millions of low-income women and men—many of 

whom are uninsured—at more than 4,600 clinics nationwide. People who visit Title 

X funded clinics receive a broad package of preventive health services, including 

breast and cervical cancer screening, blood pressure checks, anemia testing, and 

STD/HIV screening. 

A major source of HRSA’s strength is its many linkages and partnerships with 

other federal agencies, state, national and local organizations. For example, HRSA 

and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are jointly implementing 

outreach on the new State Children’s Health Insurance Program in addition to 

working together to improve data sharing and coordination, particularly on Medicaid. Work also is ongoing with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) to integrate behavioral health and substance abuse 

screening, early intervention, referral and follow-up into primary health care settings funded through HRSA grants. HRSA and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) cooperate on a variety of disease prevention and health promotion 

activities. 

Cross-cutting HRSA programs continually respond to new public health challenges. For instance, tooth decay remains the single most chronic childhood disease 

in the nation. However, about 125 million Americans have no dental insurance. 

Lack of access to dental care is especially severe among children of poor, rural and 

minority families. A quarter of the nation’s school-age children have 80 percent of 

all dental disease, putting them at risk for a host of related illnesses. And as new 

drugs help people with HIV/AIDS live longer, healthier lives, their need for regular 

oral health care will continue to increase. HRSA can help both groups by increasing 

the number of dentists in community and school-based centers and by providing 

greater reimbursements to hospital dental clinics and dental schools for the growing 

costs of treating people living with HIV/AIDS. 

Among the programs that were eliminated in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations 

bill are Healthy Community Access Program and the State Planning Grants program. Each of these programs helps communities and states provide access to 

health care for those who need it most. We encourage the Subcommittee to restore 

funding to these and other programs eliminated in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill. 

We urge the members of the Subcommittee to restore the cuts and fund the agency at a level that allows HRSA to effectively implement these important programs. 

The members of the Friends of HRSA are grateful for this opportunity to present 

our views to the Subcommittee. 
338 

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 $1.1 million appropriation from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for the acquisition of Broad Brook watershed 

project in the Green Mountain National Forest. 

The mission of the Hoosic River Watershed Association is to protect and improve 

the 750-square-mile Hoosic watershed in Massachusetts, Vermont and New York 

State. Braod Brook is a tributary to the Hoosic. The conservation of the Broad Brook 

watershed property as an addition to the Green Mountain National Forest is important to our organization, because it protects the property’s forests and water quality, 

excellent wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. 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 in fiscal year 2007 are the final 970 acres of 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. 

Residents and officials in both Vermont and Massachusetts have displayed exceptional commitment to completing this important transaction. The City of North 

Adams has agreed to sell the Broad Brook property at 25 percent below fair market 

value, providing significant savings to the federal government. On November 2, 

2004, Pownal residents voted by a margin of two-to-one in favor of purchase of the 

Broad Brook parcel by the Green Mountain NF. 

With that vote of approval and with congressional appropriations in fiscal years 

2004, 2005, and 2006 the first phase of the property, 2,450 acres, has already been 

completed. An appropriation of $1.1 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2007 will 

permit the Forest Service to complete this critical acquisition, 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, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the appropriation for the Broad Brook property in Vermont. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding Hospital for Special Surgery 

(HSS) in New York, New York. Since its founding over 140 years ago, HSS has been 

the hospital of choice for countless individuals of all ages—from infants to older 

adults—suffering from musculoskeletal conditions. Today, HSS is considered the 

premier specialty hospital for orthopedics and rheumatology in the United States 

and abroad. 

As you know, funds to support the establishment of the National Center for Musculoskeletal Research at Hospital for Special Surgery were included in Labor, HHS 

and Education Appropriations in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2005. First, I 
339 

would like to take this opportunity to thank the Subcommittee for its support and 

to report on the excellent progress that has been made in achieving this goal. 

With a combination of institutional, private, and government support, HSS has 

transformed its research enterprise over the past six years, from the physical plant 

to the depth and focus of its scientific expertise. HSS has conducted the largest recruitment drive in its history. Expanded, state-of-the-art laboratories have increased 

the quality and quantity of investigations. Today, 70 percent of HSS’ basic research 

activity is federally funded, meeting national benchmarks. Our critical mass of expertise is composed of 34 bench scientists and 129 full-time laboratory fellows, technicians, and support. Of course, the most important measure of success is HSS’s capacity to improve quality of life through treatments derived from a greater understanding of disease. This has been fortified by the scientific talent and new resources made possible by the Hospital’s generous supporters. Today, the National 

Center for Musculoskeletal Research at HSS is an internationally recognized leader 

whose pioneering scientists are making significant contributions to understanding 

diseases like arthritis, osteoporosis, and lupus, and advancing progress toward the 

development of better treatments and cures. 

The Hospital’s groundbreaking basic, translational, and clinical research efforts 

are unique in that they are informed by its very sizeable patient base, which is the 

largest of any musculoskeletal hospital in the world. HSS’s surgical techniques, rehabilitation practices, orthopedic imaging, anesthesiology and pain management, 

and non-surgical interventions are the ‘‘best practices’’ in the field. To continue to 

advance the state-of-the-art, while meeting the needs of increasing numbers of patients, HSS is now working to create an entirely new platform of patient care for 

the 21st century. The centerpiece of this initiative is the expansion and modernization of its clinical facilities to provide the highest level of care to the increasing 

number of patients seeking the expertise of the Hospital’s extraordinary medical 

staff. HSS has requested a fiscal year 2007 Appropriation of $4 million to advance 

this important project. 

The Hospital last expanded in 1996 when facilities meant for polio patients and 

lengthy hospitalizations were redesigned and modernized. In the succeeding years, 

pioneering advances in musculoskeletal medicine have taken place, many of them 

using biosynthetic materials, molecular diagnostics, innovative surgical tools and 

techniques, and computer guidance and modeling. Since 1996, HSS has added 65 

medical staff and numerous specialized centers dedicated to research and clinical 

care in orthopedics, rheumatology, complementary medicine, sports medicine, nonsurgical interventions, imaging, and pain prevention. 

New medical staff have the opportunity to learn from surgeons and physicians 

who have practiced at HSS for decades, embracing a great breadth and depth of experience, historical knowledge of the field, and insight into patients’ needs, expectations, and potential for recovery. Building on experience, we have increased our efficiencies and ability to help increasing numbers of patients from all over the world. 

For example, the average length of stay for joint replacement has been reduced from 

6 days (1996) to less than 4.5 days. For patients who qualify for minimally invasive 

surgery, many can leave the hospital within 2–3 days. In the future, we feel certain 

some joint replacement surgery will be carried out on an ambulatory basis. 

The major demographic and sociological trends observed worldwide are fueling a 

demand for care at HSS that is unprecedented. There has been an extraordinary 

increase in the over-sixty population and their need for musculoskeletal medicine; 

and there is a more active, younger population desiring to remain mobile and play 

sports as they grow older. From 1996 to 2005, Special Surgery’s annual surgical volume rose from 10,700 to 17,500 and its annual outpatient visits rose from 147,000 

to 230,000, a total increase of approximately 60 percent. Special Surgery is also a 

magnet referral center for complex surgeries, with growing numbers of patients requiring extensive, high-level care. 

Meeting demand is only part of the equation. Bringing improved treatments and 

interventions to patients is of utmost importance. HSS continues to be a leader in 

advancing clinical treatments that enable patients to recuperate more quickly and 

regain mobility. HSS-led innovations on the horizon include: 

—Minimally invasive knee, hip, and shoulder implants for younger patients. 

‘‘Baby boomers’’ are our fastest growing patient segment. 

—Spinal disc replacement surgery for degenerative disc disease, and spinal stabilization without fusion. 

—Effective treatments for early arthritic patients when there is a ‘‘window of opportunity’’ to slow and perhaps halt the progression of disease. 

—Biosynthetic materials that mimic everyday movements to repair sports injuries 

to ligaments, tendons, meniscus, and cartilage. 
340 

—Biological solutions with minimal side effects to treat and prevent the progress 

of a wide range of inflammatory conditions. 

—New diagnostics to predict the efficacy of medical treatments. 

—Advanced imaging techniques that can diagnose disease at the pre-clinical 

stage, enabling earlier and more effective treatment. 

—New medications to intervene before nerve injury and remold pain pathways, 

minimizing post-operative pain. 

—Computer-assisted surgical procedures. 

An expanded clinical facility will enable the countless patients who seek our help 

to have the benefit of these medical innovations. 

Our new clinical facilities and extraordinary volume of patients will also provide 

an unparalleled opportunity to create a robust clinical research program. The potential for new knowledge in joint replacement is significant, since HSS performs the 

greatest number of hip and knee replacements in the world, more than 4,000 annually. The clinical research program will be built on a strong basic research foundation, which was strengthened over the past several years with the vital support of 

the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee. 

In our ‘‘new hospital’’ every patient would have an opportunity to partner with 

us as a research patient in the effort to gain a deeper understanding of bone and 

joint disease to perfect treatment for future generations. With advanced technology, 

patients will help create their own research records, containing uniform, prospective 

data on the nuances of their treatment and progress. Each specialty service will 

have its own clinical research coordinator, and patients will have ‘‘real time’’ access 

to information about clinical trials. Clinical research analysis, coupled with our 

knowledge of disease at the basic science level—particularly arthritis and inflammatory disease—will provide a powerful resource for advancing musculoskeletal 

health and restoring patients’ mobility. We are currently recruiting new leadership 

for this program and developing the required infrastructure to successfully launch 

this initiative in our expanded facilities. 

The Hospital’s new facilities will be completed by 2009 and encompass 201,000 

square feet of new construction and 75,000 square feet of renovated existing space. 

On-site patient services will be significantly expanded and redesigned for greater efficiency and comfort. Highlights include a modernized, expanded ambulatory surgery center; enhanced rehabilitation facilities; new imaging, pain management, and 

minor procedures facilities; and an enhanced sports medicine rehabilitation center. 

In addition, the Hospital is refurbishing the lobby of the Main Building to better 

serve patients and their families. HSS took a unique approach to the design of this 

project, forming a collaborative team of physicians, nurses, architects, and planners 

to develop an optimum healing environment that flows efficiently for both patients 

and medical staff. 

Mr. Chairman, the objectives of Hospital for Special Surgery’s Clinical Facilities 

Expansion and Modernization Project are consistent with those historically funded 

by the Department of Health and Human Services in the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Bill. We hope that the subcommittee will provide $4 million 

in fiscal year 2007 toward this capital expansion, which will benefit countless patients as they grow older and seek help for a range of musculoskeletal conditions. 

The chances are, no matter where patients live, they will be helped by a medical 

advance pioneered at HSS or by an HSS-trained physician. To keep this promise 

alive, we must be able to expand clinically and lead the way, as we have done since 

opening our doors as America’s oldest existing orthopedic hospital. 

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 9.6 million supporters nationwide. The 

HSUS urges the Committee to address these priority issues in the fiscal year 2007 

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 

$1.2 million increase for the Law Enforcement Division in fiscal year 2007. The 

HSUS strongly supports an additional increase of $1.3 million over the Administration’s request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Operations and 
341 

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 was signed into law in December 2003, as Public 

Law 108–191. It passed unanimously in both the House and Senate and takes aim 

at the problem of private ownership of big cats as pets. We are pleased that the 

Service has now proposed regulations to implement this important law. According 

to some estimates, there are as many as 15,000 big cats kept as pets in the United 

States. A modest increase of $1.3 million over the President’s fiscal year 2007 request should be appropriated to hire and train one new Special Agent for each of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s seven regions. This additional funding will allow for 

better enforcement of this and other vital wildlife protection laws. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in requesting an increase over 

the Administration’s request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

(MNSCF) and Wildlife Without Borders. The MNSCF was established by Congress 

to benefit African and Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, neotropical migratory birds, and marine turtles. Congress has been very supportive of these programs 

in the past. Unfortunately, the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 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 2007 by 

appropriating $1.6 million each for the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the 

Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, and the Great Ape Conservation Fund and $1.2 

for the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund. We further request $2 million for the 

combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, $5 million for the Neotropical 

Migratory Birds Conservation Fund, and $500,000 for Wildlife Without Borders. 

This request totals $13.5 million. 

While there are threats to the long-term survival of elephants, rhinos, tigers, 

great apes, neotropical migratory birds, and marine turtles, 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, entertainment, and public display—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 ICCVAM Authorization Act (Public Law 106–545) created a new paradigm for regulatory toxicology, by promoting chemical testing methods that are 

often faster and more economical than existing methods, as well as more responsive 

to public concerns about the 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. All 15 federal regulatory and research agencies that compose the Interagency 

Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) agree 

on a common definition of validation as ‘‘the process by which the reliability and 

relevance of a procedure are established for a specific use.’’ 

In recent years, Congress has provided specific funding for research, development 

and validation of non-animal and other alternative test methods that replace, reduce, or refine the use of animals in toxicity testing. However, EPA has been underfunding validation studies of non-animal and other alternative methods. 

For several years, the budget for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

has hovered at approximately $500 million. Animal protection organizations have 

supported a request for 1–2 percent of this budget to go for research, development 

and validation of non-animal, alternative test methods. Then-Chairman Walsh secured a $4 million appropriation for research, development and validation of nonanimal test methods in EPA’s fiscal year 2002 budget. While the animal protection 

community is greatly appreciative of that first-ever 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 ORD’s Science and Technology Account 
342 

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. Consequently, this approach does little to support the necessary validation 

studies for non-animal test methods with potential 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 American Chemistry Council, the Procter & Gamble Company, and 

the Doris Day Animal League, 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 support for 

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, integrate, and implement specific plans for validation studies of new and revised, non-animal and alternative methods for chemical screening and priority setting within the Agency’s Computational Toxicology Program. The Committee requests that EPA submit an annual report, due by March 31 of the following fiscal year, detailing results of its 

Computational Toxicology program, to include a section on EPA’s overall activities 

and itemized expenditures in a manner where both specific activities and specific 

expenditures devoted to validation of new, revised test methods, non-animal methods, and alternative methods are broken out from expenditures on research and development.’’ 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

The BLM is charged with the management of approximately 32,000 wild horses 

in 10 Western States. The fiscal year 2007 budget for the maintenance of this herd 

is $36.4 million. That is a little over $1,100 per animal. This inadequate budget is 

further augmented through the unacceptable practice of selling ‘‘unadoptable’’ animals to individuals who often consider them no more than horsemeat for French 

and Belgian menus. The massive public outcry resulting from sales of wild horses 

to slaughter reflects revulsion Americans feel about the brutality and unseemly nature of this practice. The BLM should have only two mechanisms for dealing with 

‘‘surplus’’ wild horses and burros; (1) long-term, humane pasturing and (2) adoption. 

The budget for the wild horse and burro program should be increased by at least 

$12 million for a total of $48.4 million or $1,500 per animal. This would allow for 

more intensive herd monitoring and range inventory to assist in the continuance of 

accurate herd censuses and the reinstatement of mandatory biennial reports to Congress. These additional funds could also contribute to non-lethal methods of horse 

and burro population control including contraception, an approach the HSUS is 

working collaboratively with the BLM to implement. A renewed marketing strategy 

for publicizing the wild horse and burro adoption program could also be funded 

through additional appropriations. This supplementary money could be re-appropriated from the energy and minerals management line item that includes a funding 

increase of $12.4 million ‘‘. . . to support preparation and implementation of an 

ANWR leasing program . . .’’ that has yet to be approved by Congress. 

PROTECTION FOR WALRUSES

We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year 2007 to fund 

the continuation of much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. New promising 

methodologies for surveying walrus populations have been developed and require 

sustained funding support. A comprehensive walrus survey was begun in 2005—the 

effort must receive continued support to maximize the utility of its results. Walruses 

are targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of data regarding 

their current population status or population structure. Hundreds of walruses are 

killed annually; in some years this number has climbed to as many as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages, females and their calves are preferentially killed, 

against the recommendation of the USFWS and standard management practice. A 

portion of the research funds could also be used to improve the Walrus Harvest 

Monitor Project, which collects basic management data. 
343 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES—ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAMS

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget for the FWS endangered species program recommends a cut of more than $6 million from fiscal year 2006. In addition to this 

reduction, the President proposes transferring over $4 million away from actual species protection measures to land owner incentive and stewardship grant programs. 

Overall, these cuts short-change this important legislation which had actually experienced an increased budget between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006. This program should not be funded at under $175 million. 

Candidate Conservation: This portion of the budget would be cut by almost $600,000 from fiscal year 2006 funding. These cuts are primarily focused on slashing funding for research efforts on the Idaho sage grouse and the California fisher. 

Both of these species’ population reductions have been primarily due to habitat fragmentation and loss which need to be monitored or reversed in order to prevent the 

listing of these species. Additionally, no new programs for any of the 282 candidate 

species were added for fiscal year 2007. Reallocating money from the general operations budget to the candidate conservation line item would assist in the protection 

of species on the brink of listing. The $1.8 million slated to fund ‘‘results-based performance management’’ training would be better spent on threatened species in 

need of preservation. 

Listing: Although the funding of this element is steady compared with fiscal year 

2006, additional funds are desperately needed. This aspect of the program allows 

for the designation of critical habitat for species to be listed in addition to evaluating petitions to list candidate species. Of the 565 listed animals, only about 170 

have critical habitat designations. Additional funds of at least $5 million should be 

added to alleviate the backlog of animals with no defined critical habitats. 

Consultation: This item of the endangered species budget includes an increase, 

but this increase is only to provide for expedited permit processing to ‘‘directly support national energy production’’. This program is designed to foster dialog between 

different federal and non-federal entities under the Habitat Conservation Planning 

(HCP) program. The HCP program is designed to identify and resolve potential species conflicts in the early stages of federal project planning and to ensure that 

projects will be implemented in a manner consistent with the conservation needs 

of listed species, not the energy needs of our nation. Therefore, funds for this portion 

of the program should go towards conflict management and conservation needs, and 

not towards the approval of permits for natural resource mining and drilling. Recovery: This component has been cut over $8.5 million. These reductions are 

primarily aimed at severely diminishing and completely terminating funding for a 

number of endangered species and their habitats. Notable among the budget casualties are funds for Yellowstone Grizzly Conservation Strategy and wolf monitoring 

and recovery. Although the budget states that the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program and the National Park Service (NPS) will take over funding these programs, there is only $495,000 for Yellowstone grizzlies and $800,000 for wolf monitoring. There is no mention of either of these programs in the NPS budget statement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOUSATONIC VALLEY ASSOCIATION

The Housatonic Valley Association appreciates the opportunity to present this tes- timony in support of a $1.22 million appropriation to the State of Connecticut from 

the Forest Legacy Program for the second phase of the Skiff Mountain project. The 

Housatonic Valley Association, founded in 1941, works to conserve the natural character and environmental health of our communities in the Housatonic River watershed by restoring and protecting our lands and waters for future generations. Skiff 

Mountain is one of our most urgent conservation priorities, and we strongly support 

our local and regional partners working for its protection. 

The Highlands region of the East Coast is virtually in the backyard of the nation’s 

largest metropolitan area. Located within an hour of nearly 25 million Americans, 

the Highlands form a greenbelt of forests and farmland adjacent to the sprawling 

Hartford-New York-Philadelphia urban corridor. Two million acres of glacial bogs, 

hardwood-conifer swamps, rock outcrop communities, and chestnut oak forests 

stretch from western Connecticut across the Lower Hudson River Valley and northern New Jersey into Pennsylvania, enticing more than 14 million visitors each 

year—more than Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks combined. 

The state has identified the Connecticut portion of the Highlands as a critical 

focus area under its Forest Legacy Program. Right now there are four separate parcels of land in this focus area that are available for protection in fiscal year 2007. 

These parcels total approximately 510 acres of Skiff Mountain Forest in north-
344 

western 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. Strategically located among already existing conservation lands, 

part of the Housatonic River Greenway corridor of state significance, and immediately adjacent to the federally protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the Skiff Mountain assemblage has been identified by the state 

as its top priority for Forest Legacy funding this year completing the second and 

final phase of this outstanding conservation effort. 

In fiscal year 2007, $1.22 million is needed from the Forest Legacy program to 

help preserve 510 acres of Skiff Mountain, and keep intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and four-state Highlands region. Local 

funding and land value donation will match these funds. We hope that you will provide $1.22 million to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2007 Interior 

appropriations bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

On behalf of our America’s fish and wildlife agencies, I urge the Subcommittee 

on Interior and Related Agencies to support funding in the amount of $85 million 

for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act. 

The State Wildlife Grants Program is our nation’s core program for keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife agencies enjoy a strong partnership with the federal government in managing our nation’s wildlife resources. 

Working together, we are able to ensure robust fish and wildlife populations and 

keep species from declining to the point of becoming endangered. State Wildlife 

Grants is an integral element of this partnership, providing the federal government’s share of support for proactive on-the-ground conservation projects aimed at 

declining fish and wildlife species and their habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not 

just a grants program. It truly is a core program of the Department of Interior for 

advancing a pressing national need. 

The President’s budget includes $74.7 million, an increase of $5 million above the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $68.5 million. We appreciate the Administration’s 

continued support for this program as a core component of their collaborative conservation agenda. 

Although the budget is tight, America’s fish and wildlife agencies are recommending that Congress provide a funding level of at least $85 million in order to 

restore this program back up to the highest level of funding it has ever received, 

in fiscal year 2002. Consistent funding is essential to the long-term success of this 

program, and the completion of wildlife action plans in every state and territory 

only underscores the need for adequate and reliable resources. A funding level of 

$85 million would send an important message about the Congress’s commitment to 

following through on providing the support needed to implement the wildlife action 

plans. We are pleased that 170 Representatives have already formally signed on to 

this commitment in the form of a ‘‘dear colleague’’ and we hope you will match that 

strong demonstration of support. 

We also urge your consideration of additional language to provide an incentive for 

states to cooperate on projects with other states as well as federal agencies when 

implementing the actions in their plans. Allowing implementation projects that include several states working together to implement actions identified in their comprehensive state wildlife strategies at a 75:25 match (vs. 50:50) will provide greater 

benefits to the nation. In addition, allowing federal funds to be used as a match for 

a particular State Wildlife Grants project will encourage greater cooperation between a federal entity within that state and the state wildlife agency in implementing the strategies/plans together. The strategies/plans have the potential to encourage everyone to work together resulting in a greater cumulative impact as well 

as avoiding costly duplication and unnecessary overlap. 

The President’s budget includes a proposal to set aside $5 million of the new 

funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants for a new program of competitive 

grants. While we appreciate the intent to reward effective conservation proposals, 

we believe that the time is not yet right for a new competitive program to be created 

within State Wildlife Grants. The creation of such a program should be predicated 

on the attainment of higher levels of funding. State Wildlife Grants has provided 

a tremendous enhancement to the capacity of every state to address wildlife conservation. While we cannot currently support the creation of a competitive funding 
345 

program, we are committed to making any programs that are enacted by Congress 

a success. If Congress deems that this is an appropriate course of action, we will 

work together with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make it a success. 

In closing, I again extend the appreciation of America’s wildlife agencies for your 

continued support for the state-federal wildlife conservation partnership. We sincerely urge you to provide our requested level of $85 million for State Wildlife 

Grants. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS ASSOCIATION—NORTH AMERICA

Dear Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Dorgan: The President’s 2007 Budget for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) includes a proposed reduction of $22 million in funding for mineral resources programs that will discontinue or reduce, 

among other things, global mineral resource assessments of critical mineral commodities. The Industrial Minerals Association—North America (IMA–NA) is opposed 

to reducing authorizations and appropriations below current levels of $53 million, 

believing rather that our national capacity regarding economic intelligence should 

be strengthened. 

The proposed reduction will terminate data collection and analysis for 100 mineral 

commodities in 180 countries outside the United States.—The budget cuts have the 

potential to limit severely available data on global industrial minerals production 

and consumption, while continuing to make domestic data readily available outside 

the United States. In a globally competitive marketplace, that means that global 

competitors will know more about U.S. production and consumption than U.S. producers will know about their global competition. 

IMA–NA believes the United States should promote an environment conducive to 

competition in the global marketplace and collection and analysis of mineral commodity data on an international basis serves that end.—In today’s global environment, the United States must maintain its capacity to assess critical mineral resources both within and outside the United States. The private sector cannot perform this comprehensive assessment itself. To do so collectively could raise antitrust 

issues. The collection, analysis and dissemination of mineral commodity data on an 

international basis are inherently governmental functions and USGS is best prepared to continue to perform them. 

IMA–NA believes that the United States should continue industrial minerals research to ensure a stable supply of materials essential to our national economy and 

to our way of life.—The United States is the world’s largest user of mineral commodities. Every year about 25,000 pounds of new non-fuel mineral materials from the 

earth must be provided for every person in the United States. just to maintain our 

current standard of living. USGS is uniquely situated in the federal government to 

provide scientific information for objective resource assessments and unbiased research results on mineral potential, production and consumption. 

We respectfully request your support for continued funding of collection and analysis of economic intelligence on the broad array of mineral commodities produced 

and consumed outside the United States. We also request your support for continued funding of industrial minerals research. 

The Industrial Minerals Association—North America (IMA–NA) is a trade association organized to advance the interests of North American companies that mine or 

process industrial minerals. These minerals are used as feedstocks for the manufacturing and agricultural industries and are used to produce such essential products 

are glass, paints and coatings, ceramics, detergents and fertilizers. The IMA–NA 

membership includes producers of ball clay, bentonite, borates, feldspar, industrial 

sand, mica, soda ash (trona), sodium silicate, talc and wollastonite. IMA–NA’s membership also includes many of the suppliers to the industrial minerals industry, including equipment manufacturers, railroads and trucking companies, and consultants. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement to 

the Committee regarding the views of the Compact’s member states on the fiscal 

year 2007 Budget Request for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. 

Department of the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $58.3 million 

to fund Title V grants to states and Indian tribes for the implementation of their 

regulatory programs and $145.4 million for state and tribal Title IV abandoned 
346 

mine land (AML) program grants. Our statement will address both of these budgeted items. 

The Compact is comprised of 22 states that together produce some 90 percent of 

the Nation’s coal as well as important noncoal minerals. The Compact’s purposes 

are to advance the protection and restoration of land, water and other resources affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in each of the party states 

that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the 

usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining industry. OSM has projected an amount of $58.3 million for Title V grants to states, an 

amount which is matched by the states each year. As you know, these grants support the implementation of state regulatory programs under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and effective operation of those programs. For the past few fiscal years, we have seen a 

very modest trend to increase Title V grants in an effort to assist the states in meeting their uncontrollable cost increases. This year, in particular, OSM has proposed 

a $2 million increase, the largest over the past five fiscal years. Just as with the 

federal government, state regulatory programs are personnel intensive, with salaries and benefits constituting upwards of 80 percent of total program costs. States 

must have sufficient staff to complete permitting, inspection and enforcement actions needed to protect citizens of the coalfields. When funding falls below program 

needs, states may struggle to keep active sites free of offsite impacts, reclaim mined 

areas, and prevent injuries. 

When it comes to funding state programs, we believe it is critical to investigate 

the potential mechanisms for assisting the states to meet their financial requirements, either through increased overall grant funding or through adjustments to the 

current funding formula. For instance, OSM’s budgeted amount does not meet the 

states’ own estimates for their projected program operating costs in fiscal year 2007, 

which total $63 million. While OSM’s estimates will allow us to meet our most direct and critical responsibilities for conducting regulatory operations to minimize 

the impact of coal extraction operations on people and the environment, the gap of 

$5 million between the two estimates eliminates the cushion for inflation and uncontrollable costs. It also undermines our efforts to realize needed program improvements and enhancements. This will become increasingly important as the federal 

government is faced with the dilemma of either securing the necessary funding for 

state programs or implementing those programs (or portions thereof) themselves— 

at significantly higher costs. 

OSM’s own Budget Justification Document acknowledges the importance of the 

states receiving adequate program funding: 

The States have the unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing a 50 percent match of Federal funds to primacy States 

in the form of Administration and Enforcement (A&E) Grants results in the highest 

benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal government. If a State were to relinquish 

primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient numbers and types of Federal employees to implement the program. The cost to the Federal government would be significantly higher. [OSM Budget Justification Document, ‘‘Environmental Protection’’, 

page 76.] 

The states continue to work cooperatively with OSM to develop realistic and 

meaningful estimates for state regulatory program costs. Our recent efforts have focused on insuring that all funds received each year are in fact obligated, despite the 

fact that states often face significant challenges related to differences in grant/fiscal 

year cycles and accounting methods. Some of these issues can be addressed through 

regular reviews of grant expenditures. Others require some hard choices concerning 

regulatory program adjustments or enhancements. In the end, the states are committed to effectively and efficiently managing their programs to accomplish both 

state and federal outcome-based performance goals. 

It must be kept in mind that where there is inadequate funding to support state 

programs, some states will be faced with either turning all or portions of their programs back to OSM or, in other cases, will face potential lawsuits for failing to fulfill mandatory duties in an effective manner. Of course, where a state does, in fact, 

turn all or part of its Title V program back to OSM (or if OSM forces this issue 

based on an OSM determination of ineffective state program implementation), the 

state would be ineligible for Title IV funds to reclaim abandoned mine lands. This 

would be the height of irony, as the states have recently worked diligently with the 

Interior Department, OMB and Congress to reauthorize Title IV and to increase 

funding for state AML work. 

With regard to funding for state Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

grants, OSM has proposed a decrease for the fourth year in a row for state and trib-
347 

al AML grants. These grants are separate from moneys allocated to the states for 

the Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI) and for state-administered emergency programs. The non-ACSI, non-emergency state AML grants are the lifeblood 

of state programs and represent the primary source of funding for the majority of 

priority 1 and 2 AML work that is undertaken each year. Over the past three fiscal 

years, and now again this year, we have seen a disturbing downward trend in these 

critical baseline grants: $142 million in fiscal year 2004; $136 million in fiscal year 

2005; $130 million in fiscal year 2006, and now $127 million for fiscal year 2007. 

These numbers are based on a detailed analysis of information contained in OSM’s 

budget justification document. 

We are at a total loss to understand how OSM can, on the one hand, advocate 

a strong position for reauthorization of Title IV (including a proposal to extend fee 

collection through September of 2007 and continued support for comprehensive reform of Title IV), while on the other hand undercutting the essential annual funding 

for existing state AML programs. We are losing ground in the battle to address high 

priority AML sites that threaten our citizens. It is essential that this trend be reversed immediately if we are to accomplish the goals and objectives of the AML program. We therefore request that these baseline state AML grants be restored to at 

least their fiscal year 2004 level of $142 million. 

The future of the AML Fund and its potential impacts on the economy, public 

safety, the land, our Nation’s waters and the environment will depend upon how we 

manage the Fund and how we adjust the current provisions of SMCRA concerning 

the Fund. As we draw closer to the June 30, 2006 expiration of fee collection authority, we are hopeful that we will see Congressional action to finally and comprehensively reauthorize the AML program. The states and tribes, through IMCC, the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs and the Western Governors 

Association have over the past several years advanced proposed amendments to 

SMCRA that are few in number and scope and that reflect a minimalist approach 

to adjusting the existing language in SMCRA and to incorporate only those changes 

necessary to accomplish several key objectives. They are as follows: 

—To extend fee collection authority for at least 12 years. 

—To significantly increase annual allocations to states and tribes to address AML 

problems. This has been one of the greatest inhibitions to progress under Title 

IV of SMCRA in recent years and must be addressed if we are to enhance the 

ability of the states and tribes to get more work done on the ground within the 

extended time frame of 12 years or longer. 

—To assure adequate funding for minimum program (under-funded) states who have consistently received less than their promised share of funding ($2 million) 

over the past several years, thereby undermining the effectiveness of their AML 

programs. In fiscal year 2007, OSM’s budget once again funds the minimum 

program states at only $1.5 million. 

—To address a few other select provisions of Title IV that will enhance the overall 

effectiveness of the AML program, including remining incentives, handling of 

liens, and enhancing the ability of states to undertake water line projects. 

—Finally, to address how the accumulated, unappropriated state and tribal share 

balances in the Fund will be handled (assuming that the interest in the Fund 

is no longer needed to address shortfalls in the UMW Combined Benefit Fund), 

while at the same time assuring that an adequate state share continues for the 

balance of the program to insure that all states and tribes are well-positioned 

and funded to address existing AML problems. 

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious from an assessment of the current inventory of priority 1 and 2 sites that there will not be enough money in the AML Trust Fund 

to address all of these sites before fee collection is set to expire in June. It is even 

more obvious that, regardless of what the unappropriated balance in the Fund is 

(currently $1.7 billion) and what future fee collections will add to that balance over 

the next year (approximately $300 million), recent Congressional appropriations for 

state and tribal AML program grants have been woefully inadequate and have not 

kept pace with our ability and desire to address the backlog of old as well as continually developing high priority AML problems. We are therefore faced with a significant challenge over the next few months—and that is to reconcile all of the various 

interests and concerns attending the administration of the AML program under 

Title IV of SMCRA in a way that assures the continuing integrity, credibility and 

effectiveness of this successful and meaningful program under SMCRA. We welcome 

the opportunity to work with your committee, Mr. Chairman, and with other affected parties to address the myriad issues that attend the future ability of the AML 

program to address the needs of coalfield citizens. 

We also urge the Committee to support adequate funding for OSM’s training program, including moneys for state travel. These programs are central to the effective 
348 

implementation of state regulatory programs as they provide necessary training and 

continuing education for state agency personnel. Additionally, the states are key 

players in OSM’s training program, providing instructors for many of the courses. 

IMCC also urges the Committee to support adequate funding for TIPS, a program 

that directly benefits the states by providing needed upgrades to computer software 

and hardware. In this regard, we strongly support the proposed amounts for the 

training program and TIPS in OSM’s fiscal year 2007 budget. 

Finally, IMCC requests continuing support for the Acid Draining Technology Initiative (ADTI), a nationwide technology development program with a guiding principle of building consensus among Federal and State regulatory agencies, universities and the coal industry to predict and remediate acid drainage from active and 

inactive coal and metal mines. This collaborative effort receives funding and other 

support from industry and several federal agencies for specific projects. OSM has 

provided ADTI $200,000 for the last several fiscal years, which has been a consistent source of funding for activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mines 

and has been instrumental in accomplishing ADTI’s goals. We support continued 

funding for this vital initiative. 

In conclusion, we want to reiterate that adequate Title V grants are the lifeblood 

of effective state regulatory programs. Should states be unable to operate these programs due to funding constraints, the federal government will be faced with the 

burden of operating regulatory programs at a substantially increased cost (generally 

30 to 50 percent more). Further, without Title V programs in place, states are unable to access Title IV funds. In the final analysis, it behooves everyone—OSM, the 

Congress and the states—to commit the resources necessary to assure strong and 

effective state programs that will achieve the purposes and objectives of SMCRA, 

thereby protecting the environment where active mining operations occur and enhancing the environment through remediation of past problems associated with 

abandoned mines. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

On behalf of various stakeholders who collectively play important roles in the development of America’s domestic energy resources, we are writing to you to urge full 

funding for the ‘‘National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program 

Act of 2005.’’ Specifically, we would request that the subcommittee fund this program (Section 315 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005), at the authorized level of $30 

million, which is $29 million above the amount included in the Administration’s 

Budget Request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2007. 

Geoscience data and collections are critical to government and industry’s discovery and development of the nation’s energy and mineral resources. Fundamental 

to any scientific and engineering endeavor are the collection of high quality data. 

Subsurface data—rock cores, cuttings, and geophysical measurements valued in the 

tens of billions of dollars—have been collected and housed by the private oil and gas 

sector for 70 years in the United States. The private sector is now clearing out these 

collections with two end member options: make gifts to qualified curation facilities 

or dispose of the one of a kind information permanently. The data must be saved, 

not just because they are unique and irreplaceable, but because they have immeasurable future value to oil, natural gas, coal, water, CO2 sequestration and other key 

resource issues facing the United States. 

A key component to domestic energy and mineral resource production and security lies in preservation and ready access of samples and data. Volumes of expensive 

and difficult to obtain subsurface information (cores, cuttings and geophysical data) 

are currently being disposed of by oil, gas and mineral exploration companies: these 

rock samples are like one of a kind rare books; once lost they can never be replaced. 

These subsurface data, however, are critical to efficient exploration and production 

of the nation’s energy resources. In addition to being applied toward conventional 

oil, gas and mineral production, subsurface data are now being applied in the areas 

of non-conventional energy development, CO2 sequestration, and mineral exploration as well as the preservation of water supply, and the training of a new generation of geologists and geophysicists. Additionally, geoscience data and collections 

support sound decisions on resource utilization, environmental protection, and disaster preparedness. In addition, data and collections perform a critical role in the 

academic research and education of both informed citizens and future geoscientists. 

Over the course of many years, significant financial investments have been made 

to compile geoscience data and collections. As an example, core reposited at the 

USGS’s Core Research Center in Colorado is estimated to have a current replacement value of $10 billion and seismic data sets represent tens of billions of dollars 
349 

of geophysical data. The acquisition costs of maintaining and preserving is minimal 

to that of replacement costs, if indeed cores can ever be replaced. Through preservation, existing geoscience data and collections can be utilized again and again as new 

technologies are developed and new scientific hypothesis are tested. 

State geological surveys have historically collected geoscience data, typically consisting of geological, geochemical, geophysical and engineering data; maps; well logs; 

and samples of rocks, minerals, and fossils that are representative of a particular 

state’s geology. Consequently, state geological surveys have substantial experience 

in the cataloging, preserving and archiving of both physical and digital data that 

characterize surface and subsurface geology in each state, and are experienced in 

providing ready access to others for examination, study, and sampling of these data 

and Earth materials. 

In authorizing legislation (Section 315 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005), also 

known as the National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program Act 

of 2005, funding would go towards the establishment of regional geoscience data and 

collection centers with a mission of: (1) preserving and improving access to domestic 

geoscience data through Federal, State and private-sector partnerships; (2) supporting development of a comprehensive, integrated, long-term management plan to 

ensure preservation of geoscience information, and (3) encouraging all stakeholders 

in geoscience data utilization to coordinate their efforts and provide access to data. 

The breadth of effort that can be undertaken in the states to secure these important data and collections is extensive. The budget request represents a small down 

payment on a significant task. Therefore, we ask the subcommittee to consider full 

funding this important program at the authorized level of $30 million for fiscal year 

2007. 

The Independent Petroleum Association of America, the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, the International Association of Drilling Contractors, the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, the National Stripper Well 

Association, the Petroleum Equipment Suppliers Association, the Association 

of Energy Service Companies, Public Lands Advocacy, California Independent 

Petroleum Association, Colorado Oil & Gas Association, East Texas Producers 

& Royalty Owners Association, Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas Association, Florida Independent Petroleum Association, Illinois Oil & Gas Association, Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York, Independent Oil & Gas Association of Pennsylvania, Independent Oil & Gas Association of West Virginia, 

Independent Oil Producers Association Tri-State, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, Independent Petroleum Association of New 

Mexico, Indiana Oil & Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association, Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, Louisiana Independent Oil & Gas 

Association, Michigan Oil & Gas Association, Mississippi Independent Producers & Royalty Association, Montana Oil & Gas Association, National Association of Royalty Owners, Nebraska Independent Oil & Gas Association, New 

Mexico Oil & Gas Association, New York State Oil Producers Association, 

Northern Alliance of Energy Producers, Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association, Oklahoma Commission on Marginally Producing Oil and Gas Wells, Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners 

Association, Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association, Permian Basin Petroleum 

Association, Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Tennessee Oil & Gas Association, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, Texas Independent Producers and 

Royalty Owners, Virginia Oil & Gas Association, and Wyoming Independent 

Producers Association. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

My name is Ervin Carlson, a member of the Blackfeet Nation of Montana and 

President of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). Please accept my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to submit written testimony to honorable members 

of the Appropriation Subcommittee on Interior. ITBC is a Native American nonprofit organization, headquartered in Rapid City, South Dakota, comprised of fiftyseven (57) federally recognized Indian Tribes within a 19 state region. On behalf of 

these members of ITBC, I would like to address the following issues: (1) request an 

appropriation of $4,150,000 for fiscal year 2007, to continue our restoration effort, 

implement our marketing initiative and to continue our health initiative, utilizing 

buffalo to treat and prevent diet related diseases among Native Americans, (2) ex-
350 

plain to the committee ITBC’s unmet funding need of $28 million, and (3) update 

the committee on ITBC’s present initiatives. 

Buffalo thrived in abundance throughout North America for many centuries before they were hunted to near extinction in the 1800’s. During this period of history, 

buffalo were critical to survival of the American Indian. Buffalo provided food, shelter, clothing and essential tools for Indian people and insured continuance of their 

subsistence way of life. Naturally, Indian people developed a strong spiritual and 

cultural relationship with the buffalo that has not diminished with the passage of 

time. 

Numerous tribes that were committed to preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo established the ITBC as an effort to restore buffalo 

to Indian lands. ITBC focused upon raising buffalo on Indian Reservation lands in 

order to foster sustainable economic development in a manner compatible with each 

of the Tribal cultures. Significant portions of Indian Reservations consist of poor 

quality lands for farming or raising livestock. Although a large portion of these reservation lands are unproductive for typical farming practices, most are ideal for 

raising buffalo. ITBC began actively restoring buffalo to Indian lands after receiving 

funding in 1992 as an initiative of the first Bush Administration. 

Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore buffalo to numerous Indian Reservation lands, thereby preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people and buffalo. The respect that Indian tribes have maintained 

for buffalo has fostered a serious commitment by ITBC member Tribes for successful 

buffalo herd development. With healthy, viable buffalo herds, opportunities now 

exist for Tribes to utilize buffalo for treatment and prevention of diet related diseases among Native American populations and for tribal economic development efforts. The primary focus of ITBC is to help develop and assure economic sustainability of bison herds and the promotion of buffalo as a healthy food source, thus 

allowing Tribes to utilize a culturally relevant resource as a means to achieve selfsufficiency. 

FUNDING REQUEST

The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an appropriation for fiscal 

year 2007 in the amount of $4,150,000. This amount would maintain the fiscal year 

2006 appropriation for ITBC and is greatly needed to successfully accomplish our 

goals and objectives. This request will help balance our continuing growth in membership with our funding level. The $4,150,000 funding level would restore vital 

funding that has been cut from the administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget. Our 

requested funding level of $4.15 million will allow our member Tribes to continue 

their successful restoration effort, to implement our marketing initiative, and to continue the health initiative for the treatment and prevention of diet related diseases 

among Native American populations, while simultaneously building economic sustainability to the Tribal projects. 

FUNDING SHORTFALL & UNMET NEED

In fiscal year 2006, the ITBC and its member tribes were funded through appropriations at $4,150,000. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2007 recommends a 

decrease of funding in the amount of $4,150,000, which would eliminate our funding, just as many Tribes are recovering from a long lasting drought, and just as we 

are beginning the health initiative to address diet related health problems that are 

epidemic on most of our reservations. 

Without the restoration of funding at last years level ITBC new member tribes 

will not receive adequate funding to begin buffalo restoration efforts. Other tribes 

that have successfully restored buffalo to Tribal lands will not receive adequate 

technical assistance and resource development funds to ensure the sustainability of 

existing herds. Furthermore, the investment made by Congress in fiscal year 2006 

towards ITBC’s health care initiative would need to be discontinued. This was designed to utilize buffalo for treatment and prevention of diet related diseases among 

Native American populations. 

ITBC is structured as a member cooperative and 100 percent of the appropriated 

funds are expended on the development and support of Tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business ventures. ITBC funding is distributed to ITBC member Tribes 

via a proposal review process developed by the consensus of members. ITBC surveys 

member tribes, annually, to determine unmet project needs and currently the total 

unmet need for ITBC member projects is $28,000,000. 
351 

ITBC GOALS & INITIATIVES

The immediate goal of ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian lands for Tribes 

to utilize for sustainable economic development in a manner that is compatible with 

their Tribal culture. ITBC’s ultimate goal is for Tribal buffalo herds to achieve selfsufficiency and once again become a daily part of Tribal cultures. 

Economic Development 

In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds, with a combined total of 

1,500 animals. The buffalo provided little or no economic benefit to the tribal owners. ITBC has proven extremely successful at buffalo restoration during its relatively short 10-year history. Today, with the support and technical assistance of 

ITBC, 57 Indian Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo or developing plans to raise 

buffalo, with approximately 15,000 animals owned and managed by ITBC member 

tribes. 

Many of these tribal buffalo programs have developed herds large enough to justify and develop plans for marketing products as a step toward self-sufficiency. Of 

great significance for Indian reservation economies, buffalo production has resulted 

in a new industry creating hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating to the buffalo management and production. As a result, a significant amount of revenue derived from buffalo products is beginning to circulate through Indian reservation 

economies. 

However, Tribes must have the resources to build solid foundations for this new 

industry to become fully self-sufficient and maintain sustainable buffalo herds. 

ITBC provides critical technical assistance to member Tribes that have developed 

sustainable management and infrastructure development plans. Additionally, ITBC 

provides training curriculum for the newly created jobs and marketing plans as 

Tribal herds reach marketing capabilities. ITBC has begun implementation of a 

marketing initiative to provide member Tribes with viable marketing options for utilization of buffalo as economic development efforts. This marketing initiative is in 

an infancy phase and continued funding is critical to achieve success. 

Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative 

When the tribal buffalo are ready for market, ITBC member tribes face another 

obstacle to economic success. Few meat processing plants exist that are willing to 

process range-fed buffalo. Shipping buffalo far distances to be processed increases 

operating costs and reduces the quality of the meat by introducing unnecessary and 

harmful stress to the animals. Further compounding the problem, existing processing plants often will not process buffalo unless the buffalo are finished in 

feedlots, which compromises the objective of ITBC to provide a healthy range-fed 

product. ITBC believes the development of tribally owned processing facilities that 

will process range fed buffalo will provide a solution to the processing plant obstacle. 

ITBC has assisted the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap 

Indian Community in northern Montana with the development of a meat packing 

facility acquired by the Tribe in Malta, Montana. ITBC also assisted the Cheyenne 

River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota with the expansion of their USDA approved 

meat packing facility. As a part of the ITBC marketing initiative, ITBC is also working with other member Tribes to develop Tribally owned processing plants in strategic regions in order to provide the infrastructure for member Tribes to get their 

buffalo processed and develop a cooperative market for the Tribally produced range 

fed buffalo. Development of Tribally owned processing facilities would create the 

necessary infrastructure to ensure the sustainability of Tribal buffalo production. 

Additionally, ITBC hopes to provide technical assistance in areas of meat processing, cold storage facility development, processing plant enhancement, development of distribution systems for Buffalo meat and by-products, and develop a cooperative brand name with standards and labeling guarantees for Native American 

produced buffalo. It is our firm belief that Tribally owned buffalo processing plants 

are necessary to maintain the integrity of the buffalo meat as a healthy food source, 

and provide culturally appropriate processing methods and jobs to our member 

Tribes. 

Preventive Health Care Initiative 

ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian reservation families both 

as an economic development effort for Native American producers and, more critically, as a healthy food to reintroduce into the diets of Native American populations. 

Current research indicates that the diet of most Indian reservation families includes 

large amounts of high cholesterol, processed meats that contribute to diabetes, heart 

disease and other diet related illnesses. 
352 

ITBC member Tribes are just beginning to implement a preventive health care 

initiative with fiscal year 2006 year’s funding, which will provide easy access to buffalo meat on Indian reservations and will educate more Indian families of the health 

benefits of range fed buffalo meat in their daily diets. Generally, buffalo meat is not 

sold in small quantities at the Indian reservation grocery and convenience stores 

leaving Native American families with few alternatives to the high fat, high cholesterol processed meats stocked in reservation stores. 

ITBC seeks to remedy this concern by providing buffalo meat in family sized 

quantities to Indian reservation markets and interact with Federal Food programs. 

So far ITBC has purchased approximately 300 buffalo from our member Tribes to 

be used for the health initiative. ITBC is currently developing a distribution plan 

to be coordinated with Trial health officials at participating Tribes. A scientific 

study is also being planned, that will provide scientific data and support regarding 

the benefits of buffalo meat to the Native American diet. 

CONCLUSION

ITBC has demonstrated success over the years by assisting its member tribes restore buffalo to their native lands for cultural purposes and economic development. 

ITBC will continue to provide technical assistance and funding to its member tribes 

to facilitate the development of sustainable buffalo herds. 

ITBC and its member tribes have created a successful new Indian reservation industry, tribal buffalo production, resulting in new money for reservation economies. 

In addition, ITBC continues to support methods to market buffalo meat by providing 

easy access on the reservation and education efforts to the health benefits of buffalo 

meat in the Native diet. The ultimate goal is to restore the Tribal herds to a size 

large enough to support the local health needs of their Tribal members and also 

generate enough revenue through a cooperative marketing effort to achieve economic self-sufficiency. 

ITBC and its member tribes are appreciative of past and current support from the 

Congress and the Administration. I urge the committee to consider restoring ITBC 

funding to the fiscal year 2006 level of $4.15 million, which will allow ITBC to continue, without interruption, the important and successful efforts of buffalo restoration and development of buffalo production as viable Reservation based economic development efforts. 

I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to present testimony and 

the members of ITBC invite the honorable members of the Committee to visit our 

Tribal buffalo projects and experience first hand their successes. 

Questions and/or comments regarding any of the issues presented within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President or to Mr. Fred DuBray, Executive Director at (605) 394–9730. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the more than 4 million members and supporters of 

the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), thank you for the opportunity to provide 

funding recommendations for Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service 

programs for fiscal year 2007. The purpose of our testimony is to recommend levels 

of funding for a few specific programs that are vital to NWF’s mission to inspire 

Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future. 

In addition to the following funding recommendations, NWF would also like to 

take this opportunity to respectfully urge the members of the subcommittee to reject 

the legislative proposals in the President’s budget to sell hundreds of thousands of 

acres of BLM and USFS land to secure revenues to reduce the federal budget deficit 

and to fund the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. The 

National Wildlife Federation and our state affiliates are in strong and unanimous 

opposition to these land sales proposals. The President’s budget fails to recognize 

the incredible value of the nation’s public lands. Public lands encompass a wonderful diversity of fish and wildlife habitats, and provide millions of Americans opportunities to fish, hunt, hike, camp, observe wildlife and otherwise experience nature. 

Every year, these lands become more valuable and more important, and to propose 

selling them off in order to secure one-time solutions for budget shortfalls is to rob 

this, and future, generations of a great national legacy. 
353 

U.S. FWS

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the nation’s core program to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered in every state. It is a mission-critical element of the Interior Department’s budget as no other federal program is focused on 

this goal. It provides states and their partners a broad suite of conservation tools 

early enough to allow for meaningful and cost-effective species conservation. When 

Congress created the program in fiscal year 2001, every state wildlife agency was 

asked to complete a state wildlife action plan. These action plans, many of which 

have now been completed and approved, were developed by scientists, sportsmen, 

environmentalists, private landowners, and communities who worked together to 

identify the actions that are needed to prevent species from becoming endangered. 

The state wildlife agencies and their many conservation partners are already moving ahead with implementing their wildlife action plans. Congress needs to honor 

its commitment to this effort by providing the federal share of support for this program as it enters this new phase of implementation. The Administration’s request 

for $74 million is an increase in funding for this program from the 2006 enacted 

level, but is insufficient to meet the large and growing needs of this program. We 

respectfully request that the subcommittee provide $85 million, an increase of $11 

million over the President’s request. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance 

The President’s budget calls for a $763,000 cut to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Operations and Maintenance budget. We note with concern that when inflation and increases in salaries, rents, cost-of-living adjustments, energy prices, and 

increasing levels of visitor services and wildlife management requirements are 

taken into account, this would be an effective cut in refuge funding of approximately 

$17 million, and thus a significant decrease in refuge services. NWF supports the 

Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) recommendation of $415 million, which would equal the fiscal year 2004 Refuge System budget ($406.5 million) 

when adjusted for inflation. This level of funding would ensure a ‘‘no-net-loss’’ budget which would allow the Refuge System to avoid layoffs and reductions in services, 

maintain protections for wildlife and habitat, and provide for addressing the backlog 

in coming years. 

Endangered Species Program 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of our nation’s most important environmental laws and we are disappointed that the Endangered Species Program has not 

been funded at the level needed to carry out its critical purpose of preventing extinction and recovering our irreplaceable wildlife. In fact, the Presidents budget proposal is seeking to cut funding for the endangered species program by $6.7 million, 

or over 4.5 percent. Out of the four core endangered species programs, the species 

recovery program was hit the hardest again, with cuts of more then 10 percent. 

Funding for candidate conservation also faces significant reductions—over 6 percent. 

All told, President Bush’s budget will allot only $141.4 million to ESA protection, 

although FWS’s needs are demonstrably much greater. We urge the subcommittee 

to appropriate at least $212 million toward the Endangered Species Program (an increase of $71 million) for the following critical activities: 

—Listing Program.—While the President proposes a $129,000 (less then one percent) increase in the listing and critical habitat account, that amount will not 

begin to cover the backlog of species awaiting action on proposed listings and 

critical habitat designations. More than 280 candidate species—i.e., species 

deemed by FWS to be at risk of extinction and warranting ESA protection— 

have been denied the benefits of the ESA due to lack of resources. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has estimated a need of at least $153 million to alleviate the 

backlog. The President’s budget requested $17.75 million. This is well below the 

actual need. To begin to address the backlog, the Listing line item should be 

funded at no less than $30 million for fiscal year 2007. 

—Recovery Program.—Recovery funding faces the biggest reduction. Under the 

President’s budget it would be reduced by $7.68 million, or 10.4 percent below 

fiscal year 2006, even though FWS has said that more than 200 species currently listed under the Act are on the verge of extinction, primarily because not 

enough funds are available for recovery activities. Recovery should be funded 

at no less than $113.6 million. 

—Consultation Program.—Consultation is an important part of the checks and 

balance system to ensure that endangered species are protected on the ground. 

Consultation was increased by only $1.3 million, or 2.8 percent, even though it 
354 

is projected that FWS will review approximately 77,000 federal actions under 

Section 7 in 2007. On top of this, FWS is responsible for monitoring nearly 400 

approved Habitat Conservation Plans and will be reviewing 250 more that are 

currently in the pipeline. Consultation should be funded at $55.5 million. —Candidate Conservation.—Candidate species are plants and animals for which 

the Service has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to 

propose them for listing as endangered or threatened, but 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 $556,000, or 6.5 percent, despite the fact that efforts to protect candidate 

species at an early stage are cost-effective, reducing the difficulty and expense 

of species recovery. Candidate Conservation should be funded at $13.6 million. 

Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

NWF is concerned to see that the President’s budget reduces total funding for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund by $2 million. For fiscal year 2007, 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, $3 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Funds, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, 

for a total of $16 million, or an increase of $7.7 million above the President’s request. These funds will enable the Department of Interior to expand critical support 

for these imperiled species in their natural habitats. We also urge the subcommittee 

to continue to treat the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund as a separate 

account. 

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 starved for adequate resources to meet its core 

responsibilities and manage the growing number of visitors. The President’s budget 

slashes $5.7 million from NLCS operations. This cut will cause mission critical 

needs to go unmet, such as contending with increases in illegal and irresponsible 

off-road vehicle traffic, the spread of invasive species, and the vandalism of ancient 

artifacts. We note with concern that when inflation and increases in salaries, rents, 

cost-of-living adjustments, energy prices, and increasing levels of visitor services and 

management requirements are taken into account, the President’s budget represents 

an effective cut of approximately $8 million. This will result in a significant decrease in NLCS services. We respectfully request an increase of $3 million in operations and planning funding for the NLCS over the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget, 

for a total of $46 million. This funding level would enable the BLM to maintain 

services at the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, including restoring $1.2 million for 

law enforcement in the Four Corners region, while also providing capacity for the 

following activities: —Law Enforcement and Visitor Management—$1.5 million.—The NLCS faces a 

serious shortage of law-enforcement rangers and outreach/public education specialists. In many units, individual NLCS rangers must patrol hundreds of thousands of acres. We suggest an additional $1.5 million in funding to cover the 

cost of hiring fifteen additional law enforcement rangers and public education 

outreach specialists. —Science and Natural Resource Monitoring—$1.5 million.—It is essential for the 

BLM to obtain adequate information on the health of flora and fauna, riparian 

conditions, water quality, and other critical natural resources. Yet the BLM 

does not have adequate science personnel to collect and assess quality data for 

decision-making, a problem recently highlighted by the Heinz Center and a 

Government Accountability Report. We strongly suggest funding to enable BLM 

to hire seven natural resource specialists to expand biological monitoring and 

partnerships with other agencies and research institutions. 

NLCS LWCF Projects.—We support the President’s fiscal year 2007 request for 

Land and Water Conservation Fund projects for California Wilderness, and the 

Chain of Lakes Recreation Management Area/Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail (Montana). We recommend that the President’s request for $750,000 for Sandy 

River/Oregon National Historic Trail be increased to $1 million, and we support $4.9 

million for six additional projects: 

—Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: $1.1 million to acquire 

inholdings. 

—McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, Colorado: $1.1 million to purchase properties within and adjacent to this NCA. 
355 

—Carrizo Plain National Monument, California: $500,000 to acquire inholdings. 

—Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon: $700,000 to acquire Soda Mountain inholdings. 

—Pacific Crest Trail, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon: $1.5 million 

to acquire the Sky King Cole Ranch. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

NWF is concerned by the President’s request of $61.5 million for the Forest Legacy Program, almost $20 million less than last year’s request. 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 $38.5 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. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

NWF is concerned to see that the President’s budget slashes federal LWCF funding to only $83.6 million, the lowest request in more than three decades. LWCF has 

been cut by more than 75 percent since 2001. We urge the subcommittee to provide 

at least $220 million for total federal LWCF funding, with at least $5 million for 

the Pinhook Swamp project in Florida and $16.2 million for the Swan Valley project 

in Montana. 

We are extremely disappointed to see that the Administration’s budget cuts all 

funding for stateside LWCF. State-side LWCF provides matching funds for state 

and local recreation and conservation programs. 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 

$100 million for Stateside LWCF. 

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 KANSAS ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE

COMMITTEE

The critical water resource projects in the Kansas portion of the Arkansas River 

Basin are summarized below. The projects are safety, environmental and conservation oriented. In addition, we state our unanimous support for the fiscal year 2007 

request of $40 million to maintain the channel depth on the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System to 12 feet as authorized by Public Law 108–137. 

We are encouraged about water resource development opportunities in the Arkansas River. In addition to traditional uses, we also support the promotion of economic 

development around Corps reservoirs. While encouraged, we are also concerned that 

funding levels will not support the needs. Therefore, we encourage your continued 

investment in our infrastructure with enhanced funding. 

We request your continued support for this important Bureau of Reclamation 

project: 

1. Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project—continuation of a City of 

Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of Kansas project to 

construct storage and recovery facilities for a major groundwater resource supplying 

water to more than 20 percent of Kansas municipal, industrial and irrigation users. 

The project will capture and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and 

will also reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing migration of saline water. Federal authorization of the project through House Bill 1327 

introduce last year or through similar legislation this year. Construction Phase One 

is scheduled for completion in 2007. Continued federal funding is requested for fiscal 

year 2007 consistent with this legislation which will authorize funding for 25 percent of the project cost up to a maximum of $30 million during the construction 

phases. 

We request your support of these equally important Corps of Engineers projects: 

1. Walnut River (El Dorado Lake) Watershed Feasibility Study—feasibility study 

is needed to fully understand and recommend restoration strategies to reduce sedimentation and meet TMDL issues to preserve the El Dorado public water supply. 

Funding is requested in the amount of $80,000 for fiscal year 2007. 
356 

2. Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study—to address watershed and reservoir restoration issues in the Grand Lake Watershed. Funding request is for 

$450,000 in fiscal year 2007 to continue the study. 

3. Grand Lake Feasibility Study—follow-on flood control study to determine the 

most cost-effective solution to real estate inadequacies of federal flood control easements around Grand Lake. Funding request in the amount of $500,000 for fiscal 

year 2007. 

4. Continuing Authorities Program—Wichita and many small Kansas communities including Kinsley, Newton, Parsons, Arkansas City, Augusta, Butler County 

and Coffeyville are requesting Corps of Engineers assistance through the Small 

Flood Control Projects, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Ecosystem Restoration and 

the Emergency Streambank Stabilization programs. The CAP limits have been held 

level for many years and the federal funds are not available when a community has 

a need. We request increased annual program limits so that the communities who 

are willing to cost-share have the opportunity to do so. 

Finally, we are very grateful that the Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation have the expertise needed for the development and protection of water resources infrastructure. It is essential to have the integrity and continuity these 

agencies provide. Your continued support of these vital agencies, including funding, 

will be appreciated. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF FISH & WILDLIFE

RESOURCES

We are seeking your support for the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request 

of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic 

Resources Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on the successful North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale 

and serve as a model for other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the 

objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast. 

The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States. This partnership developed because: (1) the Southeast has the highest diversity of aquatic species and 

habitats of any region in the country, (2) these resources are facing serious threats 

to their future existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is only 

by working together through partnerships that we will make a difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. 

This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to 

aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast 

Aquatic Habitat Plan. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should have any questions 

or need further information, please contact my Fisheries Division Director, Benjy 

Kinman, at (502) 564–3400. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNEBUNKPORT CONSERVATION TRUST

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On Behalf of the 

Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $650,000 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for land acquisition within the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Rachel Carson NWR plays a critical role in land protection efforts in southern 

Maine, serving as an anchor around which numerous local conservation organizations focus their efforts to protect land along the river corridors that flow through 

the refuge to the sea. The refuge and its supporters are working to effectively stitch 
357 

together conserved properties into a greenbelt for habitat and water quality protection and public enjoyment. 

Previous years’ appropriations have allowed the USFWS to conserve several properties within the refuge at Biddeford Pool and Parson’s Beach, providing an important buffer between the intense development pressure along the southern Maine 

coast and its fragile coastal estuaries. While significant acreage within the refuge 

is protected today, additional areas of concern remain in need of protection. 

Available for immediate acquisition from a willing landowner in fiscal year 2007 

is the 49-acre Parsons Woods property, located in the Parson’s Beach area of the 

refuge near Kennebunkport. Consisting of wooded uplands, the property lies immediately adjacent to existing refuge lands and land being acquired with previously 

appropriated funds. The Parson’s Woods tract contains the headwaters of a tributary of the Little River, the bulk of which flows through existing refuge lands and 

empties into the Atlantic between Laudholm and Crescent Surf beaches. If acquired, 

this parcel will allow the refuge to protect important wildlife habitat and link it to 

already protected refuge lands. Located in a rapidly developing part of Maine, this 

acquisition offers the refuge an outstanding opportunity to conserve southern 

Maine’s coastal landscape and further consolidate the fragile habitat that exists on 

the marshes, uplands, creeks, and the estuaries of the coast. 

The Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is the longest standing 

Friends of the National Wildlife Refuge system groups in the northeast, voicing support for the acquisition and protection of lands vital to the health of the refuge and 

the communities of southern Maine. We are a 501c3 organization, and our board 

leadership represents all ten of the refuge’s districts. Our local roots recognize and 

speak for the benefits the refuge brings to our southern Maine communities, the 

critical plant and animal habitat of our unique coast, and the generations of visitors 

to the Rachel Carson Wildlife Refuge. 

We are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s birth in May 

2007, and urge you to ensure that her legacy of protection for critical coastal areas 

is honored through an appropriation to the refuge. Given the development pressures 

in this part of the state, the opportunity to permanently protect the Parsons Woods 

property only exists for a limited time. An appropriation of $650,000 for the Rachel 

Carson NWR in fiscal year 2007 will yield enormous public benefits for generations 

to come. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL AND DINNI FABIANI

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: We appreciate the 

opportunity to present this testimony pertaining to an appropriation of $5 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire 800 acres at Mount Rainier 

National Park in Washington. 

I am a lifelong resident (59 years) of the Town of Wilkeson a small community 

which has for many years labeled itself as ‘‘The Gateway to the Carbon Glacier’’. 

My wife and I have been nearly lifelong users of the Carbon River area of Mount 

Rainier National Park. 

While we strongly support the addition of lands along the Carbon River to Mount 

Rainier National Park, we feel as strongly that the rationale often quoted for this 

boundary expansion will have a very negative impact on the many thousands of people who currently use the ‘‘Carbon River area’’ of the Park. A reason given for the 

expansion is that the government will save money by not having to make expensive 

repairs to the 5 mile road from the Carbon River Entrance to the Carbon Glacier 

trailhead. 

The obvious implication is that the road will no longer be repaired. The Trust for 

Public Lands has in fact stated in their literature that the road will be converted 

to a hiking and biking trail. Currently the hike to the Carbon Glacier is a 7 mile 

round trip of moderately easy walking. If driving access is eliminated this popular 

hike will become a 17 mile trip which effectively eliminates 90 percent of the users 

of this trail. 17 miles is not a day hike for most people, especially those with young 

families and those with limited abilities. The greatest majority of people using this 

area do so on a day-use basis. 

Much of the literature supporting the boundary expansion has stated that new 

roads, campgrounds and trails would be built which will improve visitor access to 

the Park. However these proposed new facilities are planned to be built in the newly 

added lands and will in no way improve access to what is currently considered the 

‘‘Carbon River area’’. The slight odor of ‘‘red herring’’ here. 
358 

The Carbon Glacier Trail is a very special place in Mount Rainier National Park. 

Every year the trail takes thousands of visitors of all ages and a wide range of abilities through dense old growth forest, along a raging glacial river, through a rugged 

rock walled canyon to the lowest glacier terminus in the 48 states. Along the trail 

are views of Mount Rainier, many wildflowers through the summer, clear streams 

cascading off the mountains and a variety of wildlife. This trail is the epitome of 

what National Parks are supposed to be, some of the most unique places on Earth. 

If Mount Rainier Park boundaries are extended at the expense of the current Carbon River road from the Carbon River Ranger Station to the Carbon Glacier trail 

as an excuse to save a few tax dollars, you will be doing the people of this country 

a disservice that far outweighs any gains made through the boundary expansion. 

We have attended a number of public hearings in recent years regarding the Carbon River corridor. Maintaining the current access to the area has always been 

heavily supported at these hearings and has been a primary topic of interest among 

attendees of the hearings. 

In addition people have been vocal about protecting the very rural and in some 

areas even pristine character of the Carbon River corridor. Land development is 

happening at a rapid rate in this part of the country and even now Forest Lands 

along the Carbon River are being developed for home sites. 

Adding 800 acres along Carbon River to the Park for the long term protection of 

the Carbon River with its Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted owl and salmon 

habitat is reason enough to add these lands. Do not base the expansion on the excuse of expensive road repairs. The repairs are not as expensive as presented and 

the real loss to people would be priceless. 

Thank you for the opportunity to express these views. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LITCHFIELD HILLS GREENPRINT PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Litchfield Hills 

Greenprint Program appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1.22 million appropriation to the State of Connecticut from the Forest 

Legacy Program for the second phase of the Skiff Mountain project. The Litchfield 

Hills Greenprint is an initiative sponsored by the Housatonic Valley Association 

(HVA), the Trust for Public Land (TPL), and area land trusts to conserve the ecological integrity of this landscape and the rural character of its communities. A 

greenprint is a land use plan created by community leaders and residents that identifies and prioritizes important lands and those most vulnerable to development at 

local and regional scales. The Litchfield Hills Greenprint has identified Skiff Mountain in Kent, CT as one of the area’s top conservation priorities 

Skiff Mountain lies within the Highlands region of the East Coast, virtually in 

the backyard of the nation’s largest metropolitan area. Located within an hour of 

nearly 25 million Americans, the Highlands form a greenbelt of forests and farmland adjacent to the sprawling Hartford-New York-Philadelphia urban corridor. Two 

million acres of glacial bogs, hardwood-conifer swamps, rock outcrop communities, 

and chestnut oak forests stretch from western Connecticut across the Lower Hudson 

River Valley and northern New Jersey into Pennsylvania, enticing more than 14 

million visitors each year—more than Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks 

combined. 

The state has identified the Connecticut portion of the Highlands as a critical 

focus area under its Forest Legacy Program. Right now there are four separate parcels of land in this focus area that are available for protection in fiscal year 2007. 

These parcels total approximately 510 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. Strategically located among already existing conservation lands, 

and immediately adjacent to the federally protected and world-renowned Appalachian National Scenic Trail, the Skiff Mountain assemblage has been identified by 

the state as its top priority for Forest Legacy funding this year completing the second and final phase of this outstanding conservation effort. 

In fiscal year 2007, $1.22 million is needed from the Forest Legacy program to 

help preserve 510 acres of Skiff Mountain, and keep intact this conservation corridor of the Housatonic River Watershed and four-state Highlands region. Local 

funding and land value donation will match these funds. We hope that you will provide $1.22 million to ensure the success of this effort in the fiscal year 2007 Interior 

appropriations bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 
359 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MISSOULA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: The Missoula County Commissioners are in strong support of the conservation initiatives being implemented in 

the Swan Valley. Over the past seven years, constituents in the Valley have been 

working together with landowners, public resource and land management agencies 

and non-governmental organizations to address issues of concern. This effort has included identification of community values, science-based assessments of natural resources and development of a strategy to conserve resource values important to the 

community. 

The Swan Valley forest landscape provides for a rich diversity of wildlife and fisheries habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities and variety of forest-based livelihoods. Its location between the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex and the Mission 

Mountains Wilderness provides a critical link between natural areas in our State. 

Maintaining the connectivity between these areas and avoiding habitat fragmentation are critical to a variety of wildlife species. Avoiding residential development 

within rural forestlands reduces the potential for property loss, human injury and 

wildfires. 

As part of a collaborative effort, the Plum Creek Timber Company has made 

available a portion of its land in the Swan Valley for conservation sale to the public. 

Missoula County lends its support to the U.S. Forest Service’s fiscal year 2007 request for a $16.2 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF). This would allow the Flathead National Forest (FNF) to acquire lands in 

the southern part of the Valley (within Missoula County), which are important for 

wildlife habitat and public recreation. Such acquisitions would reduce fragmentation 

and lead to more effective and efficient land management. The Swan Valley request 

is a high priority for the U.S. Forest Service-Northern Region this year. 

Of particular interest to the County is an emergency communications facility located on the Pierce Lake property, east of Highway 83. This site is leased by Missoula County Emergency Services and provides important public safety benefits. 

Use of the site will be continued under a special use permit with the Flathead NF. 

Additionally, the Condon Creek properties include a critical portion of a grizzly 

bear linkage zone, wetlands and riparian areas, big game winter range and about 

a mile of Swan River frontage. The local community places a high value on these 

parcels, which are adjacent to or near Highway 83, important for public access, and 

susceptible to subdivision and development. Conversion of these forestland parcels 

would lead to habitat fragmentation, conflicts with forest management of the Flathead NF, reduction of public recreation opportunities, and the creation of a residential/wildland interface zone. 

The LWCF funding is one of several complementary efforts being implemented to 

achieve community goals in the Valley, including an impressive array of both public 

and private funding resources. 

We recognize the Committee’s support over the past few years to secure LWCF 

funding, and we encourage complete funding of this high-priority Swan Valley 

project. We appreciate your support for this funding request, which will promote our 

rural forest-based economies and provide recreational opportunities for the residents 

of the County and State—as well as visitors from elsewhere—for generations to 

come. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES

The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources wishes to join the list of agen- cies seeking your support for the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request of $3 

million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) program and a supplemental 

appropriation of $3 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). 

The NFHI, lead by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in 

partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on the successful North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will 

guide the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale and serve as a model for 

other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan seeks to identify 

and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships to meet the objectives of the NFHI. 

The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States. This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest diversity of aquatic species and 

habitats of any region in the country, (2) these resources are facing serious threats 
360 

to their future existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary resources and authority to address these threats. It is only by working together through partnerships that this issue can be effectively resolved. SARP includes fish and wildlife agencies from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Texas as well as the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commissions, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. 

This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast 

Aquatic Habitat Plan. 

We thank you for your valuable time and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES

AND PARKS

We are seeking your support for the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHJ) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic 

Resources Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. dish and Wildlife Service, 

is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on the successful North 

American, Waterfowl Management flan. The SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale 

and serve as a model for other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat plan will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the 

objectives of the NFHJ in the Southeast (Attachment). 

The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States. This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest diversity of aquatic species and 

habitats of any region in the country, (2) these resources are facing serious threats 

to their future existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is only 

by working together through partnerships that we will make a difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the Gruff of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. 

This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to 

aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast 

Aquatic Habitat Plan. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should have any questions 

or need further information, please contact Mr. Walter Hubbard, 601–432–2208. 

Attachments. 

SOUTHEAST AQUATIC RESOURCES PARTNERSHIP

With partners, protect, conserve, and restore aquatic resources including habitats 

throughout the Southeast, for the continuing benefit, use, and enjoyment of the 

American people. 

The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) supports the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request of $3 million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative 

(NFHI) and, furthermore, recommends that an additional $3 million be allocated to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for implementation of the SARP Aquatic Habitat Plan. 

Recognizing the Southeast’s unique biological diversity, looming threats to critical 

habitats and limited resources to meet the immense challenges, States and Federal 

agencies and organizations with management authority for fisheries and aquatic resources in the Southeast joined forces to form a ground-breaking partnership five 

years ago. The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) includes fish and 

wildlife agencies from 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas); the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions; the 

Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; the U.S. Fish and 
361 

Wildlife Service; and NOAA Fisheries. These entities have signed an unprecedented 

Memorandum of Understanding pledging to work together for the conservation and 

management of aquatic resources in the Southeast. The SARP also involves a number of other Federal agency partners and non-governmental organizations. 

THE SOUTHEAST—AQUATIC DIVERSITY OF GLOBAL IMPORTANCE

The people of the Southeastern United States live in an area that has more aquatic freshwater species (62 percent of the freshwater fishes and 75 percent of the 

freshwater mussels) than any region of the country. The Southeast has the most 

aquatic diversity in the country, more than 70 major river basins, more miles of 

coastal shoreline (26,000 miles), the highest economic return on recreational fishing 

($17 billion in total economic output), and thebulk of thecountry’s wetlands important to fisheries and other aquatic organisms (45 percent of the country’s wetlands 

and 78 percent of its coastal marsh). 

THE SOUTHEAST—A CRISIS UNFOLDING

Human populations in the Southeastern United States are projected to grow by 

about 25 percent between 2005 and 2025. Five of the top 10 most sprawling U.S. 

metropolitan areas of 1 million people or more are in the Southeastern United 

States—Nashville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Atlanta, and Memphis. Nine Southeastern States are among the top 20 States that lost the most open space and farmland to urban sprawl during the 1990’s. New and expanding communities will exhaust water supplies and place increased threats to fishery habitats in rivers, lakes, 

and coastal waters. Water resource needs that support outdoor recreational pursuits 

will compete with agricultural interests, waterborne transportation interests, and 

water supply needs for more and more communities. The challenge will be to develop sustainable uses of fresh water and aquatic resources. The predictable increase in public recreation will require everyone to work even closer together to ensure that economic vitality and human health are not at odds with fisheries and 

aquatic resource conservation, but rather are seen as the results of healthy aquatic 

resources. 

SARP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Since its inception in 2001, the SARP has realized significant accomplishments. The SARP has achieved more than $700,000 in grants, as well as substantial contributions from the SARP members to begin laying the foundation for the creation 

of a Southeast Region Aquatic Habitat Plan—which will be the first regional component completed under the National Fish Habitat Plan, and the national plan’s primary delivery mechanism for—the Southeast Region. Successful steps in this process have included: —Pilot Rivers Aquatic Habitat Planning Project.—The SARP worked with The 

Nature Conservancy to complete pilot aquatic habitat plans for 4 priority watersheds in the Southeast Region—Roanoke River (NC), Altamaha River (GA), 

Pascagoula River (MS), and Duck River (TN). This project was supported by a 

$75,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) and a 

$75,000 matching grant from the SARP partner agencies. —SARP Coordinator.—The SARP coordinator’s position was filled in Fall 2005. 

This was supported by the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies who committed funding for the position and by a $40,000 grant from the 

NFWF. —Regional Integration of State Wildlife Action Plans.—The SARP is conducting a 

southeastern regional assessment of aquatic species identified in recently completed State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies as being of the 

greatest conservation need, developing a process for integrating the aquatic elements of the plans, and identifying areas of regional importance for aquatic diversity. This project was supported by a $90,000 grant from the NFWF. 

—Aquatic Nuisance Species Coordinator.—The SARP is developing aquatic nuisance species (ANS) management plans for all SARP States. State plans are 

scheduled to be completed in late 2007. Development and implementation of 

these plans will enhance the capabilities of the States to detect and respond to 

ANS introductions. This was supported by a $232,500 Multi-state Conservation 

Grant from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(IAFWA). 

—Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.—The SARP is developing a regional Aquatic 

Habitat Plan. With the completion of the pilot rivers project, the results and 

planning methodologies developed in that process will be employed in the development of the regional plan. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will be com-
362 

pleted in 2007, and will be the regional component of the National Fish Habitat 

Plan. This project was supported by a $257,000 Multi-state Conservation Grant 

from IAFWA. 

The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will identify the highest priority aquatic 

habitat needs and how to better address the conservation and management of 

aquatic resources across the region. Securing $3 million in additional funding for 

the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast plan. The 

SARP’s efforts at regional planning will serve as a model for other regions identified 

in the NFHI and as components of the national plan itself. Through this process, 

the SARP will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the 

objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS

Montana has a great deal of interest in locating and developing wild rainbow 

trout strains, that has some significant level of resistance to the whirling disease 

parasite Myxobolus cerebralis. Montana’s management of its salmonid fisheries differs somewhat from other western states in that it manages most of its cold-water 

salmonid streams as wild fisheries and stocking of hatchery strains of rainbow trout 

is not allowed in these waters. Because of this management philosophy, it would 

be essential that any whirling disease resistant strain(s) of rainbow trout developed 

through strain resistant research would fit the wild trout management strategy. 

Rainbow trout which show some ability to resist whirling disease infections would 

have to be capable reproducing and surviving in the wild environment, plus they 

would have to be compatible with the other wild salmonids, such as native cutthroat 

trout, residing in these streams. 

Whirling disease research conducted over the last several years has uncovered 

two wild strains of rainbow trout, which has shown some significant resistance to 

the whirling disease parasite, Myxobolus cerebralis. The first strain is primarily 

found in lake environments with the only source being in Harrison Reservoir located 

50 miles west of Bozeman, MT. The strain was introduced into Harrison Reservoir 

in late 1970’s from Lake DeSmet, Wyoming. A four-year imprint series from 1977– 

81 established a self-sustaining wild rainbow trout population, which sustained 

itself on wild reproduction until the whirling disease parasite was introduced in the 

mid 1990’s. Initially, the introduction caused a large (50 percent) decline in this wild 

population. Early whirling disease research at the Pony Whirling Disease Lab 

showed that this strain of rainbow trout (DeSmet) had a measurable resistance to 

the parasite even without any known previous contact with the WD parasite. Early 

tests showed that approximately 50 percent of the Harrsion/DeSmet rainbow trout 

were resistant to the parasite. More recent research has shown the strain has increased its level of resistance after 10 years of exposure to the WD parasite to where 

nearly 90 percent are resistant to infection. Montana has decided that this WD resistant strain of rainbow trout is a very valuable stock and may play an important 

role in solutions to whirling disease, especially in lake environments. In partnership 

with the USFWL Service, Montana is beginning the development a Harrison/ 

DeSmet rainbow brood stock to be maintained and held by the Ennis National Fish 

Hatchery. This strain should have wide spread use in areas where whirling disease 

is a problem in lake environments. 

A second wild rainbow trout strain has been identified, as partially resistant to 

the whirling disease parasite and is found in the upper Madison River. Initially 

when the parasite was introduced into the Madison River in the late 1980’s, this 

strain had almost no resistance to whirling disease infections resulting in large (90 

percent) losses in the wild population. After approximately 15 years of exposure to 

M. cerebralis, this strain appears to have developed enough resistance to the parasite to allow some survival to the second and third year of life. Prior to this development of whirling disease resistance, young-of-the-year wild Madison River rainbow 

trout experienced a 95 percent or greater loss during their first year of life. While 

this is good news for the upper Madison River fisheries, some disturbing problems 

have accompanied this new resistance. The resistant offspring has a much slower 

growth rate than observed previously measured and appears to have a very high 

mortality rate during its third year of life. Because of these two problems with the 

WD resistant offspring, there has been little improvement in the number of larger 

wild rainbow trout in the upper Madison River. More research needs to been done 

on this resistant stream rainbow trout to determine if this problem can be resolved 

or is this condition of the new found resistance. To date this is the only instance 

where whirling disease resistance has developed in a wild stream strain of rainbow 

trout after 10–20 years of exposure to the parasite. Development of salmonid strains 
363 

resistant to whirling disease infections may be one of the most promising areas of 

research and may offer solutions to this problem in some wild trout waters. The 

rainbow trout resistant strain research may offer an important insight to whirling 

disease resistance in other susceptible salmonid species. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOUNTAIN GROUP SIERRA CLUB

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: The Mountain Group 

Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to present this testimony in support of a 

$800,000 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Wild 

Horse Creek conservation project in the San Bernardino National Forest. 

The Mountain Group Sierra Club has over 200 members and represents the 

mountain communities from Crestline to Green Valley Lake. All the communities 

are within the San Bernardino National Forest. 

For over a hundred years, the San Bernardino National Forest has protected portions of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa mountains. 

The nearly 660,000 acres of the national forest located about 60 miles east of Los 

Angeles provide a wide variety of climates, vegetation, scenery, and wildlife. Nearly 

two million people visit the forest each year for activities such as hiking, camping, 

horseback riding, fishing, and skiing. This high rate of use is steadily increasing due 

to the close proximity of large and rapidly growing metropolitan areas in and 

around the greater Los Angeles Basin. More than half of the state’s population lives 

within a two-hour drive of this popular forest. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 273-acre Wildhorse Creek property, located in the San Gorgonio Ranger District on State Highway 38. The property is the last significant remnant of an old cattle ranch and is surrounded on three 

sides by the national forest and on the fourth side by the state highway. This key 

inholding in the forest has nesting habitat for the California spotted owl and the 

southwestern willow flycatcher. It also provides critical wintering range for western 

mule deer, and supports mountain lions, bears, weasels, and other species typically 

found in the San Bernardino National Forest. There are willows located along the 

creek at the lower end of the property where Wildhorse Creek meets the Santa Ana 

River. In the more forested portions of the property, there are Jeffrey pines and 

western juniper. 

A historic trailhead is located where Wildhorse Creek crosses Highway 38. The 

Wildhorse Meadow Trail was a main thoroughfare for the indigenous people of the 

area before the first wagon trails were built. Later, when the early homesteaders 

moved into Big Bear Valley, it became a major cattle route. Over the years, gold 

miners, deer hunters, and equestrians have used the trail. Since the property has 

been in private ownership and there are alternative routes into the upper Santa 

Ana Mountains, the Forest Service has blocked access to the Wildhorse Meadow 

Trail. Public acquisition of this property would allow the Forest Service to reopen 

this popular trail, which wanders through picturesque granite boulders. This historic trail would take hikers and equestrian visitors to Sugarloaf Mountain for overnight camping. A proposed wilderness area, Sugarloaf Mountain is not far from Big 

Bear Lake and would provide a less visited alternative to the nearby San Gorgonio 

Wilderness. The Heart Bar Recreation Area lies to the south of the parcel and the 

Barton Flats Recreation Area is to the west. Once acquired by the Forest Service, 

the Wildhorse Creek property would be accessible to family campers, day users, and 

organization campers from these recreation areas. With its convenient location on 

Highway 38 and its moderately sloping lower portions, the Wildhorse Creek property is highly developable due to the easy access and suitable topography. In addition, some of the development proposals have been related to the export of water 

from the area, which contains the headwaters of the Santa Ana River. Such proposals pose a threat to the management and resources of the surrounding USFS 

lands and have made this acquisition a priority for the forest. 

An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $800,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is needed for the Forest Service to acquire this key property. Federal acquisition is essential in order to avoid development and protect this property’s excellent wildland character. 

The Mountain Group Sierra Club urges you to include this project in the fiscal 

year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for considering this request. 
364 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOUNTAINS TO SOUND GREENWAY TRUST

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I write on behalf of 

the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust to urge your support of an appropriation 

of $1.7 million for the Cascade Checkerboard Program in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest (MBSNF) in Washington. The Greenway Trust is the private, nonprofit conservation organization that has successfully protected over 130,000 acres 

of farm and forest land along Interstate 90, a National Scenic Byway, that gives 

millions of people access to outdoor recreation in the MBSNF. 

For over a century, the central Cascades have been marked by the checkerboard 

land patterns resulting from the 19th century land grant system. This mix of public 

and private forest lands has made coherent and efficient management for forestry 

and wildlife habitat difficult for both public and private landowners. 

Two important land parcels proposed for acquisition in fiscal year 2007, in the vicinity of Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass along the crest of the Cascade Mountains. 

Located less than 50 miles from Seattle, these proposed acquisitions are primarily 

within the boundaries of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF, with a corner of the Stampede Pass parcel lying in the adjacent Wenatchee NF. In addition to their key role 

in providing wildlife connectivity, they are important for recreational assets. 

The 618-acre Stampede Pass parcel, which is available for $975,000, contains two 

miles of the internationally famous Pacific Crest Scenic Trail (PCT) running from 

Mexico to Canada along the spine of Western mountains. This project is a top priority of the Pacific Crest Trail Association and its acquisition will provide permanent protection for this segment of the trail. 

The 640-acre Dandy Pass parcel lies just south of the PCT and is available for 

$725,000. Its acquisition will provide additional protection for the landscape surrounding and visible from the trail. In addition to hiking, visitors can enjoy camping 

and cross-country skiing. Public ownership will also ensure public access to adjacent 

Forest Service lands. 

Acquisition of these parcels is part of an ongoing program of consolidating lands 

in the central Cascades, which has long been a Forest Service priority. The acquisitions of the Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass parcels will improve forest management, enhance recreational activities, and secure vital wildlife migration corridors. 

An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.7 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Forest Service Cascade Checkerboard program is necessary 

to bring these lands into protected public ownership. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to present this testimony and for your 

consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MACK TAYLOR, GEOLOGIST

This is to request that you maintain current funding for the Mineral Resources 

Program of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

The Mineral Resources Program produces Mineral Industry Surveys and Mineral 

Resource Assessments which are used by the mining and mineral resource industries throughout the world as the only authoritative source of fundamental data on 

the changing status of the world‘s mineral resources. Those of us in the mining industry use these reports constantly in planning and assessment of development and 

production activities. 

There is no other source, anywhere, for these basic studies. The research and assessments produced by this group, derived from a baseline stretching back over a 

century, could not be equaled by any other agency, public or private, anywhere in 

the world. 

This is one of the most efficient and effective groups in the U.S. Government. 

Without the studies and information that this small group of people provide on a 

continuing basis, it would be very difficult to maintain the current relatively highly 

efficient balance between resource supply and demand. 

I’m a geologist not an economist, but it seems evident that severe dislocations in 

resource supply will be felt fairly quickly throughout U.S. industry, and shortly 

thereafter in increased inflation. Nominal funding by the U.S. Government supports 

a program with a very large positive impact. 

Please reconsider the proposal to greatly reduce or eliminate funding for the Mineral Resources Program. 
365 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is writing in support of 

the following federal programs, in priority order, under the Bureau of Land Management and Environmental Protection Agency’s budgets, that we believe are deserving 

of your Subcommittee’s support during the fiscal year 2007 budget process: 

California Bay-Delta Program 

EPA funding for CALFED related programs: water quality, ecosystem restoration, 

watershed protection, water use efficiency, science and coordination. 

Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity 

$5.2 million designation for Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a public agency that 

was created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands of people living in 

what is now portions of a six-county region of southern California. Today, the region 

served by Metropolitan includes approximately 18 million people living on the coastal plain between Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico. 

Included in our region are more than 300 cities and unincorporated areas in the 

counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide over half of the water used in our 5,200-square-mile service area 

and help our members to develop local supplies through increased water conservation, recycling, storage and other resource-management programs. Metropolitan’s 

imported water supplies come from the Colorado River via our Colorado River Aqueduct and from northern California via the State Water Project’s California Aqueduct. 

We are sensitive to the magnitude of these program requests during tight budget 

times. We are also committed to supporting these federal programs as they are critical to meeting the challenges of water resources management and source water 

quality protection throughout California. These programs help to ensure long-term 

water security and meet the water quality requirements necessary to provide our 

member agencies with a safe, reliable water supply. We strongly urge your support 

for these funding requests. 

CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA PROGRAM

Metropolitan strongly supports Environmental Protection Agency funding needed 

to supplement the State of California’s cost share of implementing the CALFED 

Bay-Delta Program, including water quality, ecosystem restoration, watershed protection, water use efficiency, science and coordination. In particular, we support 

funding for implementation of key water quality activities, including the San Joaquin River drainage and salinity management, source control programs in the Delta 

and its tributaries, and water treatment demonstration projects. 

SOIL, WATER AND AIR MANAGEMENT

The BLM 2007 General Statement providing budget justifications includes five 

long-term vision components for the Soil, Water and Air Management Program 

(Subactivity). One of these components is meeting state water quality standards in 

all stream miles flowing on BLM managed lands. Included in one of the means and 

strategies for achieving BLM’s performance goals is tracking compliance with BLM 

obligations to maintain state water quality standards under the Clean Water Act 

and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act. Reducing saline runoff to meet 

the interstate, federal, and international agreements to control the salinity of the 

Colorado River is a critical element of the Soil, Water and Air Management Program. Metropolitan supports the Administration’s funding request of $32.053 million 

for the Soil, Water and Air Management Subactivity under the Land Resources Activity. BLM riparian restoration treatments were in part responsible for the retention of about 90,000 tons of salinity in six Colorado River Basin states, assisting 

with the objective of preventing further degradation of water quality in the Colorado 

River. As such, Metropolitan urges that BLM target $5.2 million to activities that 

help control salt contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River 

Basin. Of that amount, $1.5 million should be distributed based on proposals submitted by BLM staff to BLM’s salinity control coordinator for consideration for funding. Basin states’ monies have been utilized to cost share a 2006 BLM proposal 

stretching the federal funding provided this fiscal year. 

Much of the land that is controlled and managed by BLM in the Colorado River 

Basin is heavily laden with salt. Past management practices, which include the use 

of lands for recreation; for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, and 
366 

mineral exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosion processes. 

When soil and rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along for some 

distance and ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The salts, however, 

are dissolved and remain in the river system causing water quality problems downstream. 

Rangeland management can bring about some of the most cost-effective salinity 

control actions available. BLM’s control of erosion from public lands, and thus salt 

contributions to the Colorado River and its tributaries, is essential to the success 

of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Acceleration of BLM salinity 

control efforts will result in very significant economic benefits to Colorado River 

water users. Concentrations of salts in the river cause hundreds of millions in damage in the United States. 

We look forward to working with your office to further advance sound water management activities in California. Please contact me, at (213) 217–6211, if I can answer any questions or provide additional information. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND

PROGRAMS

As the President of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs 

(NAAMLP), I submit this statement on the proposed fiscal year 2007 Office of Surface Mining budget. 

The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 29 states and Indian 

tribes with histories of coal mining and coalmine related hazards. These states and 

tribes are responsible for 99.5 percent of the Nation’s coal production. Each 

NAAMLP member administers an abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation program funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) pursuant to Title 

IV of SMCRA, Public Law 95–87. 

This statement reflects the NAAMLP position on the proposed fiscal year 2007 

budget for the Office of Surface Mining, which requests $185.9 million for the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program. 

We strongly feel that the future of the AML program should continue to focus on 

the underlying principles and priorities upon which SMCRA was founded—protection of the public health and safety, environmental restoration, and economic development in the coalfields and mining-impacted areas of America. Over the past 29 

years, tens of thousands of acres of mined land have been reclaimed, thousands of 

mine openings have been closed, and safeguards for people, property and the environment have been put into place. 

Please remember that the AML program is first and foremost designed to protect 

public health and safety. The bulk of state and tribal AML projects directly mitigate 

AML features that threaten personal safety or welfare. While state and tribal AML 

programs complete significant projects that benefit the environment, the primary 

focus has been first on eliminating health and safety hazards and the OSM inventory of completed work reflects this fact. 

What the AML inventory of completed work over time, also reflects, at least to 

some degree, is the escalating cost of addressing these problems as they continue 

to go unattended due to insufficient appropriations from the AML Trust Fund for 

state and tribal AML programs. Un-reclaimed sites tend to get worse over time and 

this results in increased reclamation costs. Inflation combined with increased fuel 

and material costs, further increases the cost of reclamation. The longer reclamation 

is postponed, the less reclamation will be accomplished and it will cost more. 

The AML inventory is dynamic. We believe the dynamic nature of the inventory 

was anticipated from the AML program’s inception. States and tribes find new high 

priority problems each year. This is especially true where new communities develop 

in rural areas formerly used for mining. New sites also manifest themselves due to 

time, weather and the forces of nature. As a result, new landslides and mine subsidence events will develop and threaten homes, highways, and the health and safety 

of our nation’s residents. This underscores the need for continual updates to the inventory, as well as constant vigilance to protect citizens. 

In the end, the real cost of addressing Priority 1 and 2 AML hazards exceed $3 

billion. The cost of remediating all mining-related AML problems, including acid 

mine drainage (Priority 3 sites), could be 5 to 10 times this amount and far exceeds 

available funds. 

These funds also promote development in economically depressed areas. Since 

grants were first awarded to the states and tribes for AML reclamation, over $3 billion has been infused into the local economies of mining-impacted communities. 

These are the same communities that have been at least partially depressed by the 
367 

same abandoned mine land problems that the program is designed to correct. In 

fact, those dollars spent in economically depressed parts of the country, such as Appalachia, could be considered part of an investment in the redevelopment of those 

regions. The AML program translates into jobs, additional local taxes, and an increase in personal income. According to a United States Forest Service 1992 

IMPLAN study, for each $1 spent on reclamation construction, $1.23 returns to the 

nation’s economy, and for each $1 million in construction, 48.7 jobs are created. The 

AML expenditures over the past 29 years have returned over $4 billion to the economy and have created some 150,000 jobs. 

The ability to accomplish the high priority reclamation identified in the current 

inventory is being severely constrained by a declining level of funding for state and 

tribal AML programs. 

While we are aware of the Administration’s budgetary efforts to meet other priorities related to Homeland Security, the War on Terrorism, and Hurricane Katrina, 

we believe it is vital to release AML money that has already been statutorily dedicated for protecting the nation’s citizen’s health and safety from the threats associated with past mining. 

Lack of adequate funding has been and continues to be the greatest barrier to 

progress under Title IV of SMCRA in recent years and this issue must be addressed 

if we are to enhance the ability of the states and tribes to get more work done onthe-ground within the foreseeable future. 

Although OSM’s budget overview, seen at the following link, (http:// 

www.osmre.gov/news/OSM%20FY07%20Budget%20Highlights.pdf) shows $145.2 

million for state and tribal reclamation grants, that figure is misleading, as it does 

not account for money that will go to Clean Streams and Emergency programs. Assuming that OSM will fund Emergency programs at the same level as last year and 

the Clean Streams program at the projected amount of $6.9 million, the funding for 

state and tribal AML reclamation grants will be cut from $145.4 million down to 

the projected $127.2 million as shown above. 

The OSM proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 includes an increase over the fiscal 

year 2006 budget of $688,000 to cover increases in OSM’s fixed costs. These include 

and cover expenditures such as vehicle purchases, building rent, increased fuel 

costs, etc. States and tribes have also seen dramatic increases in these expenses, 

yet our grants show no increase to cover these costs. 

This reduced level of funding will result in falling far short of meeting the needs 

AML programs have to correct health and safety hazards in the coalfields. Less reclamation will be completed and citizens living near these hazards will remain at 

risk. 

The NAAMLP firmly believes that the two most important factors in combating 

the nation’s AML problems are reauthorizing the AML program and guaranteeing 

state and tribal reclamation grants at a level similar to those seen in fiscal year 

2001. In addition, we support a return of the state share balances to certified states. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the NAAMLP’s perspective. Please contact me if the NAAMLP can provide more information or assist the subcommittee 

in any way. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FUELS TRAINING

CONSORTIUM

Chairman Burns and Members of the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee on Appropriations: The National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium 

(NAFTC) requests funding of $2.5 million for fiscal year 2007 to continue the important work of our organization in supporting the use of alternative fuel vehicles 

(AFVs) and alternative technology vehicles. The benefits of our program include improved air quality and decreasing dependence on foreign oil. The NAFTC is funded 

in fiscal year 2006 for $2 million in the Science and Technology account in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency budget. 

I am Al Ebron, Executive Director of the NAFTC, a consortium of 27 educational 

institutions listed in the attached table. Our programs are dedicated to the use of 

AFVs and advanced technology vehicles (such as hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles). 

The NAFTC supports our nation’s energy independence and assists in improving our 

air quality by: (1) Developing curricula for AFVs and advanced technology vehicles; 

(2) Conducting training for technicians, fleet managers, government officials, students, instructors and others to maintain AFVs/advanced technology vehicles; and, 

(3) Conducting education and awareness events to educate the American public 

about AFVs/advanced technology vehicles. The NAFTC is the only nationwide orga-
368 

nization that develops curricula and disseminates training for AFVs and advanced 

technology vehicles. The NAFTC is headquartered at West Virginia University. 

Our continued dependence as a nation on foreign oil, largely to fuel our transportation systems, is a major weakness in our National Security. The demand for oil 

drives our foreign policy and strains our relationships both with other countries and 

with our environment. President Bush, in his State of the Union Address on January 31, 2006, stated, ‘‘Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And 

here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported 

from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through 

technology.’’ The United States Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on 

July 29, 2005 to establish a comprehensive, long-range energy policy. The Act provides incentives for newer and more efficient energy technologies, as well as conservation. 

In the transportation sector, important energy-saving options include using AFVs 

and advanced technology vehicles. According to the Energy Information Administration, 20 percent of the millions of vehicles to be sold over the next 20 years will 

be AFVs and advanced technology vehicles. Traditional AFVs have increased dramatically in the 1990s. With more hybrid models being offered by automobile manufacturers, thousands of hybrids are now being sold each year. 

As the number of AFVs/advanced technology vehicles increases in the United 

States, the need for properly trained technicians and fleet managers will increase. 

AFV/advanced technology vehicle trained technicians have greater job opportunities 

with the promise of higher salaries. The NAFTC has been a catalyst in providing 

the curricula and training to support this need. 

As vehicle technologies change, the NAFTC will revise and develop new curricula 

and training to support these vehicles. The NAFTC is currently developing programs for hybrid and hydrogen-powered vehicles to support the use of these advanced transportation technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of 

oil. In addition, the NAFTC is developing training programs for First Responders 

to instruct these personnel on how to safely address accidents involving hybrid vehicles. We will expand this program to other alternative fuels and Homeland Security 

issues. 

The NAFTC has developed AFV/advanced technology vehicle training for CNG, 

LPG, Electric, Hybrid, Fuel Cell, Biodiesel, Ethanol and Hydrogen vehicles. Deployment and use of these vehicles will ensure a clean and affordable diversity of options to meet our transportation needs. Trained technicians will ensure the continued use of these vehicles rather than shunting them aside when service or repairs 

are needed. 

Many in the automotive industry predict a shortage of between 250,000 and 

300,000 technicians over the next ten years. The training conducted by the NAFTC’s 

National Training Centers is directly impacting the shortage of technicians to maintain AFVs/advanced technology vehicles. NAFTC training programs provide workforce development opportunities in the regional areas of the member National Training Centers. 

The NAFTC is making a difference. Some highlights are as follows: 

—The NAFTC conducted over 40 classes with over 500 attendees last year. The 

NAFTC has delivered over 700 courses and trained over 7,000 technicians, students and others nationwide in AFVs/advanced technology vehicles. Many class 

participants are themselves trainers who in turn train others on AFVs/alternative technology vehicles. 

—The NAFTC completed a Biodiesel Training Manual, revised our AFV Overview 

Manual and conducted nine workshops last year. The NAFTC has developed 20 

major curricula and workshop programs for AFVs/advanced technology vehicles. 

—The NAFTC has conducted over 750 workshops and education/outreach events 

with over 160,000 attendees. The highlight of these outreach activities has been 

National AFV Day Odyssey, a biennial event held in 2002 and 2004. This nationwide event was established to bring awareness and to promote the use of 

AFVs and advanced technology vehicles to policymakers, instructors, students, 

fleet managers and the general public. The 2004 event had nearly 25,000 

attendees at 54 different sites in 34 states across the country and 2 sites in 

Canada. Over 24 million individuals were reached through media outlets across 

the country. 

The NAFTC will accomplish the following goals with fiscal year 2006 funding: 

—Continue to conduct training on AFVs and advanced technology vehicles across 

the country. An additional 10 educational institutions will be added to the consortium, enhancing the number of qualified faculty to train students and inservice technicians. 
369 

—Develop a new Hybrid Vehicle Training Manual, highlighting the changes in hybrid technology and providing technicians new information on available vehicles. 

—Complete the development of the First Responders Safety Training Course. Coordination with Homeland Security, State Fire Marshals, Rescue Organizations, 

Police and Sheriff Departments, U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. EPA and other organizations for dissemination of this 

vitally important training has already started. 

—Conduct National AFV Day Odyssey 2006. This nationwide event will continue 

to build on the success of the 2002 and 2004 events. Efforts will be made to 

reach even more educators, policy makers, fleet managers, students and the 

general public than previous events. A concentrated effort will be made to ensure the maximum possible media coverage to spread the message of the benefits of AFVs/advanced technology vehicles. 

The funding for fiscal year 2007 will be used to: 

—Continue to build the program’s success, conducting AFV and advanced technology vehicle training across the United States. An additional 10 NTCs will 

be targeted for addition to the consortium. 

—Develop curricula in support of AFV and advanced technology vehicle needs. 

Heavy-duty hybrid vehicles, such as municipal buses, are being developed and 

put into service. Training for these vehicles will be developed for the large 

group of municipal fleet technicians. The Hybrid Vehicle Training Manual will 

be updated to include new vehicles released by Vehicle Manufacturers. 

—Follow-on educational and awareness events will be conducted to reinforce the 

message of the 2006 National AFV Day Odyssey on the merits of AFVs and advanced technology vehicles in improving air quality and decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. 

Fiscal year 2007 funds will support between 35 and 45 schools, as new schools 

are joining the NAFTC monthly. The NAFTC is at the front of the effort to clean 

the air of our nation and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. We have taken the 

initial steps to bring these options to those who work on our cars and to the general 

public. The Subcommittee should continue the NAFTC program to continue the benefits that our unique nationwide organization can provide in stimulating the increased deployment of AFVs and advanced technology vehicles. 

The NAFTC and all of its current and projected members ask that you support 

a continued appropriation of $2.5 million in the fiscal year 2007 Science and Technology account of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget. 

Thank You, 

CURRENT NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS 

State Educational Institution City 

Arizona .......................... Gateway Community College ..................................................................... Phoenix 

California ...................... Cypress College ......................................................................................... Cypress 

Rio Hondo College ..................................................................................... Whittier 

Connecticut ................... Gateway Community College ..................................................................... North Haven 

Florida ........................... Traviss Career Center ............................................................................... Lakeland 

Illinois ........................... Morton College .......................................................................................... Cicero 

Indiana .......................... Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana ................................................... Gary 

Iowa .............................. Des Moines Area Community College ....................................................... Ankeny 

Louisiana ...................... Louisiana Technical College ..................................................................... Baton Rouge 

Maryland ....................... Com. Col. of Baltimore County (Catonsville) ............................................ Baltimore

Massachusetts .............. Wentworth Institute of Technology ............................................................ Arlington 

Michigan ....................... Lansing Community College ..................................................................... Lansing 

Kalamazoo Valley Community College ...................................................... Kalamazoo 

Missouri ........................ Ranken Technical College ......................................................................... St. Louis 

Nebraska ....................... Central Community College ...................................................................... Columbus 

Nevada .......................... Community College of Southern Nevada .................................................. North Las Vegas 

New York ....................... Onondaga Community College .................................................................. Syracuse 

North Carolina .............. Wake Technical College ............................................................................ Raleigh 

Ohio ............................... University of Northwestern Ohio ............................................................... Lima 

Ohio Technical College .............................................................................. Cleveland 

Oregon ........................... Portland Community College ..................................................................... Portland 

South Carolina .............. York Technical College .............................................................................. Rock Hill 

Tennessee ..................... Nashville Auto-Diesel College ................................................................... Nashville 

Texas ............................. Tarrant County College ............................................................................. Ft. Worth 

Washington ................... Shoreline Community College ................................................................... Shoreline 
370 

CURRENT NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS—Continued 

State Educational Institution City 

West Virginia ................ West Virginia University ............................................................................ Morgantown 

PROPOSED NEW NATIONAL TRAINING CENTERS 

State Educational Institution 1 City 

Alaska ........................... University of Alaska .................................................................................. Anchorage 

Utah .............................. Salt Lake Community College ................................................................... Salt Lake City 

Vermont ......................... Vermont Technical College ........................................................................ Randolph Center 

Virginia ......................... Northern Virginia Community College ....................................................... Alexandria 

1 Additional training centers are being recruited in Alabama, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North & 

South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS; U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; NORTHEAST-MIDWEST

INSTITUTE; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF

SHOPPING CENTERS; INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION; CHEROKEE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC; THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND; LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION; REAL ESTATE ROUNDTABLE; AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF INDUSTRIAL & OFFICE PROPERTIES

As your Subcommittee prepares the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Environment 

Appropriations bill, we urge you to include the full $250 million for the U.S. EPA 

Brownfields Program, which was authorized by the Small Business Liability Relief 

and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the ‘‘Brownfields Revitalization Act’’). 

The EPA Brownfields Program has broad-based, bipartisan support as evidenced 

by the 99–0 Senate vote and the unanimous consent House vote to pass the 

Brownfields Revitalization Act in 2001. Funds under this program are used to assess and clean up brownfields such as abandoned or under-utilized warehouses, inactive factories, gas stations, salvage yards, vacant lots, contaminated properties, 

and other eyesores that plague virtually every community. These properties cause 

blight to neighborhoods, inhibit economic development, pose risks to public health 

and the environment, and erode the tax base of communities. 

The undersigned coalition of organizations represents thousands of communities 

and tens of millions of Americans who have been working during the past decade 

to promote the reuse of contaminated properties. Our coalition together with Federal and state government agencies have demonstrated that a strategic combination 

of public and private investment can return brownfield properties to productive use. 

The U.S. EPA Brownfields program has been critical to helping hundreds of communities clean up and redevelop these properties, creating thousands of jobs, increasing 

local tax revenue, creating urban green space, and bringing new vitality to struggling neighborhoods. 

By any measure, the EPA Brownfields program has been tremendously successful. 

EPA has invested about $800 million in the assessment and cleanup of brownfields 

since 1995. According to EPA, this relatively modest investment has leveraged more 

than $9 billion in cleanup and redevelopment monies—a return of more than 10 to 

1. In addition, this investment has resulted in the assessment of more than 8,000 

properties and helped to create more than 35,000 new jobs. 

While the EPA Brownfields Program has helped numerous communities, much remains to be done. Experts estimate there remain as many as 1 million brownfield 

properties nationwide. These sites continue to blight neighborhoods, discourage new 

investment, and undermine economic progress in many communities. Moreover, at 

current funding levels, EPA can only fund about one-third of the applicants for Federal brownfields grants. Attachment 1 shows that EPA has turned away approximately 800 applicants over the past 2 years. Without these critical seed funds, thousands of sites will continue to remain idle, blighting neighborhoods and undermining local revitalization. 

Despite the tremendous success of the program and the compelling need in communities across the country, the Administration and Congress have significantly 

under-funded the brownfields program during the past four years. Attachment 2 

shows that Congress has only appropriated an average of $165.6 million a year for 

the period of fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006 for the Brownfields program. 
371 

This represents a 34 percent reduction from the $250 million per year authorized 

for the overall program under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. Moreover, between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006, Congress has only appropriated an average of $90.2 million for brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to local communities—the most critical component of the brownfields program. This funding 

level represents a 45 percent reduction from the $165 million authorized for assessment and cleanup grants under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. 

Consequently, we request that the Subcommittee fully fund EPA’s Brownfields program at the authorized level of $250 million for fiscal year 2007. This modest 

investment will help hundreds of additional communities clean up and reuse thousands of contaminated properties, thereby bringing new hope and vitality to millions 

of Americans nationwide. 

We also ask that you resolve a technical problem with the Brownfields Revitalization Act, which prevents brownfield grant recipients from using a small portion of 

their grant to cover reasonable administrative costs such as rent, utilities and other 

costs necessary to carry out a project. This limitation makes it extremely difficult 

for local governments, community organizations and non—profit entities to effectively develop and implement their site assessment and cleanup programs and 

projects. All other EPA programs (Clean Water, Drinking Water, Superfund, RCRA, 

etc) and virtually all Federal grant programs allow a portion of grant funds to be 

allocated to cover reasonable administrative costs. 

State agencies that receive brownfield funding from EPA are permitted to pay administrative costs with their grants. Only local governments and non-profit organizations are penalized by this prohibition and only the Brownfields program is singled out for this unfair treatment. As a result, many localities and organizations are 

unable to use brownfields funds. We have heard from a number of communities— 

especially small and rural communities—who have indicated that they are unable 

to apply for EPA brownfield funding due to the prohibition on the use of funds for 

administrative costs. 

The fiscal year 2006 Senate appropriations bill for EPA eliminated this prohibition on the use of brownfield grants to cover reasonable administrative costs. Unfortunately, this important provision was dropped during Conference Committee consideration of the bill. Therefore, we ask you to include this provision again in the 

fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill. 

Finally, we thank you for your leadership in eliminating a significant barrier to 

brownfields redevelopment. Your language in the August 2005 SAFETEA–LU legislation made innocent landowners, who purchased property before the enactment of 

the Brownfields law, eligible for EPA brownfields grants. This technical correction 

will enable hundreds of additional localities to assess, clean up and redevelop blighted property, but it will also increase the demand for EPA’s brownfields grants. 

Thank you for considering our request to enhance EPA’s Brownfields Program. 

The Program is making a critical difference to communities across the country, and 

fully funding this program would enable more communities to return blighted property to productive use. The technical fix would open the door to hundreds of additional communities who could apply for a brownfield grant and see the benefits of 

revitalization. 

If you have questions or want additional information, please contact Paul Connor 

of the National Association of Local Government Environmental Professionals at 

202–638–6254, Judy Sheahan of the U.S. Conference of Mayors at 202–861–6775, 

or Ken Brown of the Ferguson Group at 202–331–8500. 

ATTACHMENT 1.—UN-FUNDED BROWNFIELDS GRANT APPLICATIONS 

Fiscal 

year Type of Grants Grants received 

Grants 

awarded 1

Un-Funded 

applications 

2004 Assessment ............................................................................................. 325 153 172 

Cleanup ................................................................................................... 370 77 293 

RLF .......................................................................................................... 61 15 46 

Total .......................................................................................... 756 245 511 

2005 Assessment ............................................................................................. 362 170 192 

Cleanup ................................................................................................... 267 100 167 

RLF .......................................................................................................... 44 13 31 

Total .......................................................................................... 673 283 390 

1 The awarded grants in 2005 are approximate numbers. 
372 

ATTACHMENT 2.—ANALYSIS OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE U.S. EPA BROWNFIELDS

PROGRAM: FISCAL YEAR 2003–2007

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established the federal brownfields 

program in 1995 as a demonstration program, which provided seed funding to several types of demonstration pilots across the country. The brownfields pilots helped 

demonstrate how federal funding for assessment and cleanup could leverage billions 

in private sector investment to help bring contaminated properties back into productive use. In 2002, Congress enacted the Small Business Liability Relief and 

Brownfields Revitalization Act, which provided the brownfields program with a Congressional mandate, new liability tools to promote reuse, and increased funding at 

a level of $250 million per year. Specifically, the law authorizes $200 million a year for brownfields assessment and clean-up grants to local communities. The $200 million a year includes direct 

grants for assessment and clean-up, as well as funding for EPA to administer the 

program (see table below). The law also authorizes $50 million a year in grants to 

States and Indian tribes to help them implement state brownfields programs. 

By any measure, the federal brownfields program has been a tremendous success. The EPA has invested approximately $800 million in brownfields site assessment 

and cleanup since 1995. According to EPA, the program’s relatively modest investment has leveraged $9 billion in cleanup and redevelopment monies—a more than 

ten to one return on investment. In addition, this investment has resulted in the 

assessment of more than 8,000 properties and helped to create more than 35,000 

new jobs nationwide. 

Unfortunately, both the Administration and the Congress have consistently 

under-funded the EPA Brownfields Program during the past four years. The result 

is that hundreds of thousands of brownfields sites remain idle and continue to blight 

neighborhoods across the country. Below is a summary of EPA Brownfields funding 

for the period of fiscal year 2003-fiscal year 2007, since the new law was enacted. 

EPA BROWNFIELDS FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2003–2007 

[In millions of dollars] 

Law 1

Fiscal year 

2003 

request 

2003 

enacted 

2004 

request 

2004 

enacted 

2005 

request 

2005 

enacted 

2006 

request 

2006 

enacted 

2007 

request 

2007 

enacted 

Assessment, cleanup 

grants ..................... 1 165 120.5 89.9 120.5 92.9 120.5 89.3 120.5 88.7 89.1 ? 

EPA Administration expenses .................... 1 35 30.5 27.0 29.5 27.3 28.0 24.3 29.5 24.5 24.6 ? 

State Grants ............... 50 60.0 49.7 60.0 49.7 60.0 49.6 60.0 49.3 49.5 ? 

Total .............. 250 211 166.6 210 169.9 208.5 163.2 210 162.5 163.2 ? 

1 The federal brownfields law authorizes $200 million a year for brownfields assessment and clean-up grants to local communities. The $200 million a year includes direct grants for assessment and clean-up, as well as funding for EPA to administer the program. The $165 

million for direct assessment and clean-up grants and the $35 million for EPA administrative expenses represent EPA estimates for those cat- egories if the Brownfields Program were fully funded at the level authorized by the brownfields law. 

THE ADMINISTRATION IS EPA BROWNFIELDS BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003– 2006

The Administration requested only $120.5 million a year for brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to local communities—the most critical component of the 

brownfields program. This represents a 27 percent reduction from the $165 million 

per year authorized for assessment and cleanup grants under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. 

The Administration requested only $210 million a year for the overall Brownfields 

program, including grants for assessment and cleanup, grants to the States, and administrative expenses for EPA to administer the program. This represents a 16 percent reduction from the $250 million per year authorized for the overall program 

under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. 

THE ADMINISTRATION IS EPA BROWNFIELDS BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

The Administration has requested only $89.1 million in fiscal year 2007 for 

brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to local communities—the most critical 
373 

component of the brownfields program. This represents a 46 percent reduction from 

the $165 million authorized for assessment and cleanup grants under the 

Brownfields Revitalization Act. It also represents a 26 percent reduction from the 

Administration request for fiscal years 2003–2006. The Administration requested only $163.2 million in fiscal year 2007 for the overall Brownfields program, including grants for assessment and cleanup, grants to the 

States, and administrative expenses for EPA to administer the program. This represents a 35 percent reduction from the $250 million per year authorized for the 

overall program under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. It also represents a 22 

percent reduction from the Administration request for fiscal years 2003–2006. 

CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR EPA BROWNFIELDS PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2003– 2006

Congress has appropriated an average of $90.2 million for brownfields assessment 

and cleanup grants to local communities—the most critical component of the 

brownfields program. The funding has ranged from a high of $92.9 million in fiscal 

year 2004 to a low of $88.7 million in fiscal year 2006. This funding level represents 

a 45 percent reduction from the $165 million per year authorized for assessment 

and cleanup grants under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. Congress has appropriated an average of $165.6 million a year for the overall 

Brownfields program, including grants for assessment and cleanup, grants to the 

States, and administrative expenses for EPA to administer the program for the period of fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006. The funding has ranged from a 

high of $169.9 million in fiscal year 2004 to a low of $162.5 million in fiscal year 

2006. This represents a 34 percent reduction from the $250 million per year authorized for the overall program under the Brownfields Revitalization Act. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE AND

CONSERVATION CORPS (NASCC) 

The National Association of Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC) urges you to fully fund, at $12,000,000, the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests Restoration 

Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–154) which was signed into law on December 30, 2005. 

When funded, the Act will enable the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to 

engage Service and Conservation Corps in projects: ‘‘(A) To reduce wildfire risk to 

a community, municipal water supply, or other at-risk Federal land; (B) To protect 

a watershed or address a threat to forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire; (C) To address the impact of insect or disease infestations or other 

damaging agents on forest and rangeland health’’ and for other purposes. Funding 

the Public Lands Corps will enable federal land managers to cost-effectively complete critical backlogged maintenance projects on federal lands. 

NASCC is the voice of the nation’s 108 Service and Conservation Corps. Currently 

there are Corps operating in 40 states and the District of Columbia that annually 

enroll more than 23,000 young people who contribute about 13 million hours or 

service to their communities. 

NASCC Corps are direct descendents of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) 

of the Depression-era that provided work and vocational training for unemployed 

single young men through conserving and developing the country’s natural resources. Between 1933 and 1941 when it was disbanded, the CCC had employed almost 3.5 million men who planted an estimated 2.5 billion trees, protected 40 million acres of farmland from erosion, drained 248,000 acres of swamp land, replanted 

almost a million acres of grazing land, built 125,000 miles of roads, fought fires, and 

created 800 state parks and 52,000 acres of campgrounds. But the biggest legacy 

of the CCC may have been the hope it provided both the young men and their families. 

Today’s Corps are a proven strategy for giving young men and women, many of 

whom are economically or otherwise disadvantaged and out-of-work and/or out-ofschool, the chance to change their own lives and those of their families, as well as 

improve their communities. Of the 23,000 Corpsmembers enrolled in 2004–2005, 55 

percent had no High School diploma, 64 percent reported family income below the 

federal poverty level, 30 percent had previous court involvement and, at least 10 

percent had been in foster care. Contemporary Corps provide thousands of 16–24 

year olds the In return for their efforts to restore and strengthen their communities, 

Corpsmembers receive: (1) a living allowance, (2) classroom training to improve 

basic competencies and, if necessary, to secure a GED or high school diploma, (3) 

experiential and environmental service-learning based education, (4) generic and 

technical skills training, and (5) a wide range of supportive services. 
374 

Research has shown that youth who complete Corps programs have higher rates 

of employment and earn more than their counterparts. Corpsmembers also score 

higher on measures of personal and social responsibility and are more likely to earn 

a college degree. Corps generate a positive return for every dollar invested. Public Law 109–154 authorizes $12 million for the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

Interior to contract with qualified youth and conservation Corps to carry out 

projects on public lands that are consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forests 

Act. It authorizes $8 million for priority projects and $4 million for other appropriate conservation projects. 

The Act creates two preferences; one for projects and the other for Corps. With 

regard to contracts and cooperative agreements to work on ‘‘appropriate’’ conservation projects, the Secretaries ‘‘may give preference to qualified youth or conservation 

Corps located in a specific area that have a substantial portion of members who are 

economically, physically, or educationally disadvantaged to carry out projects within 

the area.’’ With regard to priority projects as defined by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the Secretaries ‘‘shall to the maximum extent practicable, give preference to qualified youth or conservation Corps located in that specific area that 

have a substantial portion of members who are economically, physically, or educationally disadvantaged.’’ The Secretaries may also authorize projects to be carried 

out on Federal, State, local, or private land as part of a Federal disaster prevention 

or relief effort. 

Thus, the purposes of the Public Lands Corps Healthy Forests Restoration Act are 

twofold: to participate in the fight against wildfires, invasive species, other threats 

to our public lands and other disaster prevention and relief activities, and to engage 

young people, particularly those who are disadvantaged, in these efforts. A third 

benefit of the PLC is that the government may not pay more than 75 percent of 

the cost of any project. The remaining 25 percent may be provided in cash or inkind from nonfederal sources. 

According to Congressional testimony provided by the Department of the Interior 

on April 5, ‘‘the 2006 fire season started early this year, and fire activity has been 

well above normal in the Southern and Eastern areas of the United States. The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Predictive Service Office expects fire potential to be significantly higher than normal across most of the Southwest, southern 

California, portions of the Rocky Mountain area, Texas, Oklahoma, and central 

Alaska. . . . Overall, we anticipate a very active fire season for the remainder of 

2006.’’ According to the NIFC, so far this year 18 states have reported fires that 

consumed at least 10,000 acres. 

In 2004 the National Fire News noted that ‘‘as firefighters control wildland fires, 

another group of quiet heroes move into the area to start the healing. After a 

wildland fire, the land may need stabilization to prevent loss of topsoil through erosion and prevent the movement of dirt into rivers and streams. Land management 

specialists and volunteers jump start the renewal of plant life through seeding and 

planting with annuals, trees, and native species that help retain soils and fight 

invasive weeds. It’s a long term process that comes alive as the wildland fires die 

down.’’ 

This is the kind of work at which Corps excel and can play an increasingly important role. Service and Conservation Corps are an experienced, cost-effective, and valuable resource in the fight against fires and infestation. Corps do fuels reduction 

work, create firescapes around new communities as cities spread into previously 

rural areas, provide logistical support to firefighters, remove invasive species like 

Tamarisk, Leafy Spurge and Russian Olive, combat agricultural pests and insects 

such as the Bark Beetle and Pine Beetle, and educate homeowners and others about 

how to prevent fires. They also partner with community-based organizations in disaster preparedness and relief activities. 

Some examples of the work performed by Corps are: 

—Eleven Corps have sent more than 300 young people and staff to the Gulf Coast. 

Corps from California, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, 

Alaska, Vermont, Florida and Washington State are helping residents rebuild 

their homes and their lives by clearing debris, repairing roofs in Mississippi, 

managing a supply warehouse in Louisiana, serving displaced residents aboard 

ships in Alabama, and installing temporary ‘‘hard roofs’’ on historic buildings 

in New Orleans. 

—In 2004, the Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) completed over 600 acres of 

wildfire fuels reduction projects in partnership with national parks, state agencies on private lands, and local conservation districts. Its priority has been to 

create defensible space around historic buildings in the national parks and 

around campgrounds. In West Yellowstone, MCC partnered with the Chamber 

of Commerce to remove 300 hazardous trees lining the popular Rendezvous Ski 
375 

Trails, site of national ski races, and an important economic asset in a community trying to diversify from the traditional snowmobile-based economy. 

—The Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC) has done work in the urban 

interface in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park housing area to 

insure safe passage for emergency response workers. Corpsmembers have been 

trained in firescaping around new suburban neighborhoods as cities spread into 

rural areas. They help to provide both visually aesthetic and fire resistant landscape around structures and along the avenues of emergency response. 

—The California Conservation Corps (CCC) is the nation’s oldest, largest and 

longest-running Conservation Corps. Nearly 90,000 young men and women have 

worked more than 50 million hours to protect and enhance California’s environment and communities and have provided six million hours of assistance with 

emergencies like fires, floods and earthquakes. 

—The Coconino Rural Environment Corps located in Flagstaff, Arizona, thins 

hundreds of acres of federal, state, county, city, and private lands every year. 

The Corps has created multiple partnerships in local communities to mitigate 

the hazards of catastrophic wild fires including one to provide local Native 

American communities with more than 400 cords of fire wood. The Corps has 

increased community awareness to the dangers of wildfire and the risks associated with living in one of the most fire prone forests in the world, thus creating 

a more fire wise community. The CREC thins more than 500 acres a year and 

returns more than 4000 acres to native grasslands. 

Invasive species are another large and growing threat to our public lands. Almost 

half of the plants and animals listed as endangered species by the federal government have been negatively affected by invasive species. Purple loosestrife, for example, diminishes waterfowl habitats, alters wetland structure and function, and 

chokes out native plants. The Asian long horned beetle destroys valuable city trees 

and could spread. Invasive plants are estimated to infest 100 million acres in the 

United States. A Bureau of Land Management study (1996) estimated that 4,600 

acres of additional Federal public natural areas in the Western United States are 

negatively affected by invasive plant species every day. One report indicates that 

invasive species cost the United States an estimated $137 billion a year. 

Corps have also been mobilized in California, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, 

Washington, Utah and elsewhere to fight invasive species; a growing problem on our 

public lands. For example: 

The Montana Conservation Corps is partnering with the National Forest Foundation, Gallatin National Forest, and Gallatin/Big Sky Weed Management Area Committee to undertake an extensive invasive weed mapping and removal project in the 

Lee Metcalf Wilderness. In 2003, partnering with the Charles M. Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge, MCC floated sections of the Missouri Breaks Wild and Scenic River 

to inventory and map patches of invasive Leafy Spurge using hand-held GPS units 

and data loggers. The crews collected thousands of Flea Beetles, a tested and successful biological control method for leafy spurge, and returned to the surveyed sites 

to release the flea beetles in the most sensitive areas. 

—The Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC), based in Taos and the Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC), based in Grand Junction, Colorado, have 

been actively involved in tamarisk removal for several years. The WCCC has 

partnered with the Colorado State Parks Department and the state Division of 

Wildlife, the Audubon Society, and the Tamarisk Coalition to control acres of 

Tamarisk and Russian Olive, Hounds Tongue, Canada Thistle and other species, as well as 15 miles of Salsafy, Russian Thistle, and Storks Bill. 

The Public Lands Corps will provide work experience to low-income, disadvantaged youth between the ages of 16–24 who are enrolled in the Corps, giving them 

the chance to develop the skills and habits they will need to become employed and 

productive citizens. This experience will help them help themselves, their families, 

and their communities. It will also enable federal land managers to cost-effectively 

complete critical backlogged maintenance projects. We urge you to provide $12 million to support this program and we appreciate your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Peter Smith of New York, 

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 
376 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO supports funding of at 

least $15 million above the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 request of $45 million, 

to a level of $60 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 2005, EPA and NASEO announced a new Clean Energy and Environment State Partnership program, which already has approximately fifteen state 

members. We are working closely with EPA on a new Energy Efficiency Action Plan 

and the Energy Star Challenge. On October 5, 2005 we worked with EPA to have 

over half the states declare ‘‘Change a Light’’ Day. 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. As we are facing an energy emergency, these programs are even more 

urgently needed today. 

Energy Star focuses on energy efficient products as well as buildings. In 2005, 175 

million Energy Star products were purchased. The Energy Star label is recognized 

across the United States. It makes the work of the state energy offices much easier, 

by working with the public on easily recognized products, services and targets. In 

order to obtain the Energy Star label a product has to meet established guidelines. 

Energy Star’s voluntary partnership programs include Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Business and Energy Star Labeled Products. 

The program operates by encouraging consumers, 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 8,000 company partners. More than 500,000 families now live in Energy Star homes, saving $110 million annually. 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 wholehouse 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. 

The state energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at EPA and in 

our states to promote programs to make schools more energy efficient, in addition 

to an expanding Energy Star business partners program. This expansion will continue. EPA has been expanding the technical assistance work with the state energy 

offices in such areas as benchmark training (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target and training in such areas as financing options for 

building improvements and building upgrade strategies. 

The state energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers in the state environmental agencies and state public utilities commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies are developed recognizing both energy and 

environmental concerns. We have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues. The level of cooperation from the agency has been extraordinary 

and we encourage these continued efforts. 

STATE EXAMPLES

In the examples noted below, the state energy offices have been active program 

participants and promotion agents for Energy Star. We can provide a myriad of 

other state examples at your request. 

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 (D.R. Horton 
377 

Homes built 1,049 homes in 2005 to Energy Star standards). 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 (Aspen Homes now builds 100 

percent of its homes to Energy Star standards). 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 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. This 

has taken on added urgency in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. 

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 Nevada Energy Star Partners Campaign has increased consumer awareness to 90 percent. 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. 

3,600 homes built by Astoria Homes have now earned the Energy Star label. 

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. For example, more than 1,800 

Energy Star homes have been constructed by 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 
378 

have already earned the Energy Star rating, with active promotion of the program 

accelerating market penetration and acceptance. The State has created three Energy Star Retail Centers with associated training programs. 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. Vermont is also part of the Northeast Energy Star Lighting and Appliance 

Initiative that has saved 8 billion kWh in a five-state region. 

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). Expanded public information initiatives focus on Energy Star. 

Wisconsin.—Almost 800 companies and public entities are participating in Energy 

Star. For example, over 1,900 homes constructed by Veridian Homes have earned 

Energy Star status. In addition, 45 schools, 6 office buildings, 4 supermarkets and 

3,000 existing homes 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, 350 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. A new promotional campaign has led to the sale of more than 900,000 

Energy Star qualified products. 

CONCLUSION

Increases in funding for the Energy Star Programs are justified. NASEO endorses 

these activities and the state energy offices are working very closely with EPA to 

cooperatively implement a variety of critical national programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

INTRODUCTION

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to provide testimony on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) budget request for fiscal year 2007. Representing the directors of state forestry agencies from all fifty 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. These programs assist private landowners in providing society with 

such public benefits as clean water, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, and flood 

control. Wildland Fire Management supports essential State and Private Forestry 

and federal programs that address wildland fire. 

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 forestlands nationwide. 

NASF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 

[In millions of dollars] 

2006 

Enacted 

President’s 

proposed 

2007 

Proposed 

2007 

NASF 

State Fire Assistance: 

State and Private Forestry ............................................................................ 32.9 27.0 35.0 

Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................... 45.8 29.1 55.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 78.7 56.1 90.0 

Cooperative Forest Health Management: 

State and Private Forestry ............................................................................ 46.9 34.6 48.0 
379 

NASF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USDA FOREST SERVICE IN FISCAL YEAR 2007— 

Continued 

[In millions of dollars] 

2006 

Enacted 

President’s 

proposed 

2007 

Proposed 

2007 

NASF 

Wildland Fire Management ........................................................................... 9.9 4.6 10.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 56.8 39.2 58.0 

Urban and Community Forestry ............................................................................. 28.5 26.8 36.0 

Forest Inventory and Analysis: 

Research and Development .......................................................................... 59.4 59.3 60.0 

State and Private Forestry ............................................................................ 4.6 .................... 5.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... 64.0 59.3 65.0 

Forest Stewardship ................................................................................................ 34.2 33.9 37.0 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAMS

State Fire Assistance (SFA) 

State Fire Assistance (SFA) provides crucial financial and technical assistance to 

states and local fire departments for wildland fire management. SFA helps to ensure preparedness of local resources, which serve as the first line of defense for their 

forests and communities. These fire fighting resources function as both ‘‘first responders’’ for local incidents and as ‘‘ready reserves’’ for large federally managed 

catastrophic fires. Further, SFA is the only federal program that currently provides 

funding for fuel reduction work on non-federal lands, regardless of their proximity 

to 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 also helps prepare states for dealing with 

non-fire emergencies, such as hurricane recovery and other all-hazard events. 

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. Funds under State and 

Private Forestry are used to help states increase preparedness at the local level 

through training, coordination, and communication 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 increased funding for State Fire Assistance at $35 million 

under Cooperative Fire Protection and $55 million under Wildland Fire Management. Increasing funding for these line items will provide continued protection for 

local communities from catastrophic wildland fires, 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 activities include prevention, detection, and suppression of damaging 

insects, diseases, and plants. Every year, the American public loses billions of dollars to damage by invasive species and the cost of insect and disease detection and 

control. To illustrate the extent of the cost, the potential losses from damage by one 

insect pest, the emerald ash borer, are $25 million in ash timber and an additional 

$20 to $60 billion in street tree losses across the nation. 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. 

Forest pests know no land ownership boundaries and often move to and from federal 

lands. These funds, from both State and Private Forestry (S&PF) and Wildland Fire 

Management, are critical to the maintenance of healthy and sustainable forests. 
380 

Funding for Cooperative Forest Health Management under Wildland Fire Management is used primarily for forest insect and disease mitigation in high hazard 

areas, such as forests at high risk of fire or those recently burned and susceptible 

to insect and disease attack. Funding under State and Private Forestry provides 

states with support for prevention, detection, and suppression of harmful insects 

and diseases. 

NASF recommends funding S&PF Cooperative Forest Health Management at the fiscal year 2006 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. These efforts also reduce energy consumption, create healthier human environments, and reduce the prevalence 

and severity of flooding in our communities. 

NASF worked with the Forest Service to develop a new allocation formula to distribute funding among the states and territories. This new formula more closely 

aligns state funding allocation with program goals and objectives. 

NASF recommends funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at the fiscal year 2003 level of $36 million to enhance the quality of life for communities 

in urban and rural areas. 

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 decisions about 

our nation’s forested lands. FIA data provides users with relevant information on 

the condition, extent, use, and health of forests across ownerships. Because of this 

benchmark accomplishment, FIA must continue to provide essential inventory data 

for addressing long-term forest management needs. Funding for FIA from State and 

Private Forestry is essential for supporting state inventory crews, an integral component of the program. NASF recommends funding FIA at $60 million through Research and Development and $5 million through State and Private Forestry, for a 

total of $65 million. The program must continue to advance toward full implementation in all states. Together with a well-funded research program, FIA will continue 

to provide essential inventory data for addressing long-term forest management 

needs. 

Forest Stewardship Program 

The Forest Stewardship Program continues to serve as the primary program for 

promoting sustainable forest management on family forest lands. Since its inception 

in 1991, the Forest Stewardship Program has turned out 240,000 Stewardship Plans 

covering 30 million acres. By expanding the sustainable management of private forest land, the public receives an array of benefits including increased water quality, 

improved plant and animal habitat, carbon sequestration, and wood products that 

support local economies. NASF recommends increasing funding to meet the President’s fiscal year 2006 request of $37 for the Forest Stewardship Program. We encourage efforts to better target the delivery of the Forest Stewardship Program in 

order to focus on priority resources concerns. 

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 
381 

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 2007 

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 ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND

LAND-GRANT COLLEGES (NASULGC) 

On behalf of the NASULGC Board on Natural Resources, we thank you for your 

support of science and research programs within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide detailed recommendations for: $788 million for the EPA Office 

of Science & Technology, and the efforts of the American Competitiveness Initiative 

(ACI); $100 million for the EPA Science to Achieve Results program; and $1.2 billion 

for the USGS. 

NASULGC Supports the American Competitiveness Initiative and the Administration’s request of $788 million for the EPA Office of Science and Technology.—State 

universities and land-grant colleges truly welcome and are excited by the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the renewed national focus on 

scientific research and education. Education and scientific research have served as 

the infrastructure and foundation for much of Nation’s economic and national security. We feel targeted federal investments in our top priority programs, will provide 

America with secure economic, environmental, and homeland security. $788 million 

of the EPA of Science and Technology would provide small increases to maintain 

ongoing programs. Without sound science, EPA will be unable to correctly identify 

and develop sound management and mitigation strategies for critical environmental 

problems. Any cuts to EPA S&T would result in drastic reductions in essential extramural research funded by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and 

education and outreach carried out by the Office of Education. Within the EPA we 

further recommend: 

The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources requests that the Committee restore 

EPA STAR funding to $100 million for competitive grants and $10 million for graduate fellowships.—One of the most effective programs for improving the agency’s 

science capabilities is the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. The investment EPA ORD makes in STAR is especially significant and effective because STAR 

is not a stand-alone grants program. It is coordinated with EPA program and regional offices, and targeted at high-priority needs that support the agency’s mission. 

The program is leveraged by the participation of other federal agencies and the private sector, and involves thousands of research scholars in universities. 

NASULGC universities have used STAR extramural research funding to: 

—Develop evaluations of U.S. estuarine and coastal water quality degradation, 

—Analyze ecosystem health and impairment, 

—Establish effective multi-university research collaborations, and 

—Develop techniques to assess the risks to fish in the Great Lakes associated 

with exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. 

Grants from the STAR program have provided financial support for several of the 

top graduate students. These students are now working at colleges and universities 
382 

to educate others in society about sustainable management of the Earth’s natural 

resources and maintenance of the ecological services that support all life. 

STAR graduate fellowships help move America towards becoming more competitive by investing in the next generation of scientists and engineers, and providing 

opportunities for students to develop the skills needed to enhance this nation’s environmental science expertise. Moreover, these grants are often a way to get minority 

graduate students engaged in high-level scientific research. STAR investigator-initiated research grants are a very important tool to address future workforce needs 

and are significantly expanding the number of scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the overall quality of EPA Science and Technology. NASULGC recommends $1.2 billion for the United States Geological Survey, an increase of $200 million above the fiscal year 2006 conference report. This increase 

would restore cuts proposed in the President’s budget; cover rising fixed costs such 

as salaries and rent; accomplish core tasks that have been under-funded for years; 

and keep up with inflation. 

NASULGC supports this amount in coordination with the USGS Coalition an alliance of 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. 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

was praised for quickly arriving on the scene and providing reliable data that assisted recovery teams. As members of academic community that have partnered 

with the USGS for the past several decades, we were very pleased with their performance during this catastrophe. We have worked with the USGS to provide the 

public and private sector, as well as policymakers, with crucial information about 

natural resources, natural hazards and wildlife diversity. Furthermore, the USGS 

provides geospatial data, from maps to satellite images, for improved land and wildlife management. Our universities provide necessary expertise to complement the 

USGS workforce, and the land-grant missions of our universities dovetail appropriately with the resource development and conservation missions of the Department of Interior. We further recommend that part of the $1.2 billion request be used 

to support: The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources requests $8,775,000 for the Water Resources Research Institutes, an increase of $2,275,000 over the fiscal year 2006 

appropriation. This request is based on: —$7,000,000 in base grants for the water resources research institutes as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including statebased competitive grants; —$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the Act, a national competitive grants program, and —$275,000 for program administration. 

The Administration’s proposal to eliminate funding for this excellent partnership 

with state governments and universities is unjustified. Federal funding for the 

water resources research institute program is the catalyst that moves states and cities to invest in university-based research to address their own water management 

issues. The added benefit is that research to address state and local problems often 

helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance. Many of the 

projects funded through this program provide the knowledge for state or local managers to implement new federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, the 

federal funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water research and 

education among local, state, federal and university water professionals. 

This program is essential to solving emerging and future state, regional and interjurisdictional water resources problems. Institutes in Louisiana, California and 

North Carolina, made major contributions in emergency planning and hurricane recovery, protecting groundwater aquifers from sea water intrusion and reducing 

water treatment costs. The institutes also provide training for the next generation 

of water resource managers and scientists. 

The water resources research institute program is constantly striving for efficiency in research administration and collaboration. State water resources research 

institutes take the relatively modest amount of federal funding appropriated by this 

Subcommittee, match it 2:1 with state, local and other funds and use it to put university scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and state 

water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes have raised more 

than $15 in other funds for every dollar funded through this program. 

The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports $61 million for the Mineral 

Resources Program (MRP), which would restore cuts made over the past 5 years, 

and is a modest increase of about $7 million above fiscal year 2006. Our request 

should set aside $5 million for the creation of a Mineral Education and Research 
383 

Initiative (MERIT), a peer-reviewed external grants program for applied research 

and education in mineral resources and material flows analysis conducted by universities, state organizations, and individuals in the private sector. Last year, the 

Senate appropriated and the USGS committed $1,000,000 toward Mineral Resources 

External Research, but additional funds are needed to expand upon this first step. 

Apart from this small program, there is virtually no funding to sustain applied 

science research and education related to mineral resources. 

The establishment of a consistently well-funded MERIT would follow the recommendations of three recent National Research Council reports and would help arrest the dramatic decline of minerals expertise in the United States. Funding levels 

of $5 million in fiscal year 2007, and $8 million in fiscal year 2008, is an appropriate 

ramp-up for the external grants program, which ideally should reach a level of $20 

million per year. Modest levels ($1,000,000) of external research funding by the 

MRP in fiscal year 2005 to six universities supported graduate student research and 

education. 

The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports funding the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program at a level of $31.5 million.—This is a $6.1 

million increase above the Administration’s request. Universities are involved in 

this program through competitive grants for both the training of scientists. These 

scientists posses special skills needed in geologic mapping and the production of new 

geologic maps to meet needs in stewardship of water, energy, and mineral resources; 

risk reduction from natural hazards; and environmental protection. The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports $17.5 million for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program of the USGS.—This is a $2.6 million 

increase above the Administration’s request. The additional funds will be critical in 

filling the many vacant scientist positions in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program throughout the nation. This program has proven to be a remarkably successful investment. Unit scientists also play a vital role in practical, 

real-world training of the next generation of natural resource managers, who will 

be needed soon to replace a significant professional workforce component that is 

nearing retirement. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the Committee. 

About NASULGC 

NASULGC is the nation’s oldest higher education association. Currently the association has over 200 member institutions—including the historically black landgrant institutions—located in all fifty states. The Association’s overriding mission is 

to support high quality public education through efforts that enhance the capacity 

of member institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and public 

service roles. 

About the Board on Natural Resources 

The Board’s mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with natural 

resources, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment. Most NASULGC institutions are represented on the Board. Present membership exceeds 500 scientists and 

educators, who are some of the nation’s leading research and educational experts 

in environmental and natural-resource disciplines. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COOPERATORS’ COALITION

SUMMARY

The National Cooperators’ Coalition (NCC) urges Congress to increase the budget 

of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units to 

$17.5 million in fiscal year 2007. This increase of $2.6 million above the fiscal year 

2007 request is essential to fill the growing number of vacant scientist positions in 

the USGS program and restore the program’s integrity. 

The National Cooperators’ Coalition is an alliance of more than 60 nonfederal 

CRU program cooperators and other supporters of the CRU program. Its members 

include state wildlife agencies, universities, and non-governmental organizations. 

The mission of the NCC is to build a stronger and more coordinated base of support 

to serve research, education, and technical assistance needs of the nonfederal CRU 

program cooperators. 

FUNDING SHORTFALL AND LOSS OF SCIENTISTS

The NCC requests your support in providing $17.5 million in fiscal year 2007 to 

fill the many vacant scientist positions in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). We greatly appreciate 
384 

your past efforts in behalf of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, especially given difficult budgetary constraints. 

As you know, the 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units across the 

country provide very important and cost-effective products and services to state and 

federal agencies, universities, and private landowners in the form of managementoriented research, graduate level education, and technical assistance. Unlike other 

programs, this one co-locates substantial numbers of federal scientists at universities who serve as graduate research/teaching faculty. These federal scientists understand (and communicate to their students) the nature of conducting research 

within a government agency to address real-world problems. 

Full funding and scientist staffing for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Units, which was achieved through your support in fiscal year 2001, resulted in unparalleled cooperation, productivity, and service in the management of our natural 

resources. Unfortunately, The $14.938 million requested by the Administration for 

fiscal year 2007 is $2.6 million less than the amount needed to fill the vacant Unit 

scientist positions and meet congressionally mandated increases in federal salaries 

and benefits, and is only $861,000 more than the amount appropriated 6 years earlier. During that same time the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units will 

have been required to absorb $3.0 million in uncontrollable salary and benefit costs, 

while being directed to establish and staff a new Unit. The result is that a record 

number of Unit scientist positions (22) will need to be vacant by the end of fiscal 

year 2007 in order to meet the funding level in the current budget request. For the 

cooperators in any given affected state, these vacancies have caused an enormous 

25 percent to 67 percent reduction in the number of Unit scientists and their contributions to research, education, and technical assistance. 

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units have been a remarkably successful investment. Unit scientists leverage the USGS base funding provided by 

Congress more than 3:1 with funds from other sources. Unit scientists also play a 

vital role in practical, real-world training of the next generation of natural resource 

managers, who will be needed soon to replace a significant professional workforce 

component that is nearing retirement. Scientist vacancies hamper the ability of the 

program to leverage funding from state, federal, and private sources for addressing 

key natural resource problems and training tomorrow’s managers. 

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit program is a synergistic one 

that requires each cooperator (federal, state, university, and private) in a Unit to 

make its agreed upon investments under negotiated agreements. Under the fiscal 

year 2007 budget request, however, for the fifth year in a row, the federal government is not making its agreed-upon contribution, particularly in the nearly half of 

all Units across the country that have one or more scientist vacancies. 

We urge you, therefore, to support providing $17.5 million for the Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program in fiscal year 2007. This action will fill 

vacant scientist positions at the Units and ensure that the Units can continue to 

support the needs of state, university, and private cooperators in your states and 

elsewhere across the country. 

We thank you for consideration of our request. 
385 

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 $1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in fiscal year 2007. 

NCSE recommends a minimum funding level of $900 million for the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science and Technology account, including at least $150 

million for the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and $20 

million for the STAR graduate fellowship program, as well as $10 million for the 

Office of Environmental Education. 

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 U.S. Geological Survey in protecting public safety has 

been brought home by a series of devastating natural disasters over the past several 

years. Investments in the USGS pay enormous dividends by reducing risks from 

earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, landslides, wildfires, and volcanic eruptions. The USGS plays a pivotal role in preventing natural hazards from becoming 

natural disasters. Likewise, the USGS helps provide a scientific basis for managing 

critical natural resources—from energy to wildlife to water resources. 

As a founding member and co-chair of the USGS Coalition, NCSE joins with nearly 70 other organizations in recommending an appropriation of $1.2 billion for the 

USGS in fiscal year 2007. This 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, National Map, and National Streamflow Information Program), 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 President’s budget request would cut funding for the USGS by $20.6 million 

or 2.1 percent to $944.8 million. In real dollars, the USGS budget would fall to its 

lowest level since 1996, when the National Biological Service was integrated into 

the USGS. The fiscal year 2007 request would add $40.1 million in new programs 

and fixed costs, which would be offset by redirecting $50.7 million from ‘‘lower priority’’ activities and eliminating $10.0 million in earmarked funds, according to 

USGS budget documents. 

Funding is requested for a multi-hazards pilot initiative, development of Landsat 

8, increased energy research, and regular testing for avian influenza in wild birds 

as part of an expanding detection effort. These and other USGS initiatives deserve 

the support of Congress. 

Two proposed large program cuts are of special concern to NCSE. First, $22.0 million would be cut from the Mineral Resources program, a devastating 42 percent decrease in funding. Second, the entire $6.4 million budget for the Water Resources 

Research Institutes, which are located in all 50 states, would be eliminated. These 

and other proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the USGS to 

achieve its mission. We encourage Congress to restore the cuts, but this funding 

should not come at the expense of other high priority programs in the USGS. 

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 

$478 billion in the U.S. economy in 2005, an increase of 8 percent over the previous 

year. The proposed cuts in the Minerals program would terminate multidisciplinary 

research that has important implications for public health (such as studies on mercury, arsenic and other inorganic toxins), environmental protection, infrastructure, 

economic development, and national security. 

The Water Resources Research Institutes have been highly successful in developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments with funds from other 

sources. The proposal to eliminate all funding for this partnership is inconsistent 

with guidance from the House Appropriations Committee: ‘‘The Administration has 

placed a high priority on cooperative programs that leverage funds from State and 
386 

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’’ (H. Rpt. 108–542). 

The request includes an increase of $20.7 million for non-discretionary ‘‘fixed cost’’ 

increases (such as salaries and rent), of which $15.2 million are budgeted and $5.5 

million are ‘‘absorbed.’’ The cumulative effect of absorbing fixed cost increases over 

many years has had a disproportionate impact on core USGS programs 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 resource managers 

and emergency planners. This would increase our vulnerability to 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 addresses the needs of all citizens 

through natural hazards monitoring, drinking water studies, biological and geological resource assessments, and other activities. 

From 1996 to 2006, total federal funding for research and development has risen 

by 55 percent from $87 billion to $134 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, real 

funding for the USGS has been nearly flat 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 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 $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2007. 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

In order to fulfill its mission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

needs increased investments in both its intramural and extramural science programs. The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges Congress to appropriate a minimum of $700 million for EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (bringing it back to fiscal year 2004 levels), including at least $150 

million for EPA’s Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program and 

$20 million for EPA’s STAR graduate fellowship program. We recommend a total 

of $900 million for EPA’s Science and Technology account. NCSE also urges Congress to restore full funding for the Office of Environmental Education at a level 

of at least $10 million. 

EPA’s research and development portfolio has stagnated while the complexity of 

environmental challenges continues to grow. In real dollar terms, EPA’s funding of 

science has been nearly unchanged for more than two decades. Under the fiscal year 

2007 budget request, funding for EPA’s R&D portfolio would fall to its lowest level 

since 1987. 

EPA’s strategic plan calls for science-based decisionmaking, but the agency will 

be unable to achieve this goal if its capacity to conduct science is not improved. According to its strategic plan, ‘‘EPA has identified reliance on sound science and credible data among the guiding principles we will follow to fulfill our mission to protect 

human health and the environment.’’ EPA needs to reverse the decline in its capacity to conduct science in order to fulfill its mission. 

Under the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget, EPA’s total budget would decline 

by $310 million or 4.1 percent to $7.3 billion, after a similar cut in fiscal year 2006. 

EPA’s R&D portfolio would be cut by $43 million or 7.1 percent to $557 million, 

after a similar cut in fiscal year 2006. Funding for most EPA research areas would 

decline. If EPA’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal is enacted, funding for the Office 

of Research and Development would $90 million or 14 percent below its peak funding level of $646.5 million in fiscal year 2004. 

EPA created the extramural Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program as part 

of a set of reforms to EPA science proposed by the National Academy of Sciences 

in the 1990s. The STAR research grants program expands the scientific expertise 

available to EPA by awarding competitive grants to universities and independent 
387 

institutions in order to investigate scientific questions of particular relevance to the 

agency’s mission. 

The EPA’s STAR program has been widely praised. 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. It says, 

‘‘The STAR program should continue to be an important part of EPA’s research program.’’ 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.’’ 

Funding for the STAR program has been cut repeatedly over the past several 

years. The fiscal year 2007 request for the STAR research grants program is $65.3 

million, which is 38 percent below the fiscal year 2004 request of $104.7 million and 

24 percent below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. NCSE proposes that the STAR 

research budget be increased to $150 million, which would allow expansion of areas 

and scientists supported and would send a signal that Congress is serious about 

science for environmental decisionmaking. 

EPA created the STAR graduate fellowship program to ensure a strong supply of 

future environmental scientists and engineers. It is the only federal program aimed 

specifically at students pursuing advanced degrees in environmental sciences. According to the National Academies, ‘‘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.’’ 

For the fifth consecutive year, the President’s budget request has proposed deep 

cuts in the STAR graduate fellowship program. Congress restored full funding in 

each previous year. The fiscal year 2007 budget request would cut funding by 26 

percent in fiscal year 2007. The current level of funding is insufficient to allow all 

students whose applications are rated as excellent to receive fellowships and it is 

insufficient to meet national needs for a scientifically trained workforce. NCSE recommends doubling the funding for STAR fellowships to $20 million, which can be 

accomplished without any decrease in the quality of the awardees. 

The fiscal year 2007 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 CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICERS

Request.—$50,000,000 from the Historic Preservation Fund, National Park Service, the Department of Interior, for the States to carry out the National Historic 

Preservation Pro-gram Administration. 

SUMMARY

The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers requests 

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2007 for the administration of the National Historic Preservation Program by the states. While this is an increase over the Administration’s 

request of $35,700,000, $50,000,000 is only one-third of the annual deposits into the 

Historic Preservation Fund. 

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL THANKS

On behalf of the hard-hit State Historic Preservation Officers in the Gulf States, 

the National Conference extends its deepest thanks to the Senate Appropriations 
388 

1 In 1975, SHPO responsibilities included survey, National Register, planning, Section 106 reviews, and restoration grants. In 2005 SHPO responsibilities include the 1975 programs plus 

rehab tax credits, Certified Local Governments with a 10 percent pass through, and Preserve 

America. 2 Economic Research Associates, ‘‘Section 106 Cost Assessment,’’ for NCSHPO, January 2006, 

ERA Project No. 15755. Copies available through NCSHPO.‘‘Section 106 is a paradox in that 

it is an un(der)funded Federally mandated program that states are required to complete, whether or not sufficient budgets are available; as such, reallocation of funding from other program 

areas to cover the costs of Section 106 funding have [sic] a negative effect on other historic preservation priorities. 3Dear Colleague letter by Senators DeWine and Durbin. 

Committee for including in the Emergency Supplemental the $80,000,000 for restoration of damaged historic places and the $3,000,000 to expedite responses on federal agency impacts to historic places. The State Historic Preservation Offices will 

use that money wisely in hurricane recovery in the Gulf. 

The Supplemental funding highlights the role that resources—dollars—play in 

preservation. All SHPOs have addressed declining budgets by paring down to the 

bare essentials. Once at the ‘‘bare bones’’ level, SHPOs have no where else to cut. 

The Emergency Supplemental funding is so important to the recovery of this historic region. Had HPF funding levels over the years matched inflation, SHPOs 

would have been better prepared to respond. 

IMPACT OF FUNDING DECLINE

States continue to struggle to achieve bare minimum NHPA mandates as funding—in real dollar terms—declines. HPF withdrawals dropped by more than 25 percent from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2003 and have been essentially flat since 

then. In real dollar terms, the current HPF appropriation is the same as the 1975 

appropriation although the workload has increased.1 Our request would return the 

national program to levels comparable to fiscal year 2001, adjusted for inflation. 

Declining HPF withdrawals continue to force SHPOs to ignore the preservation 

needs of their States to respond to on-demand federal requirements. Economic Research Associates, an internationally economic consulting firm, analyzed SHPO’s activity and concluded——2

‘‘Based on average costs, staff allocations and ‘time-spent’ information 

provided . . ., SHPOs have become very efficient at processing Section 106 Reviews. 

‘‘[S]tates already overmatch Federal contributions, so Section 106 can be considered overly ‘cost effective’ from the standpoint of leveraged Federal expenditures. 

‘‘As government programs go, Section 106 appears to run quite efficiently and at 

a very low average cost. In fact, the opposition to the program is more a reflection 

of resistance to government regulation of any type, as opposed to specific inefficiencies within Section 106. 

‘‘Many SHPOs have streamlined the review processes through Programmatic 

Agreements, special review approaches . . ., and investment in technology such as 

web-based databases and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). 

‘‘Other needed preservation programs are being starved to cover under-funded, but 

mandated Section 106 review costs (National Register, historic site survey, planning, 

rehab tax credit assistance, education, etc.).’’ [emphasis added] 

Historic preservation is and has been an effective domestic policy tool that both 

addresses key priorities for the conservation of our priceless heritage and generates 

significant economic benefits to the Nation. At $50,000,000, SHPOs could achieve 

much more in preserving and protecting heritage properties, reviewing Federal historic preservation tax credit applications, implementing the Preserve America and 

Save America’s Treasures initiatives, and streamlining the historic preservation review process. 

SUPPORT FOR $50,000,000

Historic preservation enjoys wide, bipartisan support in the Congress and around 

the country. Senators Mike DeWine and Richard Durbin and a fourth of the Senate 

went on record supporting the HPF. The Senators said, ‘‘SHPOs provide the foundation for the nation’s historic preservation program. . . . Funding for SHPOs returns 

the federal investment by leveraging additional dollars through local jobs, fostering 

nonfederal contributions and securing long-term economic development.’’ 3

Mayor Mike Swoboda of Kirkwood, Missouri, said ‘‘The value of historic preservation in a local community is beyond price. It’s about preserving something that can’t 

be replicated today. It’s about appreciating the planning and efforts of those who 
389 

4 National Park Service, The Historic Preservation Fund Annual Report fiscal year 2003, 

[March 2004]. 5 Ibid. 

6State LWCF grants, in contrast, received a review score of 43 percent. 

7 National Park Service, The Historic Preservation Fund Annual Report 2005, March 2005. 

came before us. Historic preservation upholds what was important in the past, 

thereby maintaining a community’s foundation: its past, present, and future.’’ 4

Governor Rick Perry of Texas concurs: ‘‘Historic preservation creates jobs, revitalizes downtown business districts, provides affordable quality housing and stimulates 

heritage tourism.’’ 5

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Aside from its incalculable cultural benefits, historic preservation also provides an 

opportunity to generate local, regional and national economic growth by revitalizing 

valuable historic neighborhoods and communities, enticing private capital investment and fostering heritage tourism. HPF programs such as the Rehabilitation Tax 

Credit have proven their worth by using the modest Federal operating funds to 

stimulate as much as $3 billion per year in economic benefits to the Nation each 

year. 

HERITAGE TOURISM

Historic preservation is the foundation of heritage tourism, which is a multibillion 

dollar industry ($200 billion annually by 2005). Heritage tourists stay longer and 

spend more than other tourists do ($623 per historic/cultural trip as compared to 

$457 for an average U.S. trip), providing local jobs and creating local, state and federal tax revenues. SHPOs promote heritage tourism through historic site survey and 

National Register programs, and they further American history education by generating interest in urban and rural landmarks across America. 

HPF ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATES = MONEY WELL SPENT

Under the Administration’s Program Assessment Rating Tool, management of 

Historic Preservation Programs receive a score of 89 percent indicating exemplary 

performance of mandated activities.6 The National Conference is disappointed that 

this success is not reflected in an increase in program funding in the Administration’s budget request. 

HPF INTENT UNDERMINED

Further, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers is concerned that the Administration is using the Historic Preservation Fund in ways 

counter to the Act for Save America’s Treasures grants and for federal salaries administering tribal grants. The National Historic Preservation Act is specific (Section 

101(e)). The Secretary may make matching grants to the States, Indian tribes, and 

the National Trust. The law allows the Secretary to use only 10 percent of the annual HPF appropriation for direct project grants. 

CONCLUSION

Forty years ago, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) established the nation’s historic preservation program but directed that it be carried out 

through State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The success of SHPOs’ promoting historic preservation is well demonstrated by the sound description of the 

program by the Honorable Francis Toscana, Mayor of Deadwood, South Dakota. 

‘‘Preservation is done in partnership. Communities, State Historic Preservation 

Offices, and Federal agencies work together to identify and preserve America’s historic treasures. As mayor of one of those treasures, our relationship with the State 

Historic Preservation Office is important. The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) 

makes it possible for the States, through their State Historic Preservation Offices, 

to foster this partnership into a successful preservation program.’’ 7

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 
390 

1 Ninty-five percent of adult Americans believe environmental education should be taught in 

schools, according to a Roper Starch Worldwide survey in 2001. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CAMPAIGN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY

INCLUDING EDUCATION AS AN AUTHORIZED USE OF STATE WILDLIFE GRANT FUNDS

Executive Summary 

First funded by Congress in fiscal year 2001, the original Wildlife Conservation 

and Restoration Program (elements of which have since been incorporated into the 

State Wildlife Grants Program, or SWG) made these funds available to states for 

conservation education as well as for habitat protection and restoration. However, 

despite widespread support from state fish and wildlife agencies for using these 

funds for education purposes, education was removed in fiscal year 2002 as an allowable use of funds. With this loss of SWG as a source of education funding, the 

federal government in its entirety now provides literally no funding specifically 

identified for conservation education at the state level. 

Yet our survey of the 50 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies recently 

produced by state fish and wildlife agencies discovered that the vast majority of 

these agencies see education as mission-critical, vital to their efforts to conserve 

wildlife. This survey also found that they almost unanimously feel that education 

plays a critical role in first raising awareness of conservation issues, and then motivating people to modify their behavior towards wildlife. 

And most importantly, all 50 state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies cited the need to expand their conservation education and outreach programs 

on multiple levels and scales to achieve their conservation goals—despite the fact 

that the SWG Program will not fund education. 

The broad support in every state for conservation education programs, both within 

the general public 1 as well as within state wildlife agencies, along with the crucial 

need to close the public’s growing conservation literacy gap, calls for federal action. 

We therefore urge Congress to restore education as an allowable use of SWG 

funds by state fish and wildlife agencies. Taking such action will require no new 

funds from the federal government or taxpayer, and in fact, will save future federal 

dollars. 

BACKGROUND

Congress created the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program in 2001, and 

subsequently incorporated many of its elements into State Wildlife Grants program 

(SWG). This program provides funding to every state and territory to support costeffective conservation aimed at keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. Funds 

are allocated according to a formula based on each state’s size and population. SWG 

funding from Congress has ranged from $65 million to $85 million over the past five 

years. 

This program is based on the recognition that lack of federal support for nongame species protection prior to 2001 led to the significant decline of these species, 

thus raising the potential for costly federal restoration efforts when such species become officially endangered. It is therefore in the interest of the federal government 

to support state efforts to prevent wildlife species from becoming endangered in the 

first place, in order to avoid bearing restoration costs. 

It is important to understand that the direct causes of wildlife loss and 

endangerment primarily are habitat loss, introduction of competing exotic species, 

pollution, and overharvesting, challenges for which SWG funding is primarily intended. However, these problems often are a result of thousands of individual decisions made by thousands of individuals. As regulation has greatly reduced the corporate impact on these now diffuse and chronic problems, a new set of environmental actors has emerged on the scene: small businesses which exist below today’s 

regulatory radar, and millions of households whose consumption decisions drive energy and material flows as well as the increasingly complex logistics systems which 

move goods and people across the face of the planet. Far more effective, when properly done, is to educate these decision-makers rather than regulate them. 

Thus, education is an essential tool for achieving the purposes of the SWG program. Yet, fiscal year 2002 Appropriations report language excluded education as 

an allowable use of SWG funds. 

STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLANS AND EDUCATION

In order to make the best use of State Wildlife Grants, Congress charged each 

state and territory with developing a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 
391 

(CWCS), which identifies species and habitats of greatest conservation need and 

outlines the steps needed to conserve these wildlife and vital natural areas. Every 

state and territory has now completed their CWCS. 

We thoroughly reviewed each of these 50 state plans. Every state created their 

plans using the same framework but their priority strategies vary due to different 

state-specific issues and needs. Thus, it is particularly noteworthy that our survey 

found a number of common themes related to education in these plans: 

—Every state CWCS acknowledges the inherent value of education and outreach 

programs in effectively managing those species and habitats in greatest need 

of conservation. 

—Every state CWCS cites the need to expand its conservation education and outreach programs on multiple levels and scales. 

—Every state that has used public education and/or outreach with positive measurable results identified it as a best practice adaptable for other priority species 

and habitats. 

—The large majority of states include new and/or expanded education efforts as 

one of their statewide priorities, and reinforce this need in their conservation 

actions across multiple key species and habitats. 

For example, North Carolina’s plan noted the following conservation education 

challenges: 

—Inadequate production and distribution of wildlife education materials. 

—Current wildlife education programs not able to meet the public’s growing 

needs. 

—Inadequate funding sources for programs and materials aimed at conservation 

education. 

—Insufficient number of nature centers devoted to the state’s nongame wildlife. 

North Carolina’s CWCS therefore set the following Conservation Education Priorities: 

Wildlife Nature Centers 

Develop Commission-owned wildlife nature centers in each physiographic region 

and support projects at existing centers. 

Develop materials and traveling displays for use across the state at schools, universities, science museums and aquariums to increase awareness of wildlife concerns. 

Wildlife Education Programs 

Improve the Commission’s capabilities to provide instructor training in Project 

Wild & CATCH and coordinate support for other state environmental education programs. 

Develop and improve guides for construction/development of outdoor classrooms. 

Develop demonstration projects for wildlife education programs. 

Wildlife Educational Materials 

Develop and distribute wildlife educational materials to the public school systems. 

Develop informational materials on wildlife species, management programs, and 

habitat conservation. 

Wildlife Education Grants 

Encourage development of educational materials and programs on fish and wildlife through an annual Wildlife Education Grants program. 

EXAMPLES OF HOW SWG FUNDS MIGHT BE USED TO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

LITERACY

North Carolina lists the following as a few examples of the uses to which they 

might put such funds: 

—Provide schools, community parks, retirement centers, etc. with technical expertise, grant information, planting and educational materials for developing school 

and community nature areas as outdoor classrooms which in turn would attract 

wildlife. 

—Establish demonstration areas for backyard wildlife habitat improvements. 

—Coordinate biologists and educators to develop effective education and outreach 

materials for endangered/rare species in North Carolina. 

—Expand delivery of wildlife-related programs and field trips to key audiences 

(e.g., schools, civic groups, watershed associations, planning boards). 

Other key states offered the following examples when they were recently queried 

as to how they might use SWG funds for education: 
392 

—Establish a statewide network of professional trainers and wildlife conservation 

practitioners working with at-risk species to offer in-service educator workshops. 

—Establish a competitive small grant program for schools and nature centers to 

compete for funding to purchase simple equipment (binoculars, dip nets, field 

guides, etc.), the lack of which is often a primary barrier for teachers attempting to take students on field trips to learn about natural areas. 

—Build partnerships with teacher training programs at state colleges and universities to better integrate conservation education in both content and methods 

courses for pre-service teachers. 

—Create a partnership with the state Department of Education and local school 

districts to incorporate conservation education themes into state science standards. 

—Work with electric utilities to educate homeowners, business owners and municipalities to reduce use of outdoor lighting during nesting, peak migration and 

other critical times. 

—Educate citizens and community leaders about the economic and social benefits 

that are achieved through scientific management of key species and habitats. 

SUGGESTED REPORT LANGUAGE

‘‘Education projects funded with SWG dollars must contribute significantly to the 

education priorities identified in a state’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy.’’ 

COST OF THIS INITIATIVE

The State Wildlife Grants program actually saves taxpayer dollars by taking preventative action to conserve wildlife before it becomes endangered. Further, a nonfederal matching requirement assures local ownership, and leverages state and private funds to support conservation. In an era of tight budgets, the State Wildlife 

Grants program represents how limited federal funds can be invested to get the 

most results for taxpayers. 

Specifically reopening these funds to education saves further money. Species are 

driven to extinction in large part due to ignorance and lack of understanding by the 

public of the value of maintaining wildlife and their habitats. Investing in sound 

education over time will significantly reduce the risk of needing expensive efforts 

to bring back endangered wildlife species. It treats the true cause—illiteracy—of the 

problem of species loss, not just the symptoms. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

On behalf of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, I am requesting 

your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 2007 to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses in managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

I thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance for 

fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in these 

vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION

We are seeking your support for the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget Request 

of $3 million to support the National Fish Habitat Initiative (NFHI) and, furthermore, we ask you to support an additional $3 million to be appropriated to the U.S. 
393 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southeast Fisheries Program for the Southeast Aquatic 

Resources Partnership (SARP). The NFHI, lead by the International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

is a nationwide fisheries habitat restoration plan modeled on the successful North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. The SARP is developing a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan that will guide the implementation of the NFHI on a regional scale 

and serve as a model for other regions of the country. The Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan will identify and establish Fish Habitat Partnerships that will deliver the 

objectives of the NFHI in the Southeast. 

The SARP was initiated in 2001 to better address the conservation and management of aquatic resources in the Southeastern United States. This partnership developed because (1) the Southeast has the highest diversity of aquatic species and 

habitats of any region in the country, (2) these resources are facing serious threats 

to their future existence, and (3) no single State or Federal agency has the necessary resources and authority to address this impending aquatic crisis. It is only 

by working together through partnerships that we will make a difference. SARP includes the fish and wildlife agencies from 13 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas), the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries. 

This unique and focused effort is poised to deliver a new regional approach to 

aquatic conservation for future generations. Securing $3 million in additional funding for the SARP is critical for the successful implementation of the Southeast 

Aquatic Habitat Plan. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you should have any questions 

or need further information, please contact Robert L. Curry, Chief, Division of Inland Fisheries, by phone (919) 707–0221 or by email at robert.curry@ncwildlife.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CENTER

We request $3 million in fiscal year 2007 to continue the programs of the National 

Small Flows Clearinghouse and the National Environmental Training Center for 

Small Communities. Both programs are administered by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) under the Environmental Programs and Management 

(EPM) account. 

INTRODUCTION

My name is Richard Bajura and I serve as Executive Director of the National Environmental Services Center. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture fund our programs to provide comprehensive environmental 

services to small and tribal communities and to rural areas. Our work is focused 

on drinking water, wastewater, and municipal solid waste. Two of our major programs, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) and the National 

Environmental Training Center for Small Communities (Training Center) are the 

subjects of this testimony. 

The Clearinghouse is in its 27th year of providing information and technical assistance to local governments/officials, to operators/managers of wastewater, drinking water, and solid waste facilities, and to circuit riders. We assist agencies, organizations, and industries that advance decentralized wastewater management as part 

of the nation’s wastewater infrastructure. The Clearinghouse was mandated by Congress in the 1977 Clean Water Act and its subsequent reauthorizations. We use federal funds to provide contemporary, objective, and comprehensive technical information services and site-specific assistance about wastewater systems. We publish a 

suite of regular and special publications targeted to small, tribal, and rural community needs for wastewater management. 

The Training Center was established by Congress in 1991 as an adjunct to the 

Clearinghouse for the purpose of developing and delivering training on wastewater, 

drinking water, and municipal solid waste disposal. Our trainers and the services 

we provide assist small, tribal, and rural communities in providing essential water 

and sanitation services. 

The Clearinghouse and Training Center partner with a wide range of organizations and groups to help states and communities. In doing so, more people are 

served, dollars are leveraged, and cost savings are realized. 
394 

NEED

Our nation relies on water and wastewater infrastructure and services to protect 

public health, sustain economic activity, and enable our modern lifestyles. This infrastructure, which was generally installed decades ago and is often a small community’s largest public investment, is aging and even failing. The 25 million people 

who live in small communities rely on local leaders and system personnel to manage 

this infrastructure and provide essential water and wastewater services. These dedicated citizens often lack the necessary time, expertise, information, strategies, and 

finances to meet these demands. EPA is charged with developing water and wastewater treatment strategies and services for these rural communities. However, EPA 

does not have the necessary resources in-house and relies on units like the Clearinghouse and Training Center to fulfill this part of its mission. EPA also relies on Congress to add funds for these services since the Administration routinely does not 

provide financial support for such programs. Congressional action is required each 

year to support the services we provide. 

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SMALL FLOWS CLEARINGHOUSE

The Clearinghouse is the premier (and only) comprehensive national source of information about ‘‘small flows’’ systems, those with 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 different 

from large-volume wastewater treatment plants. Decentralized systems, such as onsite septic systems and small cluster systems, serve 25 percent of the U.S. population. 

Small communities in the United States (populations less than 10,000) need significant assistance for basic water and wastewater services. Services provided by the 

Clearinghouse enable the communities to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance using technologies which are less costly than conventional sewers and treatment plants. 

The Clearinghouse was created in legislation to provide information and assistance to small, tribal, and rural communities on proper technology selection and 

management of onsite and small wastewater systems. Under its congressionally 

mandated information collection and dissemination mission [1977 Clean Water Act 

section 104(q)(1)], the Clearinghouse serves as the national archive for onsite and 

decentralized wastewater management technologies and offers a comprehensive 

body of information and technical assistance services unique to the wastewater industry. Users of these services include individual homeowners, small town officials 

who do not have staff support to address regulatory requirements, developers, state 

regulators, and professionals who design, install and service alternative treatment 

systems. 

Using Clearinghouse services, small communities across the nation learn how to 

leverage funding, obtain information about affordable small system technologies, 

and meet regulatory requirements. The Clearinghouse accomplishes its mandate by: 

—Enabling small system operators and service providers to comply with federal 

regulations; 

—Providing access to expert advice and training on wastewater; 

—Guaranteeing the availability of current, comprehensive information in small 

wastewater system financing, technologies, and management; 

—Delivering onsite public health and environmental awareness education, information, and technical assistance. 

Congressional funding for the Clearinghouse supports and provides: 

—Toll-free technical assistance via telephone from our staff of engineers and information experts to operators, engineers, scientists, regulators, manufacturers, 

and homeowners; 

—Magazines and newsletters, including Small Flows Quarterly and Pipeline, that 

address wastewater issues for small communities, reaching 70,000 individuals 

or organizations nationwide; 

—More than 800 products such as pamphlets, how-to guides and handbooks, design manuals, videos, checklists, equipment manufacturers catalogs and an outreach resource guide, directories of various water and wastewater experts nationwide, informational posters, case studies, and related information; 

—Comprehensive web site, discussion forums, list serves, and searchable online 

databases (e.g., our one-of-a-kind Onsite Regulations Database) featuring water, 

wastewater, security, and emergency preparedness resources; 

—Demonstration projects at more than 100 sites in 27 states showing the latest 

onsite sewage treatment technologies and management strategies at work; and 
395 

—The intensive annual State Onsite Regulators Alliance (SORA) Conference: a 

one-of-a-kind event for wastewater regulators and industry professionals. 

ABOUT THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRAINING CENTER FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES

(NETCSC)

In 1991, Congress funded the Training Center to meet the training needs of multiple constituent groups on a variety of environmental topics. In a unique approach, 

the Training Center develops, disseminates, and delivers training customized for 

small community environmental management. Environmental trainers and technical assistance providers who attend the classes then in turn train environmental 

professionals who serve small communities. The Training Center has developed 

more than 40 model training packages for drinking water and wastewater system 

design, operation, finance, management, emergency response, and system security. 

These training packages are delivered and available coast-to-coast to thousands of 

participants, often in co-sponsorship with other training and/or service providing organizations. 

The Training Center has held more than 250 training events on environmental 

management, security, and emergency response. Hundreds of environmental trainers across the nation subsequently use our materials to train thousands of local officials, operators, installers, regulators, engineers, homeowners, and tribal audiences. 

More than 7,000 environmental trainers, technical assistance providers, and small 

community professionals receive the Training Center’s environmental training newsletter. 

Since September 2001, the Training Center assisted small communities in addressing water security concerns. At the request of the EPA, the lead agency for 

homeland security in the area of water, and the Department of Agriculture, we developed and delivered training courses designed to improve the security of small 

drinking water and wastewater systems through a cadre of more than 250 trainers. 

These trainers held over 50 training events and trained over 1,000 individuals. The 

Training Center 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 (our newsletter), and on our frequently accessed worldwide web sites. Additionally, we developed and disseminated a nationally distributed Wastewater Vulnerability Assessment Guide for small communities, and a ‘‘Top Ten’’ list of security and emergency 

preparedness actions for small wastewater systems. Our security-related efforts 

have been undertaken in consultation with a variety of national, regional, and state 

and local partners. 

The Training Center also sponsors the weeklong National Environmental Training Institute drawing a wide-ranging audience of water, wastewater, and environmental professionals interested in small community infrastructure. 

REQUEST

Congressional support to continue the work of the Clearinghouse and Training 

Center is imperative because the State agencies and communities these programs 

assist do not have funds to pay for these services. By virtue of the congressional 

appropriation, we are able to offer most of our services free of charge. 

The Clearinghouse is a national resource for data and services that supports the 

work conducted by other major wastewater management programs funded under the 

EPA Environmental Programs and Management account. Without continued funding, this information repository will not be accessible by water groups, associations, 

and the user community which has relied on these services for many years. 

Both programs were supported by Congress in previous years, but did not receive 

an appropriation for fiscal year 2006 for the first time since the early 1990s. We 

request reinstated funding for fiscal year 2007 and continued annual support at our 

previous levels of $2 million for the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and $1 million for the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities. 

We appreciate your continued support for these highly-regarded national programs. Thank you for considering our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHEAST WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS’ 

ASSOCIATION

The undersigned Environmental Commissioners for the Northeast States are writing to respectfully request your assistance for reinstating a $300,000 line item in 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fiscal year 2007 budget for the 
396 

Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA). This funding will 

support multi-state work on waste management and cleanup problems that are 

critically important to the Northeast region and to our individual states, and will 

advance U.S. EPA’s national priorities. 

In our experience, interstate cooperation on common environmental problems such 

as brownfields redevelopment and control of mercury pollution multiplies the benefits of scarce state and federal resources. We hope that, despite the many compelling 

priorities that your Subcommittee must balance, you will act favorably on this request. 

In 1986, NEWMOA, a non-profit, non-partisan association, was established by the 

Governors of the New England States as an official interstate regional organization, 

in accordance with Section 1005 of the U.S. Resource: Conservation and Recovery 

Act, and was formally recognized by EPA. New York and New Jersey joined subsequently. NEWMOA’s members are the directors of the state hazardous waste, solid 

waste, waste site cleanup, and pollution prevention programs in Connecticut, Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont. NEWMOA works with member states to develop and implement regional 

policies and strategies for mutual waste management issues, serves as a clearinghouse for multi-state information, and provides staff training and education. 

Federal ‘‘line item’’ funds have made it possible in the recent past for NEWMOA 

to develop unique solutions in environmental improvement and protection. For fiscal 

year 2006, however, Congress did not appropriate funds for NEWMOA’s activities. 

Reinstating these funds in fiscal year 2007 will enable NEWMOA to continue with 

projects such as: 

—training environmental consultants and state staff to improve the quality and 

reduce the cost of characterizing contaminated Superfund and Brownfields sites; 

—helping states and businesses implement laws that phase out mercury in products through the Interstate Mercury Education & Reduction Clearinghouse 

(IMERC), a service that provides a single point of contact for a growing membership beyond the Northeast states to the West Coast and Mid West for receiving required reports from the regulated community, managing mercury product 

data and sharing information so that states, businesses and the public can 

measure progress and set priorities; 

—facilitating the development of innovative compliance programs that measurably 

improve environmental performance and reduce costs for businesses and state 

environmental agencies; 

—measuring solid waste flows among the Northeast states and tackling ‘‘hard to 

dispose of’’ wastes, such as construction and demolition debris, electronics, and 

tires, on a multi-state basis. 

These collaborative initiatives solve critical environmental challenges and expand 

successful strategies at a far lower cost than would occur if each state had to do 

this work on its own. NEWMOA is a very important resource for our state waste 

management programs and contributes significantly to advancing state and national 

environmental objectives. We urge your support for an appropriation of $300,000 to 

NEWMOA for fiscal year 2007. 

If you have any questions or would like more information about our fiscal year 

2007 request please contact NEWMOA’s Executive Director, William Cass (telephone: 617–367–8558 x301), or the current Chair, Dave O’Toole, Division of Solid 

and Hazardous Materials, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (518–402–8652). You may also wish to visit NEWMOA’s website 

(www.newmoa.org) for more information about NEWMOA’s activities. 

Thank you for your continued assistance. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE

On behalf of the Northern Forest Alliance, a coalition of fifty non-profit organizations across New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, I would like to offer 

testimony in support of fiscal year 2007 funding for the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest 

Legacy Program and the Department of Interior’s Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF). Specifically, we request funding for specific Forest Legacy and LWCF 

projects from the Northern Forest totaling $23.709 million and $6.1 million, detailed 

in tables below. We also urge strong overall program allocations of $80 million for 

Forest Legacy and $320 million for LWCF, including $220 million for federal LWCF 

projects and $100 million for the state grants program, in light of the value of these 

programs not only to the Northern Forest but to the nation. 

The Northern Forest is a rural region of 26 million acres stretching from the Tug 

Hill Plateau in New York through the Adirondacks, Vermont’s Green Mountains, 
397 

New Hampshire’s White Mountains, and into northern Maine. Much like the Southern Appalachians, the Northern Forest is an eastern forest region that has retained 

its rural character and resource-based economy in the face of overwhelming changes 

in the broader eastern landscape. However, this rural region is changing rapidly. 

The recently released U.S. Forest Service report, Forests on the Edge, projects that 

much of the private lands in the Northern Forest will see ‘‘medium’’ or ‘‘high’’ 

change from development through 2030. The study focused its assessment by watershed and identified seven watersheds in the Northern Forest states as among the 

top twenty-five in the nation for projected development through 2030, including the 

Connecticut River watershed between Vermont and New Hampshire and the Penobscot River watershed in Maine. Some of the conservation projects we are recommending for funding lie within these most threatened watersheds. 

The kind of forest parcelization and development that the report projects are already affecting not only natural resources but also the Northern Forest way of life. 

Our region was the nation’s original fiber basket and continues to be a place where 

many citizens earn a living from the woods as loggers and sugarmakers or in forest 

products manufacturing. Parcelized forestlands are less valuable for forestry and 

new owners often make them unavailable for timber harvest and neglect even basic 

forest stewardship. This is having economic and environmental impacts. Our region 

also prides itself on a long tradition of open travel across private lands, a tradition 

that is increasingly at risk thanks to rising forest parcelization. Posting of land is 

increasing across the Northern Forest, closing opportunities for hunters, hikers, and 

other recreationists. 

SUSTAINING OUR NORTHERN FOREST LEGACY

Despite some recent mill closings in Berlin, New Hampshire and other Northern 

Forest communities, 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 fiscal year 

2007 Forest Legacy projects in our region have been designed to maintain working 

forests that might otherwise be converted for private development. One such example is the Orange County Headwaters project in Vermont, which will sustain timber 

harvest and sugaring over 3,043 acres of the most productive sugar maple stands 

in the state. The project is also notable as a shining example of cooperative conservation: the Forest Legacy project is one piece of a larger 30,000-acre conservation 

collaboration among private landowners in two neighboring towns that features coordinated donation of conservation easements to the Vermont Land Trust and 

Upper Valley Land Trust. 

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 ten percent of all Northern Forest jobs, with a payroll of $455 million. Many of the fiscal year 2007 Forest Legacy projects in the Northern Forest 

would have a significant impact on tourism. In particular, we are supporting two 

complementary fiscal year 2007 Forest Legacy projects along the Mahoosuc Range 

of Maine and New Hampshire—one of the Northern Forest’s most famed recreation 

areas and a magnet for tourism. The Mahoosuc Range features the most rugged and 

challenging section of the entire Appalachian Trail (AT), the newly-developed Grafton Loop Trail that will enable hikers to swing almost fifty miles off the AT, and 

some of the richest hunting grounds in the entire Northern Forest in New Hampshire’s Phillips Brook watershed that lies on the western edge of the range. Maine’s 

Grafton Notch Forest Legacy project was top-ranked by the President for good reason, as it will add 3,688 acres to state holdings in the Mahoosucs, including lands 

that contain nine miles of the Grafton Loop Trail. The Phillips Brook project in New 

Hampshire did not make the President’s list despite its potential to complement 

Grafton Notch. The project will conserve more than 23,000 acres of forest and wetlands under easement, allowing hunting in this wildlife-rich area and preserving 

timber harvest on the first parcel purchased by International Paper at its founding 

in 1898. 

The Northern Forest is also notable for containing the headwaters of many major 

northeastern rivers, including the Hudson, Connecticut, Androscoggin, and Penobscot. Many of our projects clearly address the threats to these forested watersheds 

identified in Forests on the Edge. The Tahawus project in New York is one example, 

as it will conserve 10,056 acres in the High Peaks region of New York’s Adirondack 

Park that are wrapped around the headwaters of the mighty Hudson River. 

Tahawus also addresses many other Forest Legacy Program values by providing 

public access for hunting, fishing, and other recreation, continued opportunities for 
398 

forestry, and new opportunities to develop heritage tourism—it was on this parcel 

that then-Vice President Teddy Roosevelt began his famous ‘‘Midnight Ride.’’ 

NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2007 FOREST LEGACY REQUESTS 

State Project Request 

ME Grafton Notch .................................................................................................................................. $2,000,000 

ME Lower Penobscot Forest .................................................................................................................. 5,500,000 

ME Machias River, phase III ................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

NH Phillips Brook .................................................................................................................................. 3,500,000 

NH Willard Pond/Robb Res. .................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

NY Tahawus .......................................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

VT Orange County Headwaters ............................................................................................................ 1,542,000 

VT Adams Pond .................................................................................................................................... 1,167,000 

Total ................................................................................................................................... 23,709,000 

FULFILLING OUR POTENTIAL: LWCF FOR THE NORTHERN FOREST

The fiscal year 2007 LWCF projects for the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge, and Green Mountain National Forest will 

help realize the potential conservation, economic, and community benefits of our region’s few federal public land units. These federal lands are strategically situated 

to conserve some of our the Northern Forest’s most important natural and recreational resources, but are being compromised as private inholdings within the 

units are developed, sometimes by private owners who would have preferred to sell 

to the relevant agency but were unable to for lack of federal LWCF funding for acquisition. 

The Conte and Umbagog National Wildlife Refuges have already brought previously unimagined levels of tourism and related economic benefits to rural towns 

in the far northern reaches of our region like Island Pond, Vermont and Errol, New 

Hampshire. The Conte NWR is also unique for its strategic conservation value, as 

the proclamation area covers select lands of highest conservation value throughout 

the entire Connecticut River watershed. The Northern Forest Alliance has worked 

with other supporters of the Conte NWR across four states to create the new 

Friends of Conte Refuge group that is enthusiastically supporting a $4 million request for this unique refuge in fiscal year 2007. The funding request covers important acquisitions from willing sellers in all four states that the refuge crosses— 

Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. The lands in Vermont 

lie adjacent to a new visitor center and are essential to maintaining that unit’s tourism potential. The lands in New Hampshire include key watershed parcels in the 

Ashuelot River and Mohawk River basins—both major growth centers. 

The fiscal year 2007 LWCF funding to complete the USFS acquisition of the 

Broad Brook property in Vermont is also of paramount importance. This area of 

over 3,900 acres 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/Appalachian Trail corridor. The project is a particular priority for two Northern Forest 

Alliance member groups: Vermont’s Green Mountain Club and the Appalachian 

Trail Conservancy. 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 

where the Broad Brook parcel is situated voted to approve the project by a two to 

one margin. This system of local approval assures that U.S. Forest Service acquisitions in Vermont are consistent with community interests. 

NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE FISCAL YEAR 2007 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND 

REQUESTS 

State Project Request 

NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................................... $1,000,000 

NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................. 4,000,000 

VT Green Mountain National Forest (Broad Brook Phase II) ................................................. 1,100,000 

Total ..................................................................................................................... 6,000,000 

All of the Forest Legacy and LWCF projects included in our fiscal year 2007 request represent the best that our region has to offer, a highly select group drawn 
399 

from the total range of projects seeking funding across the Northern Forest. 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 timesensitive 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 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

LOCAL 1957 

As officers of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) Local 1957, 

we are writing on behalf of the bargaining unit for the Minerals Information Team 

(MIT), Geologic Division, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, VA. We are concerned that the President’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget for the USGS includes 

a $4.5 million cut (30 percent) to MIT’s current funding level of $15.4 million, and 

a total of $22 million (42 percent) from the entire Mineral Resource Program, of 

which we are a part. 

The effect of the proposed fiscal year 2007 cut would be to eliminate 180 occupied 

scientific positions from across the country. MIT specifically would cease collection 

and dissemination of data on international production and consumption for 100 mineral commodities; publication of commodity reports on 20 minerals; and research on 

mineral and materials life cycles, material flows, and future demand and uses of 

minerals and metals. 

All this would occur at a time of increasing globalization and materials competition from developing countries such as China and India that has led to global supply 

constraints and record-high metals prices. Currently, 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 2005, MIT found that U.S. companies relied more than 50 percent on imports to meet their needs for 42 of 81 nonfuel 

mineral commodities and were 100 percent import reliant for 16 mineral commodities essential to the domestic economy; this was up from 29 and 10, respectively, 

in 1995. 

Assuring that the country has ample mineral resources to meet its needs cannot 

be done with disregard to the international factors that affect their supply and demand. Eliminating MIT’s core International Information function (collecting, reporting, and analyzing data on the foreign supply of minerals needed by the United 

States), will inhibit the ability of the members of our bargaining unit to provide critical information on the nation’s mineral supply. 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 

MIT was transferred to the 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. 

Information and analyses produced by MIT are widely used and relied upon by 

our Government and private sector. The MIT produces more than 500 publications 

per year covering most nonfuel minerals, including 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. 

MIT is already operating under a severely constrained budget that has declined 

by about 25 percent in real dollars since 1996, the year the group was moved to 

the U.S. Geological Survey when the U.S. Bureau of Mines was eliminated. 

Compounding the problem, MIT has had to absorb mandated increases in salaries 
400 

and cost of living adjustments despite the decreasing annual budgets. MIT, therefore, requires a minimum of $23 million to restore its reporting capability and retain 

its expertise. Not included in this level of funding are upgrades to the outdated IT 

software and hardware systems that are necessary for MIT performance. 

Last year, Congress rejected a similar reduction proposed by the Administration. 

In rejecting that proposed cut, Congressional joint committee managers wrote ‘‘[we] 

strongly disagree with the Administration’s proposed reductions to the mineral assessment program and believe it irresponsible for the Administration to decrease or 

eliminate funding for what is inherently a Federal responsibility.’’ NFFE urges Congress to do the same in fiscal year 2007. 

We want to extend our appreciation for your consideration of these issues that affect both our Union’s and the Nation’s interest. 

NFFE LOCAL 1957 BRIEFING ON THE USGS MINERALS INFORMATION TEAM & MINERAL

RESOURCES PROGRAM

USGS MINERALS INFORMATION TEAM (MIT)

The Administration’s proposed $4.5 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 places 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 and 

metals exceeds 75 percent, which is greater than the country’s dependence for 

oil. In 2005, 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 2006). Of those, the import reliance was 100 percent for 16 minerals 

and at least 80 percent for another 13. (See The Importance of Manganese to 

National Security in highlight box.) 

—Helping assure the country has ample mineral resources to meet its needs simply cannot be done with disregard to assessing data on the 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 $23 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 similar cuts to MIT funding. 

—Since 1998, MIT’s budget of about $16 million has fallen about 5 percent, which 

represents more than a 25 percent decrease when accounting for salaries, 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, implement upgrades to the outdated IT systems software and hardware, and perform at the highest levels. 

—NFFE urges Congress to increase MIT funding to at least $23 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 
401 

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 $4.5 million so that the MIT bargaining unit can meet its core mission functions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity 

to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2007 funding request for the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). Included in this testimony is a summary 

of our history and fiscal year 2005 accomplishments, as well as the new and innovative programs we hope to accomplish with the funding provided by this Committee. 

Congress established the Foundation 22 years ago, and since that time the Foundation’s vision for more healthy and abundant populations of fish, wildlife and 

plants has flourished through the creation of numerous valuable partnerships. The 

breadth of our partnerships is highlighted through our active agreements with 14 

federal agencies, as well as numerous corporations, foundations and individual 

grantees. Through these unique arrangements we are able to leverage federal funds, 

bring agencies and industry together and produce tangible, measurable results. Our 

history of collaboration has given way to programs and initiatives such as the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program, the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program and the Pulling Together Initiative. With the support of the Committee in fiscal year 2007, we 

can continue to uphold our mission of enriching fish, wildlife and the habitat on 

which they depend. 

The Foundation respectfully requests that this Committee fund these efforts at 

the following levels: 

—$9 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management 

General Administration appropriation; 

—$5 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management 

Endangered Species appropriation to conserve and restore Pacific salmon in 

Washington State; 

—$4 million through the Bureau of Land Management’s Management of Lands 

and Resources appropriation; and 

—$4 million through the Forest Service’s National Forest System appropriation. 

This request lies well within the authorized levels and will allow the Foundation 

to better meet the demand for new or expanded strategic conservation programs. 

The appropriations provided by the Committee are also used by the Foundation to 

attract additional funding for conservation projects through mitigation, settlements 

and direct gifts. 

Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year 2005, the Foundation has supported over 8,190 grants and leveraged over $339 million in federal funds for more 

than $1 billion in on-the-ground conservation. This has resulted in more than 18 

million acres of restored and managed wildlife habitat; new hope for countless species under stress; new models of private land stewardship; and stronger education 

programs in schools and local communities. We recognize that without the seed 

money this Committee provides many of these conservation benefits would not be 

realized. None of our federally appropriated funds are used for lobbying, litigation 

or the Foundation’s administrative expenses. All of our federally appropriated funds 

go directly to on-the-ground conservation projects. 

Our efforts encompass many boundaries and missions of our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and USDA-Forest Service 

(FS) partners. Whether it involves habitat conservation, species management, conservation education or international conservation, the Foundation strategically invests the federal funds entrusted to us in sound projects. In fiscal year 2005, we 

received three times as many good project proposals as we could fund. We were able 

to fund 417 projects representing over $17.2 million in Foundation federal funds, 

leveraging it with $43.9 million in non-federal funds to commit $61.1 million to onthe-ground conservation. This will result in thousands of acres of vital habitat being 

enhanced, restored and protected as well as hundreds of stream miles improved. 

The remaining $500,000 in appropriated funds will be obligated in the next few 

months bringing our total on-the-ground conservation to more than $62 million. 

As you have heard us say before, the term ‘‘partnerships’’ lies at the center of everything that the Foundation does. In fiscal year 2005, the FWS, BLM and FS partnerships we forged with our appropriated dollars helped the Foundation permanently protect 1,305 additional acres; restore over 22,000 acres; better manage 
402 

105,000 acres of public and private lands; and aided the restoration of 128 river and 

stream miles, as well as management of 282 miles of rivers and streams. As our 

grantees continue to report to us on their restoration and management efforts, we 

expect to see increases for all of these performance measurements by year’s end. 

Working Landscapes and Healthy Habitats.—The Foundation places one of our 

highest priorities on projects integrating conservation practices on ongoing agricultural, ranching and forestry operations with the goal of improving the ecological 

health of working lands. Utilizing our FWS, BLM and FS appropriations, the Foundation supports projects designed to improve the habitat of our Nation’s federal and 

private lands. In fiscal year 2005, the Foundation was appropriated an additional 

$500,000 in BLM funds to support the conservation of sagebrush habitats on federal 

and adjacent private lands. With FWS and FS funds added to the BLM dollars, the 

Foundation funded 19 sagebrush conservation projects leveraging $1,047,525 into 

more than $2.5 million to benefit sage grouse. 

An example healthy habitat grant program is the Foundation’s Pulling Together 

Initiative (PTI), which is a private/public partnership to aid in the prevention, management and/or eradication of invasive and noxious plants. Through this collaborative program, FWS, BLM and FS are able to join invasive species experts from 

the Department of Defense, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service to review and jointly select the most innovative weed management projects. In fiscal year 2005, the Foundation awarded 68 

projects in 28 states that leveraged over $1.7 million in federal funds to more than 

$5.8 million for on-the-ground invasive species control projects through the PTI program. 

Conserving Fish, Wildlife, and Plants.—With our FWS, BLM and FS appropriations, the Foundation also leveraged resources to fund projects that directly benefit 

diverse fish and wildlife species including sage grouse in the intermountain west, 

cutthroat trout in the west and quail in the south. We also measure our success by 

preventing the listing of species under the Endangered Species Act and by stabilizing and hopefully moving others off the list. We invested in common sense and 

innovative cooperative approaches to endangered species, building bridges between 

the government and the private sector. Some species benefiting from Foundation 

grants in fiscal year 2005 include steelhead trout, red-cockaded woodpeckers, Blackcapped vireos, Whooping cranes, Laysan ducks, Karner blue butterflies, Houston 

toads and black-footed ferrets. 

An example wildlife focused grant program is the Foundation’s Washington State Community Salmon Fund. In fiscal year 2005, the Foundation leveraged $2 million 

provided by the Committee into more than $6 million for salmon conservation 

projects. The Foundation established the program with the goal of awarding community-based salmon habitat restoration grants to assist rural communities, farmers 

and other private landowners with salmon habitat improvement projects. The program has expanded in recent years to include funding and participation by the 

Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the King County and Pierce County Community Salmon Fund programs. As a result of the Committee’s support, salmon will 

now have increased access to more than 600 miles of spawning and rearing habitat; 

at least 4,500 acres of in-stream, riparian, estuarine and upland habitat will be restored; and over 3,000 acres will be protected through improved management. 

Watershed Approach.—The Foundation has recently launched several collaborative grant programs designed to support conservation projects on a watershed 

level. These programs include the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program, the Delaware Estuary Grants Program, the Long Island Sound Futures Fund 

and the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program. In fiscal year 2005, the Foundation launched a new strategically focused grant program targeting the Great 

Lakes Watershed. The partners in this program include the Environmental Protection Agency, FWS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, FS and the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

The Foundation is currently developing two additional Special Grant Programs 

that will be launched later this year. The purpose of the first grant program is to 

implement the National Fish Habitat Initiative Action Plan. The National Fish 

Habitat Initiative is a multi-agency, multi-partner initiative to improve our Nation’s 

aquatic resources. The Foundation’s grant program will bring together federal and 

non-federal funds to strategically invest in priority fish habitat grants. The Foundation’s second grant program will focus on the Upper Mississippi River Watershed. 

The program is being launched at the direction of FS, with the goal of restoring private land streambanks with native trees and grasses. The Foundation is hoping to 

expand this program into a multi-partnered effort in fiscal year 2007. 

Evaluation.—The Foundation has become a leader in evaluation and adaptive 

management among its peers. The Foundation’s goal is to build the capacity of both 
403 

itself and its partners to undertake more effective evaluation, to assist in both 

measuring performance and adapting methods and funding strategies for more effective conservation. To address these goals, the Foundation is implementing several 

evaluation strategies simultaneously. First, the Foundation has instituted new protocols within its application process to provide the measurable indicators needed to 

evaluate the impacts of our programs. Second, the Foundation has convened meetings among our agency partners to identify and coordinate potential opportunities 

for collaboration within evaluation. One of the initial results of these meetings has 

been an interest in piloting new evaluation indicators, to better articulate the federal investment for GPRA and PART. 

Third, the Foundation has commissioned several third-party evaluations targeting 

standard methods like culvert removal to full program evaluations to learn where 

we have been successful and where past methods have not provided the desired impact. As an example, in fiscal year 2006, the Foundation’s Chesapeake Bay Small 

Watershed Grants Program will be evaluated for the first five years of grant-making. The evaluation will include 355 projects associated with about $10.6 million in 

federal funds. The federal legislation accompanying this program included 10-year 

goals, and this evaluation presents an opportunity to assess the mid-way mark in 

helping the Foundation and its partners better focus their resources over the next 

five years. To capture the evaluations and lessons learned, the Foundation is taking 

a fourth key step by developing a new searchable project website where users will 

be able to query information and learn more about funded projects, including how 

to adapt projects for higher rates of success. 

Accountability and Grantsmanship.—The Foundation constantly strives to improve the grant making process while maintaining a healthy level of oversight. To 

improve ease of use for potential applicants, Foundation applications are now completed and reviewed electronically. In early 2006, to further improve efficiency, the 

Foundation released a revised application, grant contract template and reporting 

form. Even with these efficiencies, the Foundation still requires strict financial reporting by grantees and has once again received an unqualified audit in fiscal year 

2005. 

In addition to the evaluation requirements described earlier, all potential grants 

are subject to a peer review process. This involves five external reviews representing 

state agencies, federal agencies, affected industry, environmental non-profits and 

academics. Before being recommended to the Foundation’s Board of Directors, 

grants are also reviewed internally by staff, including our conservation scientists. 

The internal review process examines the project’s conservation need, technical 

merit, the support of the local community, the variety of partners and the amount 

of proposed non-federal cost share. The Foundation also provides a 30-day notification to the Members of Congress for the congressional district and state in which 

a grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision. 

Basic Facts About the Foundation.—The Foundation is governed by a 25-member 

Board of Directors, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and in consultation 

with the Secretary of Commerce. At the direction of Congress, the Board operates 

on a nonpartisan basis. Directors do not receive any financial compensation for service on the Board; in fact, all of our directors make financial contributions to the 

Foundation. It is a diverse Board, representing the corporate, philanthropic and conservation communities; all with a tenacious commitment to fish and wildlife conservation. I took over the chairmanship in January, after serving on the Board for 

ten years. It is an honor to lead such a prestigious board. 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of, if not the most, 

cost-effective conservation program funded in part by the federal government. None 

of our federally appropriated funds are used for lobbying, litigation or the Foundation’s administrative expenses. By implementing real-world solutions with the private sector while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our approach is consistent with this Congress’ philosophy. We are confident the money appropriated to 

the Foundation will continue to make a difference. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AUDUBON SOCIETY

SITE DESCRIPTION & LOCATION

In 1991, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (NFWR) Act directed USFWS to study the entire Connecticut River watershed, from Vermont and 

New Hampshire, through Massachusetts to Connecticut, and create a national fish 

and wildlife refuge. The Conte NFWR is no ordinary refuge. The Connecticut River 

watershed, 7.2 million acres in four states, is larger and more populous than areas 
404 

usually considered for a refuge. The purposes of the Conte Refuge are also much 

broader, it is one of the few fish and wildlife refuges, and protecting natural diversity is a new scientific and social challenge. There are several announced, identified 

and potential IBAs within the boundaries of the Refuge. The two current acquisition 

opportunities are located at the Salmon River Division in Connecticut and the Fort 

River Division in Massachusetts. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) land protection plan for the Refuge 

identifies the minimum interest necessary to accomplish habitat protection goals. 

The Service has the potential and ability to acquire easements within all of the 48 

Special Focus Areas. The Refuge accomplishes its habitat protection goals by utilizing all available conservation tools and partnerships. The Refuge encourages and 

supports mutually beneficial work with agencies, conservation organizations, landowners, and citizens. 

ECOLOGICAL VALUES

The northern third of the watershed located in Vermont and New Hampshire is 

part of the ‘‘Northern Forest’’ which is largely privately owned industrial forest 

stretching from the Adirondacks to the coast of Maine. Large blocks of this land 

have been sold in unprecedented quantities recently as the timber industry relocates 

some of its financial assets. Important bottomland forest, flood plain wetlands, and 

a variety of grassland areas are generally located along the middle third of the Connecticut River in western Massachusetts and northern Connecticut. The mouth of 

the river, located in southern Connecticut, contains internationally significant fresh, 

brackish and saltwater tidally influenced wetlands. The Refuge emphasizes protecting Federal trust species—migratory birds, migratory fish, federally endangered 

or threatened species, and rare and exemplary natural communities. 

Forty-eight ‘‘Special Focus Areas’’ encompassing roughly 180,000 acres have been 

identified within the watershed. These areas contribute substantially or in unique 

ways to supporting natural diversity in the watershed. There are two recognized 

IBAs and 7 identified IBAs within the Refuge Special Focus areas in Connecticut 

and 14 in Massachusetts, 4 in VT and 1 in NH. 

Special Focus Areas provide the following biological values: 

—Habitat for federally-listed species; 

—Habitat for a number of rare species and/or rare vegetative community types; 

—Important fisheries habitat; 

—Important wetlands; habitat for waterbirds; 

—Substantial areas of contiguous habitat; 

—Large blocks of unusual habitat, and; 

—Landbird resting, feeding, and breeding habitat. 

The Fort River Division represents several hundred acres of grassland and agricultural habitat that will offer substantial grassland restoration opportunities and 

ensure the establishment of a critical reservoir population of nesting grassland birds 

that can help strengthen the New England population of regionally endangered 

grassland birds. 

The Salmon River Division represents critical wintering habitat for the federally 

threatened Bald Eagle, along with critical wetland, forest and shrubland habitat for 

many species of conservation concern. 

PUBLIC USE AND BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY

The Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge is charged with providing environmental education and research opportunities. Recreational opportunities at Conte 

include wildlife observation and photography, hiking, and fishing. Acquisition within 

the Conte Special Focus areas would allow improved habitat management and create significant opportunities for environmental education, wildlife viewing, and research. The location of these special focus areas within the heavily populated Central Connecticut Valley of New England would allow the Refuge to serve urban 

areas more effectively, including Middletown and Hartford, CT, Springfield, MA, 

Brattleboro, VT and Manchester, NH. 

THREATS

The Connecticut River watershed is facing tremendous pressures from development throughout its length. Areas on or near the river are in high demand as locations for high-end luxury housing, and there is increasing risk of fragmenting forest 

blocks throughout the watershed. Grassland and unfragmented forest habitats are 

particularly at risk. 
405 

ACQUISITION STATUS & ESTIMATED COST FOR THE ACQUISITION

The Refuge consists of 32,076 acres with a total acquisition goal of 93,395 acres. 

Acquisition priorities include additions that enhance environmental education and 

scientific research on the Refuge. $4 million is needed for fiscal year 2006 to purchase 280 acres in the Salmon River Division in Connecticut and 83 acres in the 

Fort River Division in Massachusetts to provide research, public access and environmental education opportunities in heavily populated central Connecticut Valley of 

New England. Additional land acquisition projects in Vermont and New Hampshire 

will also be funded through this year’s appropriation in the Nulhegan Basin, 

Pondicherry and Mohawk River Divisions. 

PUBLIC SUPPORT

Tremendous public support exists for protection of the Connecticut River and for 

acquisition of land by the Conte NFWR. Many environmental groups have an interest in the conservation of land within the watershed including: Audubon Connecticut; Audubon Vermont; the Massachusetts Audubon Society; the Audubon Society of New Hampshire; The Nature Conservancy; Mattabeseck Audubon Society; 

Potapaug 

Audubon Society; Trust for Public Land; Connecticut Audubon Society; Hartford 

Audubon Society; The Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Refuge, and many other 

groups. 

Connecticut 

The Potapaug Audubon Society Chapter volunteers have participated in Conte 

NFWR Migratory Bird Habitat Stopover studies. Audubon chapters and affiliates 

would provide volunteers to lead trips and participate in Refuge wildlife monitoring 

activities when the Refuge does acquire land in Connecticut. 

Vermont and New Hampshire 

Audubon Vermont and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire are currently undertaking an effort to map the natural resources of the Connecticut River Watershed and conduct a spatial analysis of the watershed to assess habitat that may 

qualify for IBA status. Field assessments will be conducted this summer. And further nominations and recognitions are expected. In Vermont, chapters have advocated for state and federal funding to acquire land for the Refuge at Nulhegan Basin 

and the chapter has helped with a high school summer science program that has 

conducted large mammal surveys in the Conte Refuge holding in the Nulhegan over 

the last two summers. At Herricks Cove, each year our Audubon Chapter and the 

Vermont State Office sponsor a wildlife festival at Herricks Cove attended by as 

many as 1,000 people each year. In addition the state office has worked with the 

chapter to conduct a wildlife assessment of the property and are carrying our a native plant restoration project on site this past summer and the summer to come. 

Monthly monitoring is also taking place. Ascutney Mountain Audubon Society has 

developed artificial heron nesting platforms to maintain a heron rookery on a wetland in Weathersfield VT and the chapter maintains a nature trial and kiosk at the 

Army Corp of Engineers flood control project in Springfield and Weathersfield. 

Southeastern Vermont Audubon has put up Osprey nesting platforms along the 

banks of the Connecticut river in Brattleboro and the Northeast Kingdom Audubon 

participates in monitoring efforts at the Victory Bog IBA. 

HABITAT

The Salmon River Division parcel consists of 280 acres of forested and freshwater 

tidal wetland habitat. The Fort River Division parcel consists of 83 acres of grassland and agricultural habitat. 

SPECIES

Home to threatened & endangered species such as: 

Federally threatened species: Piping Plover; Bald Eagle; puritan tiger beetle; 

shortnose sturgeon. 

State-listed species.—Whip-poor-will; Yellow-breasted Chat; Bald Eagle; Redshouldered Hawk; Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow; Seaside Sparrow; Sedge Wren; 

Northern Saw-whet Owl; Short-eared Owl; Least Bittern; American Bittern; Snowy 

Egret; Great Egret; Willet; Piping Plover; Northern Harrier; Snowy Egret; Horned 

Lark; King Rail; Black Rail; Common Moorhen; Pied-billed Grebe; Blue-winged Teal; 

Peregrine Falcon; American Kestrel; American Oystercatcher; Upland Sandpiper, 

Yellow-crowned Night Heron; Brown Thrasher; Bobolink; Savannah Sparrow; Ips-
406 

wich Sparrow; Grasshopper Sparrow, Vesper Sparrow, Least Tern; Common Tern; 

and several species of state-listed plants and insects. 

Home to Audubon WatchList species.—American Black Duck; ‘‘Atlantic’’ Brant; 

Black Rail; Piping Plover; American Golden Plover; American Oystercatcher; American Woodcock; Red Knot; Short-billed Dowitcher; Whimbrel; Short-eared Owl; Bluewinged Warbler; Kentucky Warbler; Prairie Warbler; Rusty Blackbird; Wood 

Thrush; Cerulean Warbler, Worm-eating Warbler; Willow Flycatcher; Black-andWhite Warbler; Hairy Woodpecker; Seaside Sparrow; Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow and Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow. 

Partners in Flight High Conservation Priority Species.—Home for at least 37 species of birds considered of high conservation priority by Partners in Flight. 

Other species.—Floodplain forest of the Connecticut River has been documented 

as being important stopover habitat for migrant landbirds. Large blocks of forest remaining in the upper reaches of the watershed are critical nesting areas for many 

species of forest-nesting birds, and habitat for large mammals such as black bear 

and moose. The freshwater tidal marshes of the lower river are important habitat 

for migrant shorebird stopover, rails and other marsh birds, and as a waterfowl migratory stopover and wintering area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE AUDUBON

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $3 million from 

the Forest Legacy Program for the Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond tract in New 

Hampshire. 

The mission of New Hampshire Audubon is to protect New Hampshire’s natural 

environment for wildlife and for people. The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond tract has 

been a conservation priority of our organization for 35 years, with the first transfer 

of land to New Hampshire Audubon occurring in 1971. We are deeply invested in 

these properties due to their tremendous natural resources, wetlands, endangered 

species, and crucial wildlife corridor linkages. 

New Hampshire’s forests are the economic engine that drives tourism and the majority of manufacturing in the state. Private landowners and industries own eighty 

percent of the state’s forestland. The New Hampshire Forest Legacy Program seeks 

to protect blocks of forestland of varying sizes and values that are threatened by 

conversion to nonforest uses, so that they may provide for the continuation of traditional forest uses. To date, more than 200,000 acres of forestland in New Hampshire 

have been protected through the Forest Legacy Program. 

The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project is a 1,667-acre tract in Cheshire County, 

one of the few areas in southern New Hampshire where large unfragmented blocks 

of forestland can still be found. Protection of the property will link together the 

1,466-acre Willard Pond New Hampshire Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with two 

other private easements. Altogether these conservation efforts will link a block of 

over 40,000 acres of permanently protected forestland in a densely populated area 

of the state. 

The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project area has also been identified as a critical 

target for protection due to its ecological value and central location in the Quabbinto-Cardigan Conservation Initiative, an inter-organizational collaborative effort organized to establish a contiguous conservation corridor from the southern White 

Mountains in New Hampshire to the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts. Approximately 75 percent of the property is productive forestland and will be managed to 

provide for sustainable timber production. This property is under considerable development pressure because of its commuting distance to Concord, Manchester and 

Keene. 

Under the terms of a conservation easement, the project area would continue to 

provide public access for hunting, hiking, nature viewing, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing, as well as fishing for warm and cold water species in the North 

Branch River and Robb Reservoir. A network of established recreation trails will 

connect this property to an adjacent trail network at the Audubon wildlife sanctuary. Mountainous portions of the property offer unobstructed views of the reservoir and surrounding mountains, and provide excellent vantage points for wildlife 

viewing. Documented archaeological sites, located along the north branch of the 

Contoocook River, reveal clues to the lifestyle of the Penacook people, who lived on 

this landscape for millennia. A historic Native American travel route, the Kon-wegti-ok Trail, once ran through the property along the river, connecting Native American villages. 
407 

The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond property is home to diverse and interesting 

plant and animal species. Several state threatened and endangered species have 

been documented on the property including the bald eagle, pied-billed grebe, osprey, 

purple martin, and northern harrier. In addition, a state listed endangered plant 

species, the arethusa, is found growing on the property within the three state designated Exemplary Natural Communities: Atlantic white cedar swamp, southern 

New England level bog, and southern New England acidic seepage swamp. Of these 

three, the Atlantic white cedar swamp is designated as ‘‘critically imperiled’’ due to 

its extreme rarity. In 1991, the north branch of the Contoocook River, which runs 

through the property, was designated as protected by the New Hampshire Rivers 

Management Protection Program. 

New Hampshire has recognized Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond as its number one 

priority for the Forest Legacy Program this year, and $3 million has been included 

for the project in the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget. This year, a total appropriation of $3 million of Forest Legacy funding is needed to acquire and protect the 

1,667-acre Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir property. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support 

of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WATER RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Institutes for Water Resources, I request 

the Subcommittee to provide $8,775,000 to the U.S. Geological Survey for the state 

Water Resources Research Act Program, as originally established under provisions 

of Public Law 88–379, the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. 

First, I would like to thank you and the Subcommittee members for your longtime 

support of the program. You have recognized the importance of university cooperation with local, state and federal government agencies to produce new knowledge, 

and to ensure the education and training of the professionals who design and manage our water systems. 

The 54 state water institutes, located at land grant universities in each of the 

states and territories, have been funded through the Department of the Interior 

each year since they were first authorized in 1964. They have a threefold mission: 

to oversee the conduct of useful water research, to foster the education and training 

of our Nation’s future water professionals, and to transfer research results to those 

who manage or use the Nation’s water resources. 

REQUEST

The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request the addition of 

$8,775,000 to the 2007 budget of the USGS for the Water Resources Research Act 

Program. This recommendation is composed as follows: 

—$7,000,000 in base grants for the water institutes, as authorized by Section 

104(b) of the Act, for competitive research seed grants and outreach; 

—$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the Act, the national competitive grants program; and 

—$275,000 for program administration. 

Two reauthorization bills for the program are currently pending before the House 

Resources Committee: S. 1017, which passed the Senate unanimously, and H.R. 

4588, introduced by Representative Doolittle. Both bills authorize annual appropriations of $12,000,000. The appropriation in fiscal year 2006 was $6,500,000. The increase from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation that is recommended herein would 

partially offset the sharp increase in university costs of the last 3–5 years, in particular the cost of tuition. 

JUSTIFICATION

‘‘At the dawn of the 21st century the United States faces a panoply of water problems that are significantly more numerous, complex, and larger in scope than those 

of the past.’’ So stated an expert committee of the National Research Council in 

2004, in an assessment reported in Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The 

Role of Research. These problems, paradoxically, stem from our Nation’s progress 

and success. As the U.S. population grows and its economy drives forward, demands 

on water resources intensify. As the built environment expands, more value is jeopardized by each flood and drought. As we learn more about natural processes, we 

strive to bring our water management practices into alignment with our new understanding. As our general prosperity increases, we raise our expectations—for drinking water quality, the availability of irrigated farm produce and the abundance of 
408 

wild fish. Meeting these demands requires high levels of research, outreach to water 

managers and water users, and education of future specialists. 

Federal agencies conduct a great deal of water research and training. But, as the 

NRC report points out, these are driven and constrained by agency missions, which 

means that important topics are neglected—most notably the institutional aspects 

of water management, where important economies and innovations may be realized. 

Private organizations and state natural-resource agencies need water research, education and training but seldom have the capacity to conduct these activities themselves. Clearly, universities must play a major role. The question is: by what characteristics should the Water Resources Research Act Program be judged worthy to fill 

this role, at a time of unprecedented demand on the federal budget? I propose four 

criteria: relevance, quality, efficiency and need. 

Relevance.—Congress was quite deliberate in originally directing the establishment of water institutes at land grant universities. These are the schools that specialize in identifying problems within their states, developing solutions, and conducting technology transfer. The institutes’ research and outreach are further tuned 

to state needs, because the institutes are required by the Water Resources Research 

Act to consult with panels of advisors representing the water interests in their 

states. Regional and national priorities are addressed when the institutes collaborate on larger projects. Examples of 2006 activities at different scales include: 

—A regional workshop on turning the water produced during coalbed methane 

and oil extraction to beneficial uses 

—A national conference titled Increasing Freshwater Supply 

—A collaboration with the American Water Works Association to place undergraduate interns with municipal water utilities 

—Research to define ground water flows in the Tar River Basin, a rapidly-growing 

area of North Carolina where increased water supplies are needed 

—Research to locate the sources of infectious microbes in the watershed tributary 

to the Philadelphia municipal water system. 

Institute-sponsored research is not limited to the natural sciences; for example, 

three of this year’s eight national research projects concern the economics of water 

management. 

Quality.—In both the state and national research programs, projects are selected 

for funding on a competitive basis, relying on the reviews of peer scientists, economists or engineers. The performance of each institute is evaluated every five years 

by an independent, USGS-appointed panel. The most recent evaluation report (2004) 

stated ‘‘The vast majority of institutes are strong and thriving and a significant subset is very strong and distinguished the institute program, with its federal-state 

matching requirement, is an important and significant part of the nation’s water resources research infrastructure.’’ 

Efficiency.—The water institutes must match each federal dollar from their base 

grants with two non-federal dollars. This is the highest match requirement of any 

federal research program. The national competitive grants program requires a 1:1 

match. The overall leveraging ratio for all of the institutes, counting funding from 

all sources, is more than 15:1. In 2005 the institutes supported more than 1,300 student researchers, at an average cost of less than $10,000 each. By comparison, student stipends funded by the National Science Foundation average more than 

$20,000 per year. The Water Resources Research Act Program does not allow for 

university administrative costs, and USGS administrative costs are less than 5 percent. 

Need.—The President’s budget recommends the water institute program for elimination in fiscal year 2007. The recommendation is justified thus: ‘‘These Institutes 

generally have been successful in obtaining other sources of funding and should be 

able to support themselves.’’ In fact, the institutes cannot exert funding leverage if 

they have no fulcrum against which to lever. It is the ongoing federal support, the 

Congressional designation as a focal point of water investigation and outreach, that 

enables the institutes to augment their base grants from other funding sources. Furthermore, a significant number of the institutes receive no base funding from their 

states or universities at all. Some of these would cease to exist without the federal 

base grant. Others would greatly curtail their activities; in particular, they would 

no longer disburse research seed grants, formally consult with water-user groups, 

collaborate with other universities in their states, or conduct outreach to water 

managers. In my own state, the annual conference that brings together more than 

200 water managers, students, and researchers is largely funded through the federal base grant. Without the appropriation, its continuation would be in jeopardy. 
409 

IN CLOSING

The water institutes have been on the job nationwide for more than 40 years, and 

they’re well-prepared to play a key role in assuring our Nation’s water security in 

the 21st century. But from one year to the next they are absolutely reliant on federal seed funding to mobilize the resources they need to tackle contemporary water 

problems. I thank you for your past support, and hope that the institutes have 

earned your continued confidence. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW JERSEY AUDUBON SOCIETY

On behalf of the New Jersey Audubon Society and its over 21,000 members, I 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the fiscal year 

2007 Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies. 

New Jersey Audubon Society is a privately supported, not-for profit, statewide 

membership organization that fosters environmental awareness and a conservation 

ethic among New Jersey’s citizens; protects New Jersey’s birds, mammals, other animals, and plants, especially endangered and threatened species; and promotes preservation of New Jersey’s valuable natural habitats. 

I am writing to express our support for funding three national wildlife refuge acquisition projects in New Jersey through the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) Program. These projects meet the criteria of the LWCF program and benefit the citizens of New Jersey and visitors by: 

—Providing opportunities for citizens recreation in the most densely populated 

state in the nation; 

—Protecting open space and habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species; 

—Offering opportunities for scientific research through the enhancement of the 

NOAA Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Reserve; and 

—Resulting in considerable saving for the US Fish and Wildlife Service. 

CAPE MAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

LWCF funds in the amount of $1.3 million would acquire 450 acres, known as 

Braddock Realty, adjacent to Cape May National Wildlife Refuge in southern New 

Jersey. 

The property is located along Bidwell Creek, a tidal creek flowing from the Delaware Bay. Cape May County identified the drainage basin of this creek as one of 

the most important aquifer recharge areas in the county. 

This low, wet property is also the site of one of the largest stands of swamp pink 

(Helonias bullata), a member of the Lily Family and a federally threatened plant. 

In addition, this property is composed of forested uplands and an overgrown field, 

exceptional habitat for American woodcock. This piece of land also provides habitat 

for the tremendous number of migratory birds that pass through the Cape May peninsula each year. Other species that call this area home include state threatened 

species such as barred owls, red-shouldered hawks, and osprey. 

FORSYTHE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

LWCF funds in the amount of $500,000 would acquire a 45.59-acre island, known 

as the Ocean County parcel, near the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge 

in central New Jersey. 

The Ocean County parcel is an upland tree island in the tidal marches to the 

north of Great Bay. The marshes surrounding the parcel are already part of refuge, 

however the island is not. 

Acquisition of this parcel is critical to the protection of habitat within the area 

and would be the final step in acquiring a 128-acre area approved for development 

in 1999. The Ocean County Freeholders recently purchased the other portion of this 

128-acre area for the refuge. 

The land is located within the approved refuge acquisition boundary and once 

purchased would become part of the NOAA Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine 

Reserve. 

GREAT SWAMP NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

LWCF funds in the amount of $2 million would acquire 30 acres of land located 

on two abutting lots adjacent to Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in northern 

New Jersey. 
410 

The 27-acre larger lot currently contains a fireworks production facility and temporary storage area as well as deciduous forested wetlands. Purchasing this land 

would remove a potentially dangerous operation from the immediate area of the refuge. The production facility is now located approximately 2,000 feet from the Somerset County Environmental Education Center and a little over 5,000 feet from the 

Refuge headquarters. 

Acquisition of this land also would provide an excellent restoration opportunity 

and likely protect critical habitat of the endangered blue-spotted salamander, found 

on adjacent refuge land, and the endangered red-shouldered hawk, reported to be 

nesting in the area. 

The smaller 3-acre lot contains a 4,400-square-foot brick house. Acquiring this lot 

would provide an opportunity to relocate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division 

of Law Enforcement, currently occupying expensive leased space in Elizabeth, onto 

Service land. The house is in very good condition and could easily be converted and 

used as office space, resulting in considerable saving for the Service. 

PROJECT SUPPORT

These projects are supported by the following organizations, which represents 

hundreds of thousands of New Jersey citizens: 

—American Littoral Society 

—Delaware Riverkeeper 

—Great Swamp Watershed Association 

—New Jersey Conservation Foundation 

—New Jersey Environmental Federation 

—NJ PIRG 

—New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs 

—New York-New Jersey Trail Conference 

—Passaic River Coalition 

—Pinelands Preservation Alliance 

—Sierra Club, New Jersey Chapter 

Finally, NJ Audubon Society is very concerned about the overall proposed cuts to 

the Land & Water Conservation Fund, which is slated to receive only $85 million 

in the President’s budget. This would be the lowest level of funding in over three 

decades. Without adequate funding of this program, New Jersey’s last remaining 

open spaces will be developed, resulting in a loss of recreational opportunities and 

quality of life for both urban and rural residents. 

Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year 2007 Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Contact Information: Eric Stiles, NJ Audubon Society at 908–766–5787 x13 or 

eric.stiles@njaudubon.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

The New Jersey Conservation Foundation thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2007 Department of the Interior, Environment and Related 

Agencies Appropriations bill. The NJ Conservation Foundation is a member-supported, non-profit 501.c.3 statewide organization whose mission is to preserve New 

Jersey’s land and natural resources for the benefit of all. Since 1960, NJCF has 

worked to protect the State’s farmland, forests, urban parks, wetlands, water quality and special places. 

NJCF’s top priorities include: 

—$80 million for the Forest Legacy Program, including $2.1 million for the protection of Sparta Mountain South (NJ)—Phase II ($1.8 million was provided in fiscal year 2006 for Phase I); 

—$11 million for the Highlands Conservation Act, including $2.5 million for protection of the Wyanokie Highlands (NJ); and 

—$2.0 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the New Jersey 

Pinelands Forked River Mountain Preserve Expansion Project. 

USDA/FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

Sparta Mountain South (NJ) is located in Sussex County, where it forms the westernmost ridge of New Jersey’s northern Highlands. Sparta Mountain/Lubber’s Run 

was identified as important ‘‘Conservation Focal Area—I ’’ in the USDA Forest Service NY–NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update. 

There is currently the potential, in densely populated New Jersey, to preserve 

more than 5,000 acres in the Sparta Mountain Greenway. In fiscal year 2006, the 
411 

Forest Legacy Program provided funding for 1,200 easement acres. Now, we seek 

$2.1 million for 1,000 acres (fee and easement). 

Sparta Mountain South is a key linkage between state park and wildlife management areas, extending some 15 miles between Hamburg Mountain State Wildlife 

Management Area and Allamuchy State Park. At Sparta Mountain’s northern end, 

1,200-acre Gerard Woods, 3,200-acre Sparta Mountain and 1,300-acre Weldon Brook 

State Wildlife Management Areas preserve over 5,700 acres. Sparta Mountain South 

forms a critical linkage between these WMA’s and Allamuchy State Park to the 

south. New Jersey’s Highlands Millennium Trail, initiated in 1994 with National 

Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance, follows Sparta Mountain 

on its 150-mile route between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. 

Sparta Mountain South offers magnificant vistas overlooking pristine lakes and 

ponds, glacial erratics, and a diversity of natural communities, including grasslands 

and wetlands. Mature forests of oak, beech, hickory, maple, and tulip poplar clothe 

its steep ridges, and hemlock groves still stand despite the wooly adelgid blight that 

has devastated many hemlock forests in the State. Federally endangered bog turtle 

and State threatened red shouldered hawk, wood turtle, spotted salamander, timber 

rattlesnake and bobcat make their home here. The forests protect groundwater 

aquifers and water quality, while wetlands and ponds provide flood control and 

habitat for wading birds, neo-tropical migrant songbirds and amphibians. 

Sparta Mountain South forms part of the watershed of the Musconetcong River. 

Legislation adding the Musconetcong River to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System was approved in the Senate December 16, 2005, and successfully marked 

up on March 29, 2006 by the Parks Subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources. 

Recent development on adjacent parcels threatens the biological and resource integrity of Sparta Mountain South. 

HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

In the fall of 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Highlands 

Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of the more than three-million acre, four-state Highlands region as a source of drinking water, productive forests and farms, wildlife habitat and recreation within an hour of major metropolitan 

areas including Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. The Act authorized $11 

million annually to assist the Highlands states in conserving priority lands from 

willing landowners, and to continue USDA Forest Service research and assistance 

to private landowners in the Highlands. The Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget included $2 million for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), through the Fish & Wildlife Service, to support land 

conservation partnership projects in the four Highland states of Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, New York and Connecticut. The Governors of the four Highlands States 

have jointly submitted projects totaling $10 million in need to the Department of 

the Interior for funding in fiscal year 2007. 

WYANOKIE HIGHLANDS (NJ)

New Jersey requests $2.5 million in funding to acquire four parcels in Passaic County totaling 1,288 acres. The total cost of this project is $7.7 million. 

The Wyanokie Highlands encompass critical watersheds that protect New Jersey’s 

most significant and most threatened water supply—the Wanaque Reservoir—on 

which nearly two million people rely. The Wyanokies contain the headwaters of 

Burnt Meadow and West Brooks, waterways of exceptional ecological significance, 

which flow directly into the Wanaque Reservoir. Acquisition will provide essential 

protection for this critical water supply, which the U.S. Forest Service identified as 

highly threatened by development. 

In addtion, preservation will complete a missing greenway link between Norvin 

Green State Forest and Long Pond Ironworks State Park, and extend a direct connection to New York’s Sterling Forest State Park along the route of the Highlands 

Millenium Trail. The Highlands Trail, nearly completed, runs 150 miles between the 

Hudson and the Delaware Rivers. The Wyanokie Highlands boast an extensive network of historic hiking trails and dramatic scenic overlooks, as well as significant 

ecological values. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Forked River Mountain Preserve Expansion Project.—We are seeking $2.0 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (authorized by Section 502 of the National Parks and Recreation Act) to preserve 622 acres in the Forked River Mountain Project area, towards the project’s total cost of $4.425 million. The 622 acres 
412 

are located wholly within the Pinelands National Reserve, in and near New Jersey 

Conservation Foundation’s 3,000-acre Forked River Mountain Preserve. 

The New Jersey Conservation Foundation is working to permanently preserve 

thousands of acres throughout the New Jersey Pinelands Commission’s Preservation 

Target Areas in partnership with the Pinelands Commission, NJ Department of Environmental Protection and other governmental and non-governmental agencies. 

Over $40 million would be needed to protect all the unpreserved, targeted lands. 

The money sought will match existing funds to purchase the property from the current landowner. 

The permanent preservation of critical natural resources in the Pinelands National Reserve (PNR) ensures that the specific goals and overall mission of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) are realized. The New Jersey Conservation Foundation has a long history of supporting the CMP and the Pinelands 

Commission land preservation initiatives throughout the PNR. If funded, our efforts 

will result in the preservation of thousands of acres leveraged by additional State, 

local and private funding that will protect natural areas, connect existing isolated 

preserved lands, and provide the public with areas for hunting, fishing, hiking and 

other outdoor pursuits. Management will include active and passive measures to ensure the survival and possible expansion of known populations of threatened and 

endangered species found on these properties. 

The Forked River Mountain Preserve Expansion Project is within a Land Preservation Target Area approved by the Pinelands Commission. It consists of a mosaic 

of tracts that are entirely forested with no history of development or other significant disruption. Pine-oak forest dominates the property with some significant stands 

of Atlantic White Cedar in the lower areas along the North Branch of the Forked 

River. This area is known to be habitat for a number of rare and endangered Pine 

Barrens species such as Pine Barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii), Knieskern’s 

beaked-rush (Rynchospora knieskernii), northern pine snake (Pituophis 

melanoleucus) and curly grass fern ( Schizaea pusilla). A portion of the property is 

located in the Oyster Creek Watershed, recently given additional protections by the 

Pinelands Commission through a zoning change to better protect species diversity 

and high water quality. Many adjacent properties are already protected as part of 

the 3,000-acre Forked River Mountain Preserve. 

Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year 2007 Interior, 

Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY; AMERICAN RIVERS; ARI- ZONA WILDERNESS COALITION; AUDUBON SOCIETY OF GREATER DENVER; BAY AREA

COALITION FOR HEADWATERS; CONTINENTAL DIVIDE TRAIL ALLIANCE; FRIENDS OF

THE AGUA FRIA NATIONAL MONUMENT; FRIENDS OF THE MISSOURI BREAKS MONUMENT; FRIENDS OF SLOAN CANYON; GRAND CANYON TRUST; GRAND CANYON

WILDLANDS COUNCIL; IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE; IDAHO RIVERS UNITED; NATIONAL COAST TRAIL ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION; 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION; NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; NEW

MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION; OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION; REPUBLICANS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; SAN JUAN CITIZENS ALLIANCE; SIERRA

CLUB; SKY ISLAND ALLIANCE; TAMARISK COALITION; U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST; RESEARCH GROUP; THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY; AND THE WILDERNESS WATCH

On behalf of the 27 organizations listed above and our millions of members, we 

are writing to express our support for increased funding and improved budgeting 

and reporting accountability for the National Landscape Conservation System 

(NLCS). 

The NLCS is comprised of 26 million acres of the most spectacular lands and waters under the stewardship of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Created in 

2000, the System provides unparalleled opportunities for recreation, hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, grazing, solitude, adventure, scientific research, and economic 

benefits to neighboring communities across the West. National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails and Wild and Scenic Rivers are all part of the NLCS. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND PLANNING BUDGET NEEDS FOR THE

NLCS

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget slashes $4.8 million from NLCS operations funding—a cut of 12 percent. When inflation and normal uncontrollable operating increases are taken into account, the President’s proposal cuts approximately 

$6 million. The total proposed budget of just $37.1 million will leave critical BLM 
413 

responsibilities and needs unmet, including law enforcement, management of illegal 

off road vehicle traffic, archaeological site protection, control of invasive species, and 

the implementation of new Resource Management Plans. 

We respectfully request that the Committee provide $46 million for operations 

and planning funding for the NLCS, a $3 million increase over the fiscal year 2006 

enacted budget. This funding level would enable the BLM to maintain services at 

the fiscal year 2006 enacted level, while providing additional capacity to address 

areas of acute need, including: 

—Law enforcement and visitor management: A 2005 survey of 15 Monuments and 

Conservation Areas in the NLCS found that only one-third has more than one 

full-time law enforcement ranger. On average, one ranger patrols 200,000 acres. 

Enforcement staff capacity needs to keep pace with growth in use; in some 

areas, visitor numbers have quadrupled in the past 5 years. 

—Science and natural resource monitoring: The BLM cannot meet its responsibility to obtain adequate information on the health of flora and fauna, riparian 

condition, water quality, and other resources—a problem recently highlighted 

by the Heinz Center and the Government Accountability Office. 

—Cultural Resource Management: BLM does not have the personnel to meet its 

legal responsibility to identify, evaluate, and nominate historic properties to the 

National Register of Historic Places, and protect cultural sites. The NLCS contains hundreds of thousands of significant cultural and historic resources, yet 

the agency has comprehensively inventoried just 6–7 percent of the area encompassed by NLCS Monuments and Conservation Areas. 

Additionally, we note that the President’s budget has removed all of the Congressional requests that were included in the fiscal year 2006 budget. We urge the committee to restore these Congressional add-ons and we ask the committee to give serious consideration to any additional member requests for funding NLCS units in 

the fiscal year 2007 budget. These increases should be allocated in addition to, not 

in lieu of, funding already budgeted for each NLCS unit in the BLM’s fiscal year 

2007 budget. 

These requested increases could be funded by limiting the appropriation for 

BLM’s oil and gas program to $6 million, rather than the $26 million increase requested by the agency. In addition to BLM’s oil and gas program request, the BLM 

is receiving an additional $20 million ‘‘off budget’’ from lease rentals to fund seven 

‘‘pilot permitting programs’’ established by the Energy Policy Act. In effect, the BLM 

is asking for a $46 million increase in funding for its oil and gas program, while 

neglecting other high priority programs, such as the National Landscape Conservation System. 

NLCS LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PRIORITIES

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget would provide just $6 million for BLM 

land acquisition via LWCF—the lowest level ever. We do support the projects proposed for funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the President’s 

request, but strongly recommend an additional $4.9 million for projects in Canyons 

of the Ancients National Monument (CO), McInnis Canyons National Conservation 

Area (CO), Carrizo Plain National Monument (CA), Cascade Siskiyou National 

Monument (OR), and along the Pacific Crest Trail (OR). These projects are BLM acquisition priorities and offer willing sellers, local support, and opportunities to resolve inholder/access issues and protect recreational opportunities. 

SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT’S CULTURAL RESOURCE FUNDING INCREASES IN FISCAL

YEAR 2007

We support the President’s proposed $3 million program increase for cultural resource enhancement on BLM lands in fiscal year 2007. We encourage the Appropriations Committee to direct the BLM to devote a portion of this increase to inventory 

and protect the NLCS’ hundreds of thousands of significant archaeological and historic sites (both known and unknown), and the wild lands surrounding these sites. 

The Committee should also restrict the use of these funds to proactive management 

of cultural resources (surveys, necessary maintenance and stabilization of historic 

sites), rather than for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

NLCS MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

BLM’s budget structure for the NLCS discourages program integration and limits 

accountability. For example, the NLCS receives funding from multiple budget categories and subcategories, obscuring the total funding devoted to the NLCS and how 
414 

it is used within the System. The BLM cannot effectively track NLCS funding, so 

the President’s budget does not provide a clear depiction of NLCS expenditures. 

Members of Congress concerned about the efficient use of scarce conservation dollars should request that the Interior Department provide annual reports on NLCS 

revenues, expenditures, and accomplishments, starting with budget documents for 

fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. Directing the DOI and the BLM to provide 

budget information on the System at the unit level (for example, accomplishments 

and financial information for each Monument and Conservation Area)—akin to the 

level of detail DOI can provide on oil and gas leasing, and minerals management— 

would promote good government and accountability and help clarify the goals and 

needs of BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System. We urge the committee 

to reinstate a cross-cut budget for the NLCS similar to that included in the fiscal 

year 2002 budget and we recommend that the Committee direct the BLM to establish separate subactivities for Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, National Conservation Areas and National Monuments. 

We look forward to working with you on improvements to the budget to ensure 

that the BLM can effectively and efficiently meet its mandate of conservation on the 

National Landscape Conservation System—some of our nation’s most spectacular 

and beloved public lands. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHERN LIGHTS NORDIC SKI CLUB

I thank you for the opportunity today to present this testimony in support of an 

appropriation of $750,000 from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) for the Sugar Hills 

property in Itasca County, Minnesota. As you may know, the President’s Budget for 

this year included $750,000 for this project. 

The Northern Lights Nordic Ski Club is a non-profit volunteer association of over 

250 members who enjoy cross country skiing and other winter sports in the forests 

around Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Every year we sponsor a cross country race series 

called the Vinterloppet. Different events include classic and freestyle Nordic skiing 

as well as the Kinderloppet for children. We put on weekly free ski clinics for children and adults. Our mission is ‘‘to promote cross country skiing as a healthful family activity.’’ 

Our organization voluntarily cuts, grooms, and maintains over 25 kilometers of 

cross country ski trails on the Sugar Hills property for use by our members and 

other cross country enthusiasts. These trails include five separate loop trails ranging in length from nearly two kilometers to over five kilometers. The trails are some 

of the best in the state. As a result, the Sugar Hills trail system is a primary destination for Nordic Ski enthusiasts from not only the Itasca County area, but from 

throughout the State of Minnesota. In the summertime these trails are used for 

other recreational opportunities including hiking, bird watching, nature walks by 

school children, and biking, and provide public access to the forest for hunting and 

fishing. In the winter the skiing trails are open longer because of the dense cover 

from the forest canopy. 

The forests of the Sugar Hills property and northern Minnesota are a tremendous 

resource for residents and recreational users, but also the natural environment. The 

old growth northern hardwood communities and riparian areas along Pokegama and 

Siseebakwet creeks, Long Lake, and at many small potholes, wetlands, and ponds, 

support habitat for numerous species including timberwolves, lynx, bear and other 

mammals, and many species of birds, including grouse and dozens of warbler species. 

In recent years the Forest Legacy Program has made significant steps to prevent 

the fragmentation of forests in Minnesota. Conversion of forestlands to non-forest 

uses through development threaten recreation and habitat lands and the contributions of timber management to local economies. Itasca County has the greatest concentration of industrial forestlands in Minnesota and the Sugar Hills property is located in a larger block of 75,000 acres that is under consideration for future Forest 

Legacy efforts. 

An appropriation of $750,000 from the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2007 

is needed to allow the purchase of the conservation easement on the Sugar Hills 

property to continue providing recreational access for the members of our organization and others, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and ensure the integrity of the 

northern hardwood forests. The federal funds provided will be matched by state and 

private funds to complete this project. 

I respectfully urge you to include this Forest Legacy project in the fiscal year 2007 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 
415 

I thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony for your consideration 

of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATURAL LANDS TRUST, INC. 

We would like to enlist your help to secure a $300,000 appropriation through the 

U.S. Forest Legacy Program for the ‘‘Birdsboro Waters’’ project. The money would 

leverage other public and private monies that will be used for the acquisition of a 

conservation easement on 1,836 acres of forest land owned by the Birdsboro Municipal Authority in Union and Robeson townships in Berks County, Pennsylvania. 

The forested area of southern Berks and northern Chester County, know as the 

Hopewell Big Woods landscape, is by far the largest block of wild and unbroken forest left in southeastern Pennsylvania. Its importance is further enhanced by being 

at the critical juncture of the Pennsylvania Highlands and the Schuylkill River corridor. 

According to the Hopewell Big Woods Landscape Conservation Plan, the Birdsboro 

Waters tract is the highest land protection priority for the Hopewell Big Woods 

Project. It is highly unusual to be able to come across a piece of property of this 

size in southeastern Pennsylvania, especially one with the natural significance and 

features of this one. 

Through the Forest Legacy Program, the Federal government is now in a position, 

with a relatively small investment, to close the deal on Birdsboro Waters. We have 

already received or anticipate receiving $1,900,000 in funding of the $2,200,000 

price tag on Birdsboro Waters, leaving us only $300,000 away from our goal and 

the completion of the purchase of a conservation easement. 

As part of the Forest Legacy easement provisions, the land owner, the Birdsboro 

Municipal Authority, will still be able to realize timber revenues from the property, 

under the guidance of a sustainable forest management plan. The Hopewell Big 

Woods Partners are also organizing outdoor tourism opportunities for this forest 

area. It is hoped that this will provide the economic engine for the Borough of 

Birdsboro and renew it as a nature-based tourism center and regional service center. 

This project has been included in the President’s 2007 budget to Congress for Forest Legacy funding and is currently in the Interior Appropriations budget. It is essential that these monies remain intact in these budgets. 

While the Birdsboro Water Authority has been very patient as we have worked 

to assemble the funding necessary for this project, we can anticipate that their patience has an end point, at which time the land will be considered for development. 

Also, it may be of interest for you to know that the project has support from the 

local forest products industry. 

We greatly appreciate your support and efforts on behalf of this project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION (NMA) 

NMA RECOMMENDATIONS

Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey—Mineral Resources Program (MRP). Reject the proposed 

$22.9 million reduction in funding for the MRP, including the $4.5 million proposed 

cut for the Minerals Information Team. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)—Mining Law Administration. Increase the 

Mining Law Administration’s Program budget by $5 million (enacted level is $32.6 

million). Restore the $2.3 million proposed cut to the BLM Alaska minerals program. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Center for the Study of Metals in the Environment at the University of Delaware. 

$825,000 is recommended for the research of metal sequestration into soils. 

BACKGROUND

Mineral Resources Program.—The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the 

only source for most of the United States’ statistical data on mining and minerals 

commodities. The proposed reduction of $22.9 million in the MRP would result in 

the elimination of more than 180 full time employees (FTEs). The $4.5 million reduction proposed for the Minerals Information Team will result in the discontinuation of data collection and analysis for 100 mineral commodities in 180 countries 
416 

and approximately 200 reports. The reduction will also result in the loss of employees with invaluable expertise in global and domestic production and consumption of 

mineral commodities. As a result, information on U.S. and international minerals 

will no longer be available to the: (1) U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, which uses the data and analyses to resolve trade disputes; (2) 

Federal Reserve Board, which uses global minerals information in preparation of 

economic forecasts; and (3) U.S. intelligence agencies that must understand the effect changes in natural resource markets have on economic and political stability 

of developing countries. 

In addition, the USGS’ role in mineral information, exploration, identification of 

geological hazards and mapping offers important support to the mining industry. 

This information provided by USGS is the basis for informed policy decisions and 

is extensively used by government agencies, by Members of Congress and by state 

and local governments, as well as industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations. Mineral resource supply and demand issues are global in nature, and our 

nation is becoming more dependent upon foreign sources to meet our metals and 

minerals requirements. The MRP is the leading source of unbiased research on the 

nation’s mineral resources. The guidance and research the program provides is important in maintaining the growing value of processed materials from mineral resources that accounted for $478 billion in the U.S. economy in 2005 as well as assessing the environmental impacts of mining. The proposed cuts in the Minerals 

program would also terminate multidisciplinary research on mercury, arsenic and 

other inorganic toxins. 

Mining Law Administration.—The BLM’s fiscal year 2007 request of $32,696,000 

for the Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) is inadequate to meet the 

agency’s obligations to process notices and plans of operations necessary for domestic exploration and mining projects. Since 1999, the funding of the MLAP program 

has remained flat (around $32,000,000). The substantial increase in the number of 

mining claims over the past five years (300 percent) demonstrates additional staffing and other resources are necessary to process the notices and plans of operations 

required for expanding our domestic mineral supplies. Ironically, while BLM has increased the regulatory demands on our domestic industry, it has not kept pace with 

sufficient agency staff and resources to review and approve the requests for permits 

and other authorizations required under the increasingly more stringent regulatory 

requirements. 

Delays in obtaining permits and other authorizations remain a substantial impediment to the financing and development of mining projects in the United States. 

A 1999 National Academy of Sciences study found the permitting of domestic mining projects entails an inordinate amount of time and resources. According to Behre 

Dolbear, the U.S. ranks among the lowest of the top 25 mining nations in terms 

of time and expense for obtaining required permits for mineral exploration and development. The consequence of this state of affairs is substantially longer lead times 

to get projects up and running so that they begin to generate a return on investment. As a result, permitting delays discourage companies from exploring in the 

United States and impair our ability to attract the capital investment required for 

mine development. In short, investment capital flows to where investors will experience a quicker return on their investment. 

In its report to Congress last year, BLM identified insufficient staffing as one 

cause of permitting delays, noting that many BLM offices were not backfilling positions as they were vacated. BLM recommended that a portion of the increased location and maintenance fees could be used to maintain adequate staffing levels needed 

to review, analyze and approve plans of operations. 

NMA agrees that insufficient staffing significantly delays the permitting process. 

Increasing funds for staffing appropriately balances the need to address the mining 

permit delays and capability of the agency with our nation’s needs for secure supplies of minerals. 

To address this regulatory bottleneck, which impairs our Nation’s economic 

growth and security, NMA provides the following recommendations: 

—An additional $5 million should be appropriated in fiscal year 2007 for the 

MLAP. This level would allow the hiring by BLM State Offices of approximately 

30 full time equivalents (FTE) to allow either backfilling of currently vacated 

positions or new hires. 

—Allocation of funds to the State Offices should be prioritized based on number 

of notices and plans filed in each office and current unfilled openings in MLAP. 

—For any fiscal year where receipts from mining claims maintenance and location 

fees exceed the amount Congress appropriates for MLAP, excess funds should 

be retained by the agency and used only for MLAP to promote more timely permit processing. 
417 

Alaska Minerals Program.—By cutting its $2.3 million budget, BLM proposes to 

completely eliminate the Alaska Minerals Program. BLM’s justification is that the 

money is needed to focus on higher priorities. However, that justification ignores the 

need for domestic sources of minerals. The Alaska minerals program helps identify 

mineralized areas that will supply the nation with new sources of minerals. In addition, the Alaska Minerals Program ensures that mineral potential and reserves are 

considered during the development or revision of land management plans. For example, the agency is currently developing a plan for the Southern National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) which holds tremendous mineral potential. The 

plan for this area will determine whether it is open to mineral development. The 

Alaska Minerals Program plays a critical role in promoting the efficient use of our 

nation’s mineral resources and NMA, therefore, recommends it be fully funded at 

$2.3 million. 

Environmental Protection Agency.—The Center for the Study of Metals in the Environment (CSME) is comprised of scientists and engineers from the University of 

Delaware and Pennsylvania State University. The purpose of the CSME is to analyze and research the effects of metals on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 

NMA recommends $825,000 in funding for the CSME. A sound understanding of 

the chemistry, toxicology and fate of metals in the environment is critical to the development of appropriate regulatory programs. The CSME will use the requested 

funding to develop quantitative tools for understanding and predicting the fate and 

effects of metals in soils and water. This work will include: 

—understanding and modeling the fate of metals in streams, rivers and lakes; and 

—conducting research into metal sequestration in soils, a natural process that can 

lower the risk of metals in soil and, thereby, decrease cleanup costs at mining, 

military and industrial sites. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) works to protect, preserve, 

and enhance America’s national parks for present and future generations. On behalf 

of NPCA’s more than 300,000 members, we appreciate the opportunity to share our 

funding priorities and respectfully request the Committee consider these views as 

you develop the fiscal year 2007 Interior budget. 

NPCA is deeply concerned with the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request 

that cuts funding for the National Park Service $100 million below enacted levels. 

Funding for our national parks should not be cut. At a minimum, we request overall 

funding for the National Park Service at current fiscal year 2006 level of $2.25 billion in appropriations. In addition, we request funding for priority programs and 

projects listed below. 

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 $150 million above the current fiscal year 

2006 levels, $127 million above the President’s request, for a total of $1.86 billion 

for Operations of the National Park System. 

If enacted, the President’s requested increase of $23 million for Operations of the 

National Park System (ONPS), well below the rate of inflation, will result in a reduction in critical Park Service functions, including resource protection and visitor 

services. We note that the budget request for ONPS covers only 70 percent of the 

Park Service’s fixed costs, forcing the parks to again absorb these costs at the park 

level. We urge the Committee to fully cover the anticipated fixed costs for the Park 

Service as it formulates its fiscal year 2007 budget. 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. 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 to significantly 

increase the base operating budget of the parks in fiscal year 2005. 

Land Acquisition 

NPCA urges the Committee to significantly increase funding for National Park 

Service land acquisition. The President’s request of only $22 million for federal land 

acquisition for the National Park Service, a cut of more than 50 percent below fiscal 

year 2006 enacted levels, and more than $100 million below levels only five years 

ago, hinders the ability of the Park Service to acquire and protect sensitive natural 

and cultural lands across the nation from willing sellers. 
418 

California Desert Parks, CA (Death Valley NP, Joshua NP, Mojave NP) 

Request.—$1,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested 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. 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. 

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, TN 

Request.—$2,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested for acquisition of the Light property in Look- out Valley to protect and ensure the integrity of these historic battlefield lands. $1.8 

million was appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for acquisition of adjacent lands. 

Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, KY/TN 

Request.—$2,500,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to complete acquisition (4,000 acres) of the 

Fern Lake watershed, critical to protecting water supply, historic lands, and one of 

the most scenic vistas in the park. $1 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2005 

towards this acquisition. 

Gettysburg National Military Park, PA 

Request.—$1,500,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to purchase two priority acquisitions in the 

park totaling 145 acres. The first, a 34-acre tract, the second 11 acres, both with 

National Register significance within the Gettsyburg Battlefield Historic District, 

and at risk of development. 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.—$2,100,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to purchase from willing sellers the remaining 

1.4 acre inholding parcel adjacent to the Moose-Wilson Road. Known as the 

‘‘Hartgrave Property,’’ the land is critical park wildlife habitat and in an important 

scenic viewshed. An adjacent 3 acre parcel was acquired in 2005 by the National 

Park Service. 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tapoco Addition), TN 

Request.—$1,500,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to acquire 627 acres of part of a larger 10,000- 

acre Tapoco Lands project, a watershed containing one of the few remaining undisturbed, high-elevation streams in the ecoregion. Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. has 

committed $100,000 per year for 40 years to the project. 

Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, WV 

Request.—$2,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to acquire Schoolhouse Ridge properties inside 

the park boundary. Public Law 108–307 authorized the addition of 1,240 acres to 

be included within the national park boundary. Almost all of the $2.9 million approved in fiscal year 2005, and $2.0 million in fiscal year 2006 (total of $4.9 million) 

has been appropriated to acquire two tracts totaling 111 acres. This land outside 

Washington, D.C., faces significant development threats. Funding in fiscal year 2007 

of $2 million will enable the Park Service to buy remaining smaller tracts from willing sellers. 

Mount Rainier National Park, Carbon River Valley, WA 

Request.—$5,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to complete acquisition of 800 acres from willing sellers to address seasonal flooding and improve road access to the park. The 

Mount Rainier Boundary Adjustment Act (Public Law 108–312) was signed into law 

in 2004. The fiscal year 2005 Interior Appropriations bill including an initial $1 million for surveying and land acquisition. 

New River Gorge National River, WV 

Request.—$2,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to purchase the Woods Ferry Property (179 

acres) which contains a major access point to the Gauley River. The park has identified 2,900 acres of private land owned by willing sellers. Funding to purchase Woods 
419 

Ferry is an important step in showing continued progress on purchasing these properties. $500,00 was appropriated in fiscal year 2006. 

Petrified Forest National Park, AZ 

Request.—$5,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested 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.—$3,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested to continue acquisition of lands owned by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia inside the park boundary. In fiscal year 2005, $1.5 million was appropriated towards the acquisition of these lands. Valley Forge National 

Historical Park is a premier classroom on the American Revolution. Approximately 

20 percent of the park’s acreage inside its designated boundary remains in the 

hands of other owners. 

Emergency, Hardship, Deficiency, and Relocation Fund 

Request.—$5,000,000 

Description.—Funding is requested at $5 million, an increase of $2.6 million above 

the President’s fiscal year 2007 request. This funding is critical to secure inholdings 

throughout the Park System. For example, through the Hardship Fund, the vast 

majority of the inholdings in Gates of the Arctic National Park have been secured. 

CONSTRUCTION

Death Valley National Park, CA 

Reconstruct Furnace Creek Water System 

Request.—$8,754,000 

Description.—NPCA supports the President’s fiscal year 2007 request of $8.7 million to reconstruct this water system, critical to providing reliable water to the park 

and restoration of the historic wetland and riparian habitat in the area. 

Hamilton Grange National Monument, NY 

Relocation and Restoration of Alexander Hamilton’s Home 

Request.—$8,493,000 

Description.—NPCA supports the President’s fiscal year 2007 request of $8.5 million to relocate and restore the Hamilton Grange, the home of Alexander Hamilton. 

Funding is needed to avoid further deterioration of this historic landmark. 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. 

Olympic National Park, WA 

Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration 

Request.—$20,010,000 

Description.—NPCA supports the President’s fiscal year 2007 request of $20 million to fully restore the Elwha River ecosystem and fisheries, as directed in the 

Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries and Restoration Act (Public Law 102–495). 

$115 million has been appropriated to-date for this effort. 

OTHER

Everglades National Park, FL 

Modify Water Delivery System 

Request.—$13,330,000 

Description.—NPCA supports the President’s fiscal year 2007 request of $13.3 million within the Department of Interior budget for a Modify Water Delivery System, 

as well as the $35 million 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. 

Restoration Science and Monitoring 

Request.—$8,521,000 

Description.—NPCA supports the President’s fiscal year 2007 request of $8.5 million for science, research, and planning to ensure the Park Service is adequately 

participating in the Everglades restoration effort. 
420 

National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom 

Request.—$2,000,000 

Description.—NPCA requests $2 million for the Underground Railroad Network to 

Freedom program managed by the National Park Service. The President’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget eliminates the $368,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the 

program. NPCA requests $1.5 million for operations and $500,000 for grants to this 

important 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. Many of the 

sites and structures of the Underground Railroad are in imminent danger of being 

lost to us forever. The Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program is the 

best existing opportunity to interpret and preserve this significant part of American 

history. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW RIVER LAND TRUST

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1.3 million 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Jefferson National Forest in 

Virginia. 

Managed jointly, the Jefferson and George Washington National Forests in western Virginia contain some of the finest scenery, wildlife habitat, and recreational 

lands in Virginia, including over 4,000 acres of open water in lakes, ponds, and 

streams, and approximately 2,000 miles of hiking trails. The Jefferson boasts tumbling waterfalls, rare wildflowers, and Virginia’s highest peak (Mount Rogers), along 

with 11 wilderness areas. 

The New River Land Trust is a nonprofit conservation organization working 

throughout the New River watershed to protect farmland, forests, open spaces and 

historic places. In the past 31⁄2 years, we have helped to conserve over 12,000 acres. 

Our region is under increasing pressure from development. This tract of land near 

Wytheville is an ideal inholding to add to our National Forest system to preserve 

both productive forest and recreational options for our region. 

In fiscal year 2007, an opportunity exists to acquire the 1,477-acre Black Lick 

property for inclusion into the Jefferson NF. As an inholding within the Wythe 

Ranger District of the Jefferson, the property is strategically located in Wythe County, ten miles outside Wytheville and near many public access points within the forest, including the Dark Horse Hollow picnic area, Big Bend picnic area, and the 

Stony Fork campsites. 

Acquisition of this large tract is therefore a priority for the Jefferson National 

Forest and would offer recreational and ecological benefits to visitors and local residents alike. Acquisition would provide additional public access to the Stony Fork 

Nature Trail and trails along Little Walker Mountain. Hikers along the Stony Fork 

Nature Trail can enjoy dramatic views of the 3,782-foot Griffith Knob, the upper 

Stony Fork Valley below, and the inside of the Big Bend of Walker Mountain. Furthermore, the headwaters of Hutson Branch and a fork of Grippy Branch, both perennial streams, are located on the tract. These streams flow into Reed Creek, 

which borders the town of Wytheville. Acquisition of the Black Lick tract, therefore, 

would protect the watershed for Wytheville and the surrounding area. 

Char-Lo Timberlands, a timber company based in the Pacific Northwest, owns the 

Black Lick property and is willing to see the land conserved as part of the Jefferson 

NF if federal funds are made available. An appropriation of $1.3 million from the 

fiscal year 2007 Land and Water Conservation Fund will help conserve this property 

for generations to come. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony is support of this acquisition in the Jefferson National Forest. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

This statement reflects the views of the National Recreation and Park Association 

on fiscal year 2007 appropriations for selected programs within the subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. Referenced programs are administered principally by the National Park 

Service. The National Recreation and Park Association recommends that the following appropriations be made: 

—$100,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for state assistance to be invested by state and local governments on a 50/50 matching 
421 

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 for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) to 

address the most distressed urban recreation resource conditions and deficiencies identified and aided through the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 

Program. At a minimum, $250,000 in administrative funding for the Urban 

Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). These funds are critically 

needed to continue to ensure protections of federally aided urban park projects 

from conversion to other uses under Section 1010, protections which may be 

ended if no administrative supervision is provided. 

—$10,100,000 for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program 

to support field-based technical assistance actions that yield broad conservation 

and recreation benefits through partnerships between federal, 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 agencies and others on the conservation and use of surplus federal real 

property, and conservation of rivers and trails and other resources. 

If substantially adopted, our recommendations will help address an increasing national imperative to improve physical and mental health, stimulate local economies, 

and to sustain the environment through the protection and enhancement of public 

recreation areas and parks. 

We are pleased to note that our recommendations relative to LWCF assistance 

and urban park restoration are supported by advocates for health, public parks, and 

recreation, as well as a broad coalition of health and recreation related groups. The 

Smart Communities of Outdoor Recreation and Environment (SCORE), a coalition 

that includes major public official organizations, major U.S. sports organizations, 

community development organizations, and the sports and outdoor industry, also 

supports our testimony. 

The parks and recreation resources of local and state park and recreation systems 

are critical to the American people. These parks and facilities are not only our communities’ public sanctuaries for close to home recreation and physical activity, they 

are resources stimulating local economies, bringing visitor tax dollars into the local 

area, and providing stimulus for cultural and community exchange. These public 

areas address diverse public interests and our collective need for quality recreation 

and associated services for children of working parents. Local agencies in particular 

host programs that serve millions of nutritious meals to children in need, especially 

during summer months. Public recreation and park sites and services help reduce 

crime and delinquency, especially during non-school hours, days and seasons. Public 

parks and recreation agencies accommodate needs to enhance physical, mental, social, and cognitive development through programming and access to facilities. Public 

parks and recreation are often regarded as the second largest public support entity 

next to public schools for individuals with disabilities. In addition to providing public recreation experiences, state and local agencies contribute to sustaining plant 

and wildlife diversity, and protect against flood/storm water, provide ground water 

recharge, and filter pollutants. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE

We commend the Subcommittee for its decisions to create and sustain fiscal partnerships with state and local recreation agencies and local governments. Consequently, we believe the President’s proposed termination of LWCF State Assistance and proposal to provide a mere $1.6 million in administrative funding for fiscal 

year 2007 is remarkably short-sighted. Further, we believe the stated rationale for 

these actions reflects limited awareness of program purpose, public and personal 

health imperatives, long-term value and results arising from investments, and fiscal 

conditions of state and local governments. The Administration is recommending termination of this program for the second time in two years, and we are astonished 

at the rationalizations used to justify the elimination of one the most successful conservation and public recreation partnerships in the history of the Department of Interior. 

The LWCF state assistance program has leveraged millions of dollars on the local 

level, and countless times the federal assistance for the approved project ends up 

being much less than 50 percent, making the actual federal investment minimal. 

These grants seem to attract other funds at the local and state level because of the 

review process identifying quality projects with a high level of need. Many economically distressed areas have benefited from access to public recreation resources 

through the LWCF state assistance program. 
422 

The Department’s claim that state and local governments should go it alone reflects a basic misunderstanding of one of the key elements of the act—reinvestment 

of a small portion of Outer Continental Shelf receipts for resource conservation and 

public recreation. These funds are the American People’s funds to be reinvested, and 

thus a healthy portion of these funds, applied to programs that ensure public access, 

should be a priority of the subcommittee. 

Though the eligibility, and required use by public agencies to access LWCF state 

assistance funds is very broad, ironically, the President’s budget continues to incorporate non-LWCF authorized programs, thus creating the illusion that LWCF is 

‘‘fully funded.’’ If the Congress in its wisdom determines to fund these programs 

from LWCF, then jurisdictions and agencies presently eligible for LWCF state assistance should be directly eligible to participate in programs that are drawn from 

the LWCF treasury account. 

According to the National Park Service, the 2005 funding requests from state local governments for grants through this program totaled $2.8 billion ($2,781,397,625).— This is a sharp increase in expressed need from past years. With only $30 million, 

provided for fiscal year 2006, the LWCF is inadequate in assisting communities in 

addressing their needs. We are likely to see even greater unmet need for the program. 

Nationally, NRPA has a continuing interest in the status of all 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. We are purposed with identifying both present 

and longer-term deficiencies to properly steer public policy on the federal, state, and 

local levels. The national survey conducted in the spring of 2005, reveals a total capital investment need of $72.697 billion for public parks and recreation facilities, land 

acquisition, and recreation resources for fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2009. Nationally, there is a nationwide demand to increase the recreation capacity of public systems, especially those relatively close to home and in communities exploding with 

growth. 

We continue to press our concern that the administration’s proposed budget again 

recommends access to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a number of other 

non-LWCF activities. The LWCF act, while broad in its application and diversity of 

projects, is very specific in its policy objectives—provision of recreational opportunities to improve human health through conservation of lands and waters and developments to enable public use and access. 

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. Further, 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 essentially 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. One alarming shortcoming 

of the 2007 budget proposal is that no funding is planned for administrative costs 

for the first time in the 30 year history of the program, seriously jeopardizing the 

ability of the National Park Service to continue to provide protections for federally 

aided projects under UPARR. NRPA strongly recommends that an appropriation of 

at least $250,000 be made for 2007 to continue administrative oversight of the 1,500 

UPARR aided projects. 

Demand for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program assistance remains 

high. This interest 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 

NRPA recommends $10,100,000 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 access for recreation. The program pro-
423 

vides 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 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 the NPS Recreation and Conservation Assistance area. The FLP program is an exemplary service. It guides 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 a large number of 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. Impending 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 away from other congressional 

authorities in the Interior department’s domain. 

We appreciate this opportunity to share the views of our members. NRPA public 

policy Director, Rich Dolesh (rdolesh@nrpa.org) or Policy and Advocacy Specialist, 

Michael Phillips (mphillips@nrpa.org) (202–887–0290) is available to provide additional perspectives and to respond to questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NISQUALLY TRIBE OF INDIANS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Dorian Sanchez and I am the Chairman of the 

Nisqually Indian Tribe. On behalf of the Tribe, I would like to submit the following 

written testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Nisqually Reservation is located in Washington State. We currently employ 

nine land patrol law enforcement officers to patrol 5,000 acres of reservation and 

near reservation lands. In addition, the Nisqually Tribe Police has extensive marine 

water enforcement duties and employs two water patrol officers to patrol over 100 

square miles of Puget Sound for both the treaty salmon fishery and treaty shellfish 

harvesting. Tribal law enforcement also provides hunting enforcement for over 

50,000 acres of land in the tribe’s usual and accustomed area within the Nisqually 

River watershed. 

We also employ ten detention officers at our 45-bed detention facility, which was 

built with Department of Justice funding in 2002. Like many other tribes, we are 

struggling to cope with escalating methamphetamine use and associated increases 

in gang activity and property crime related to dealing and manufacturing. 

We support the Administration’s proposed increase of $8.2 million for BIA law enforcement activities. However, this increase still falls short of meeting the severe 

need in Indian country for additional law enforcement resources—a need that will 

be even greater this year in light of significant cuts to Indian programs proposed 

by the Department of Justice. We ask the Subcommittee to increase funding for law 

enforcement officers and equipment. We also ask that the Subcommittee restore the 

$5.3 million proposed cut to the Tribal Courts programs. Tribes depend on law enforcement and tribal justice funding and this year—at the height of the meth crisis—this funding should be increased, not cut. 

A specific area of concern is the status of the Tribe’s detention facility, the 

Nisqually Correction Center. The detention center was built as part of a DOJ–BIA 

initiative, under which the DOJ would provide funding for new facilities in Indian 

country and the BIA would provide funding for staffing, operations and maintenance 

of those facilities. The Tribe’s facility has been praised by BIA official as a model 

facility. In addition to detention space, we work closely with community agencies to 

provide alcohol and drug assessment and treatment, continuing education and transitional services. We provide these services for members of our tribe and for inmates 

from surrounding communities. For the past two years, however, the Tribe did not 

receive the scheduled funding for operations and maintenance. We were forced to 
424 

cover these costs with tribal funds last year, and if this funding is not received in 

fiscal year 2007, we will likely be forced to close the facility. 

The Tribe requests that the Subcommittee contact law enforcement officials at the 

BIA to inquire about the use and allocation of appropriated funds for law enforcement. The Nisqually Tribe’s experience is not uncommon. A 2004 Report by the Office of the Inspector General harshly criticized the BIA for failing to account for million of dollars in law enforcement funding. The report, entitled ‘‘Neither Safe Nor 

Secure: An Assessment of Indian Detention Facilities,’’ was issued seven years after 

the BIA and the Department of Justice entered into a joint initiative to construct 

and fund new detention facilities in Indian country. The report found that, on the 

whole, tribal detention facilities were still in poor condition and that millions of dollars in additional funding appropriated to the BIA for detention center staffing and 

operations was unaccounted for and that most never reached the tribes. For example, from fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $10 million to hire 

additional detention officer. Only $3 million of this ever reached the tribes and the 

BIA was unable to determine how the remaining $7 million was spent. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

The Tribe supports the Administration’s proposal to provide $19 million to fully 

fund indirect contract support costs. This funding supports critical administrative 

functions that allow tribes to successfully operate programs contracted under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We ask that the Subcommittee support this increase and consider adding report language to that effect. 

In addition, we ask that the Subcommittee support the proposed deletion of the 

word ‘‘indirect’’ in the text of the Interior Appropriations bill. This change would 

permit tribes to allocate unused Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) funds to cover 

unmet direct contract support costs, which is important because the Administration 

proposes full funding for only indirect costs, leaving a significant unmet need. 

If we can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our 

counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick 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; arolnick@sonosky.com. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MICKEY LELAND NATIONAL URBAN AIR TOXICS

RESEARCH CENTER

The Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center (NUATRC) is re- questing a $2.6 million appropriation for fiscal year 2007 to continue the air quality 

public health research and data collection on air toxics in urban areas as directed 

by the U.S. Congress. NUATRC is a 501(c)(3) institution authorized by Congress in 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Title III, Section 301(p)). 

The NUATRC is a unique public/private research partnership. Significant funding 

for the NUATRC is from EPA Assistance Awards based upon annual Congressional 

appropriations. We leverage these federal funds with non-federal funds contributed 

from a variety of sources. NUATRC’s contributors to specific research also include 

major U.S. companies such as ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Georgia Pacific, Rohm 

& Haas, and Shell. Additional funding is received from the Houston Endowment 

and local and state government. To further leverage our funding, NUATRC utilizes 

an administrative services agreement with The University of Texas-Houston Health 

Science Center (UTHSC) in the Texas Medical Center (TMC), complex. This arrangement lowers NUATRC’s overall costs and allows us to take advantage of the 

world-renowned scientific community at The University of Texas (UT) and TMC as 

directed by Congress, while still remaining an independent entity. However, even 

with multiple sources and efficient leveraging of the NUATRC’s funding, this important public health research would not be possible without the annual congressional 

appropriation. The research performed by the NUATRC is not performed within 

EPA or other research organizations. Since budgets supporting internal EPA research have been declining in recent budgets, this research would not likely be performed at all without the NUATRC. 

NUATRC’s mission is to sponsor and direct sound, peer-reviewed scientific research on the human health effects of air toxics in urban populations. NUATRC’s 

research is driven by scientific questions requiring answers by policy and decision 

makers in government, industry, and academia, in order to improve the scientific 

basis of regulatory decisions. It is an integral part of the strategy established by 

Congress to assess the risks posed by air toxics to individuals living in areas where 

air quality concerns have been expressed by medical and scientific experts, and community leaders. 
425 

NUATRC is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors, appointed pro rata 

by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the 

U.S. Senate, and the President of the United States. Amongst its duties, the 

NUATRC Board appoints a 13-member Scientific Advisory Panel, selected from national research institutions, academic centers, government agencies, and the private 

sector. 

The NUATRC’s unique structure, organization, and intellectual resources are its 

source of strength. The NUATRC is an organization dedicated to implementing its 

mission as a public/private research center. Inclusion of academic, business, government, and citizen perspectives in the implementation of the NUATRC’s research 

mission not only fulfills the NUATRC’s mandate from the U.S. Congress; serving 

this public/private mindset is at the core of how the NUATRC operates. By embracing these disparate perspectives and working together to achieve consensus on the 

design of an effective research program, the NUATRC’s leadership greatly reduces 

or eliminates the all too often occurrence of confusion and stalemate resulting from 

similar research studies funded by research organizations with a single type of funding source and intellectual resources. Depending on the perspective of the audience 

affected by the research results, an organization with a single funding and intellectual resource perspective could be seen as biased. In the NUATRC’s case, academic, 

business, government, and citizen representatives strive for consensus on the research design and objectives prior to beginning the research. With this approach, 

less duplication of research occurs as well as less debate over the accuracy or bias 

of the results produced. This process enhances the focus on the policy or regulatory 

debate, not the design of the air quality research study. 

ACHIEVEMENTS

NUATRC has accomplished the following major scientific achievements over the 

last several years consistent with our Congressional charge in the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990: 

1. Establishment of the importance of personal exposure (e.g. what people 

breathe) to the evaluation of possible public health effects. These findings are stimulating a reevaluation of the national emphasis on outdoor levels and sources. 

2. Development of new technology for inexpensive and accurate personal monitoring devices to allow measurements of individual exposures to air toxics. This provides a new and, for the first time, direct view of the possible public health risks 

of personal exposure to air toxics. To our knowledge, this is a unique contribution 

by the NUATRC. 

3. Initiation of community-based studies that involve participation by those citizens directly exposed to urban levels of air toxics. 

We owe these advances in large part to the work of our Scientific Advisory Panel, 

made up of world class scientists from the public, private, and academic sectors, 

who have spent considerable time and effort to develop and refine these studies in 

a collegial and efficient manner. 

We continue to work closely with the EPA, through which we access the Congressionally-appropriated funds. We have an excellent working relationship with the scientists that serve on our research panels, and we continue to interact with their 

administrative counterparts to establish a firmer base for our financial support. 

CURRENT ACTIVITIES

NUATRC has been very active on its air toxics research initiatives. One of these 

initiatives addresses the national concerns about health effects. Scientific studies 

conducted to date suggest that living near busy roads leads to adverse health effects. In these studies the association between proximity to traffic and health effects 

has been shown without any direct measurement of exposures. The NUATRC plans 

research to clarify the potential impact of air toxics in such observed associations. 

The NUATRC will fund research that is hypothesis driven and designed to test the 

relationship between exposures to air toxics and proximity to vehicular traffic and 

potential adverse non-cancer health effects resulting from these exposures. The 

health effects of interest are those affecting the respiratory, cardiovascular, and immune systems. The air toxics of interest are one or more of the 33 chemicals listed 

as priority air toxics in the EPA’s Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy (FRL–6157– 

2; Docket No. A–97–44) and the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html) and those that are uniquely mobile source related. 

In all NUATRC funded research, the NUATRC’s priority is to support research 

leading to peer-reviewed publications. The NUATRC has funded research that has 
426 

contributed to over 35 peer reviewed publications to date and significantly advanced 

the scientific understanding of air toxics. 

RESEARCH FINDINGS TO DATE

In 2007, NUATRC will continue research efforts to better understand the personal 

exposures of people living in urban areas to a number of the 188 air toxics defined 

in the Clean Air Act. From our earlier exposure studies we have achieved pioneering 

accomplishments in measuring levels of personal exposures to toxic air pollutants. 

These data point conclusively to the importance of personal exposures in terms of 

assessing the actual public health risk from air toxics. 

The information we are obtaining suggests that the nation’s environmental resources need to be focused on personal situations, as opposed to a continuing emphasis on fixed site urban air monitors. These fixed site monitors, which play a key 

role in determining overall urban air quality and air quality standard attainment, 

are not numerous enough or precise enough to address public health risks. The support we have received from Congress has been instrumental in creating a new scientific emphasis on personal exposure measurement. The EPA has now accepted the 

importance of such approaches. 

In 2007 the NUATRC will be in the second year of funding for the Houston Exposure to Air Toxics Study (HEATS). HEATS is a two-year project that will study the 

relationship between the levels of air toxics compounds that are measured at traditional fixed site monitors and the levels that individuals are actually exposed to as 

they move throughout their daily activities. It will be conducted in two neighborhoods near the Houston Ship Channel. The study will also explore reported health 

effects from the study participants, and examine the relationship between reported 

health effects and personal exposure and ambient monitors. 

The study is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, the Mickey Leland National Urban Air 

Toxics Research Center, the Texas Environmental Research Consortium, Harris 

County, and The East Harris County Manufacturer’s Association. The City of Houston is also participating in the study in an advisory role. Although HEATS is collecting data in Houston, Texas, it is of national importance as it relates fixed site 

monitoring, personal exposure monitoring, and health data. 

Further, the NUATRC will expand its involvement in community-based environmental health research, an important element of our mission, as air toxics health 

effects may disproportionately impact the economically and medically underserved 

people in our urban populations. 

ADMINISTRATION

NUATRC operates with an efficient administrative staff of four full-time and one 

part-time equivalent staff, consultants, and important administrative support from 

UTHSC. Our staff is employed by UTHSC, which eliminates the need for considerable personnel support services and allows us the benefit of residence in a world 

class health science center, while remaining an independent institution. This provides important scientific, administrative, and cost benefits, including access to the 

UT Medical School and School of Public Health faculty. We are extremely conscious 

of and pleased to call attention to our ratio of funding spent directly on research 

compared to administrative costs. Historically, the NUATRC’s success in leveraging 

federal research funds with organizations such as the HEI, NCHS, and SKC, Inc., 

have extended the value and accomplishments of the NUATRC’s research program 

and optimized the value added by its small, efficient administrative staff. The 

NUATRC will continue to effectively leverage its research funds. 

2007 BUDGET RATIONALIZATION

For 2007 NUATRC will support several categories for individual research studies. 

The research category budgets are shown in the budget table below. The Exposure 

Assessment category includes research to characterize, collect, and assess the impact of air toxics exposure data. Research will be designed and funded acquire data 

to show the relative importance of point, area, mobile, and other sources for exposure to air toxics. The Health Effects research category includes NUATRC’s plan to 

continue its involvement, research funding, and focus on health effects research on 

susceptible subpopulations. The Technology Development and Validation research 

category resulted in the commercially successful Sioutas personal cascade impactor 

and Leland Legacy Pump, which were completed with funding from this category. 

Fiscal year 2007 funding in this category will support development of new personal 

monitors for use with susceptible populations. It will also include investigation of 

new technology and methods for the measurement of VOCs, aldehydes, PAHs and 
427 

metals. In prior years the Small Grants program has been a successful, cost effective program for NUATRC in terms of identification of emerging research areas and 

producing important publications in the peer-reviewed literature. We will continue 

this program in 2007. The emphasis we place on having Workshops and/or Symposia 

every year has proven cost-effective in advancing the understanding of air toxics 

health effects. With 2007 funding we will support an annual Workshop or Symposium on air toxics with TCEQ and EPA. As in previous years NUATRC will leverage 

Workshop and Symposia costs and topics with other related organizations to be as 

cost efficient as possible with the limited funding available. The Research Support 

category is essential to provide funds for scientific peer-review, publications, reports, 

additional scientific research, quality assurance and other activities recommended 

by the SAP and approved by the Board. This budget also serves an important strategic research function for the entire NUATRC program. The budget presented 

below advances the legacy investment in research already made by providing resources to fully analyze and capture the knowledge inherent in the study results in 

time for answers to regulatory and scientific questions. We will continue, as previously noted, to seek supplemental funding sources for our research program. In 

past years NUATRC has received project specific funding commitments from many 

private contributors. We anticipate continuing these relationships. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET 

Amount 

Exposure Assessment ........................................................................................................................................... $400,000 

Health Effects ...................................................................................................................................................... 450,000 

Technology Development and Validation ............................................................................................................. 400,000 

Small Grants ........................................................................................................................................................ 300,000 

Conferences, Workshops, Symposia ..................................................................................................................... 50,000 

Research Support ................................................................................................................................................. 100,000 

Indirect Research ................................................................................................................................................. 398,049 

Administration ...................................................................................................................................................... 501,951 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 2,600,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Evan Hirsche, 

president of the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA). On behalf of the 

NWRA and its membership comprised of current and former refuge professionals, 

more than 110 refuge Friends organization affiliates and thousands of concerned 

citizens throughout the United States, thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2007 Interior Appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully request that the Subcommittee support: —a funding level of $415 million—an increase of $33 million over the President’s 

request—for the operations and maintenance (O&M) budget of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

in the fiscal year 2007 budget; —an allocation of $1 million to continue to support volunteer projects on and in 

connection with refuges, like the Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring 

Program (VIMP) and competitive grants, which utilize Friends and volunteers 

to identify and eradicate invasive species; 

—an increase in the FWS construction budget to prevent further degradation of 

Refuge System infrastructure; 

—an allocation of $100 million in the FWS land acquisition budget to accommodate the numerous willing sellers across the country; 

—an increase in funding for the FWS’ Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; 

—an allocation of $85 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; 

—an allocation of $9 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

(NFWF) in the FWS’ Resource Management General Administration appropriation; and 

—an increase in the FWS’ Contaminants Program budget. 

As you know, the National Wildlife Refuge System continues to be crippled by a 

$3.1 billion funding backlog that harms every refuge in the System. Specifically, 

funding shortfalls limit the ability of refuges to successfully conduct important 

science-based, biological programs and hire critical staff, while also hindering opportunities for the public to engage in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 
428 

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), 21 diverse conservation and sporting organizations, chaired by the NWRA, has determined 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 needs an annual $16 million increase 

over the previous year’s funding to achieve a ‘‘no-net-loss’’ funding level. Without 

this increase, the FWS cannot account for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, rising rent and utilities and other cost increases, while sustaining current 

levels of visitor services and wildlife management. The Refuge System needs at 

least $16 million to avoid employee layoffs and reductions in services, maintain protections for wildlife and habitat and help contain growth of the Refuge System backlog. It is crucial that, at a minimum, the cost-of-living and ‘‘uncontrollables’’ are covered in the fiscal year 2007 budget. To prevent the additional loss of programs, 

maintain protections for wildlife and habitats, make some modest and needed advances, and provide for addressing the backlog in coming years, the NWRA recommends a refuge O&M budget of $415 million for fiscal year 2007. 

For fiscal year 2007, we encourage the Subcommittee to continue its support for 

volunteer-based invasive species 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, fiscal year 2005 and fiscal 

year 2006 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 approximately $260 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 is showing tremendous 

results at the 14 geographically diverse refuges currently participating in the program. For example, at Lee Metcalf NWR in Montana, funding provided through the 

volunteer-oriented invasives appropriation resulted in the eradication of invasive 

spotted knapweed, houndstongue and tansy from 16 acres of the refuge for approximately 50 percent less than the cost of using contractors. The Program is a partnership among the NWRA, FWS, United States Geological Survey (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 2006, current 

refuges in the VIMP will conduct invasive species control efforts, while seven new 

sites will be added to the program. Since its inception, 316 volunteers have participated in mapping, treating and restoring over 3,000 refuge acres through the Program. 

Collection of this data aids the FWS in detecting early infestations of invasives 

on refuges, and helps to prioritize rapid response eradication activities. The technology is proving successful and should continue to be expanded to more 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. 

A competitive grants program for cooperative invasive species projects with refuge 

Friends and volunteers constitutes the majority of the $1 million allocated ‘‘for cooperative projects with [F]riends groups on invasive species control.’’ In 2006, 60 volunteer projects were selected through the competitive grants program, 25 of which 

directly involved Friends groups. Through the competitive grants, 876 volunteers 

participated in the treatment, inventory and restoration of 72,931 refuge acres. 

We encourage the Subcommittee to resist cuts proposed in the president’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget request to the construction budget. The Administration has asked 

for $19.7 million, a reduction of $25.5 million or 57 percent compared to fiscal year 

2006. According to the FWS, the Agency has identified projects for approximately 

1,500 new facility assets with a cost of about $1 billion. Roughly half this dollar 

amount is for 270 visitor centers and headquarter offices identified by field managers, some of which would take the place of quickly deteriorating structures that 
429 

are becoming more expensive to maintain than to replace. With an aging infrastructure and visitation to national wildlife refuges at an all-time high, the construction 

budget for the Service should reflect the growing needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The NWRA encourages the Subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to purchase high-priority lands and conservation easements. The Refuge System land acquisition backlog is estimated at $4 billion. According to the FWS’ Land Acquisition 

Priority System (LAPS), as of 2004 approximately 15.4 million acres remain to be 

acquired within approved refuge boundaries. Across the country, willing sellers are 

standing by to work with the Service. Unfortunately, the FWS has neither the funding nor resources to handle these land acquisition opportunities. 

Our primary concern is that vital refuge buffer areas and corridors may be lost, 

jeopardizing the very integrity of refuges. While a full suite of conservation strategies should be employed in working with private landowners, in cases where fee 

title acquisition is preferred by the landowner and the refuge has identified it as 

a top priority, the FWS should acquire the land. At a minimum, the NWRA believes 

that $100 million should be allocated toward Refuge System land acquisition. Even 

at that rate, it would take at least 40 years to acquire priority lands, which is time 

we don’t have given that wildlife habitat is being lost at a rate 300 percent that 

of population growth in the United States. Within this $100 million request, the NWRA encourages the Subcommittee to provide funding for the following land acquisition projects in the Refuge System 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund: —$3.2 million for Arapaho NWR (CO); 

—$922,503 for Back Bay NWR (VA); 

—$1.4 million for Balcones Canyonlands NWR (TX); 

—$726,000 for Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (UT); 

—$150,000 for Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (TX); 

—$887,000 for Neal Smith NWR (IA); 

—$650,000 for Rachel Carson NWR (ME); 

—$2 million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (MA); 

—$1 million for Stewart B. McKinney NFWR (CT); 

—$1.75 million for Tensas River NWR (LA); and 

—$3 million for Waccamaw NWR (SC). 

There are a number of federal programs that reward landowners for practicing 

conservation. One of the leading programs in this area is the FWS’ Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife Program, which provides technical and financial assistance to private 

landowners to voluntarily restore wetlands and other habitat on their land. Since 

this program began, hundreds of thousands of habitat acres have been restored, 

many of the projects located near national wildlife refuges. The Service has trouble 

keeping pace with landowner demand for this program, reporting that many states 

have waiting lists to participate. The NWRA encourages the Subcommittee to provide the ‘‘Partners’’ program with the resources it needs to assist landowners with 

habitat conservation, oftentimes complementing activities on refuge lands, or contributing to the resolution of problems on refuges that originate beyond refuge 

boundaries. 

The NWRA urges the Subcommittee to appropriate at least $85 million for the 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2007 to implement statewide conservation plans. Program grants support projects to restore degraded habitat, reintroduce native species, develop partnerships with private landowners, and 

collect useful data. These state-based plans can dovetail with the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans (CCPs) that all refuges are required to produce, complementing 

the mission of the Refuge System. Further, adequate and consistent funding for 

State Wildlife Grants is essential to fulfilling the shared federal/state responsibility 

for keeping our nation’s wildlife from becoming endangered. 

We encourage the Subcommittee to allocate $9 million for the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation through the FWS’ Resource Management General Administration appropriation. NFWF works to achieve healthy and abundant fish, wildlife and 

plant populations through valuable partnerships. Each year, NFWF receives more 

project proposals than they are capable of funding. Adequate funding will ensure 

NFWF has the ability to leverage resources to fund projects that directly benefit diverse fish and wildlife species in, around and outside of national wildlife refuges 

across the country. 

Contaminants were a major part of the tremendous damage inflicted on national 

wildlife refuges during the 2005 hurricane season. Unfortunately, funding for the 

FWS’ Contaminants Program has remained flat for almost two decades. In light of 

recent natural and man-made disasters, this vital program is more important than 

ever, as the need to address contaminant issues on national wildlife refuges con-
430 

tinues to grow. The NWRA urges the Subcommittee to provide increased funding 

for the Contaminants Program in fiscal year 2007. 

We extend our appreciation to the Subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to 

our National Wildlife Refuge System. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

I am writing to express my support for the President’s request in the U.S. Geo- logical Survey’s fiscal year 2007 budget of $1 million for NatureServe to ensure the 

quality and consistency of a key national data resource that supports federal agencies and the States in the management of the nation’s natural resources. 

Responsible management and use of our nation’s natural resources depends on a 

sound scientific understanding of these resources. The States have an important role 

to play in managing these resources, and in assisting the federal government in carrying out their responsibilities. State natural heritage programs are among the most 

important sources for objective and reliable scientific information on the nation’s 

wildlife species and habitats. The States rely on NatureServe, a private non-profit 

organization, for the scientific and technical support to meet quality assurance 

standards that enable this national network to meet in-state needs as well as support a wide array of federal-activities. 

Through coordinating the development of consistent biological data across all 50 

states, NatureServe has created and manages a unique national data resource, 

which fosters strong State and Federal cooperation on wildlife conservation and environmental management. Numerous state agencies, corporations and private individuals in Ohio rely on information from NatureServe and the Ohio Natural Heritage Program to better manage natural resources and avoid or reduce conflicts with 

endangered species and other sensitive ecological resources. Federal agencies, ranging from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service to the Departments of Transportation and Defense, also rely on this objective and credible 

scientific resource. 

The federal government has a clear and compeiling interest in and need for the 

scientific information managed by NatureServe and its State partners. Without 

these funds, this national network, and the high quality and nationally consistent 

data it generates, would deteriorate, compromising the work of the State and Federal agencies that depend upon them. The President’s proposed funding is also very cost effective. This $1 million will leverage a more than $40 million investment in this resource nationwide, most of 

which comes from state and private sources. This modest investment will also save 

taxpayer money by helping Federal and State agencies better manage our natural 

resources and by avoiding unnecessary endangered species conflicts. 

We recognize that this is a difficult budget climate and the Committee is oper- ating with constrained resources. We support the President’s inclusion of this $1 

million allocation in the fiscal 2007 budget, and respectfully request that the Committee include this in its appropriation. 

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 2007, the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund at $220 million and 

the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) at $50 million for fiscal 

year 2007. 

We also support the following funding levels for recreation management and trails 

funding in the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management budgets. 

Fiscal year 2007 Forest Service Budget: 

—Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness, $275 million 

—Capital Improvement and Maintenance/Trails, $90 million 

Fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Land Management Budget: 

—Recreation Management, Recreation Resources, $50 million 

—Transportation and Facilities, Annual and Deferred Maintenance, $75 million 

—An increase of $5 million for activities on the 12 National and Scenic and Historic Trails that BLM administers or manages. 

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. The outdoor industry is made up of over 4,000 businesses with 500,000 
431 

employees in all 50 states, generating $33 billion in sales every year. Last year, 159 

million Americans participated in outdoor recreation, with the greatest numbers in 

the gateway sports of hiking, biking, camping and paddlesports. 

OIA’s member companies include Yakima, Mountain Hardwear, The North Face, 

Cascade Designs, Vibram USA, Johnson Outdoors, REI, Eastern Mountain Sports, 

JanSport, Smartwool, Timberland, Columbia Sportswear, Black Diamond Equipment, GoLite, Vasque/Redwing and more. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

The LWCF State Assistance Program and the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery programs are vital for providing recreation experiences and healthy lifestyle options to all Americans. These programs are good for the physical and economic 

health of the country. The stateside program has 41 years of strong success as one 

of America’s most effective federal/state recreation and conservation partnership 

programs. 

Since its inception, stateside 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. 

In 2005, stateside LWCF grants made a direct impact in 535 local communities 

spread across every state and U.S. territory. 

Eight parks and recreation facilities in Montana were enhanced with stateside 

LWCF dollars in 2005 including Lone Pine State Park, the school district #1 playground in Philipsburg and Big Sandy Municipal Park in Chouteau county. 

The citizens of North Dakota will enjoy improvements at 16 state parks and recreation sites as a result of stateside LWCF funding. Projects are underway at Lake 

Metigoshe, Beaver Lake, Ft. Stevenson, Lake Sakakawea, Icelandic and Fort Ransom state parks. Many local parks also received stateside grants. 

Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula received stateside LWCF monies to make improvements 

to the Kasilof River State Recreation Area and Kenai Soccer Park. 

New Mexico received stateside LWCF funding for improvements at Eagle Nest 

State Park, Manzano State Park, Living Desert State Park and four other local 

parks. 

Ten projects in Idaho were funded by LWCF stateside grants in 2005, including 

monies to continue the development of Idaho’s newest state park, Castle Rocks State 

Park and improvements at Ponderosa State Park. 

In every case, local citizens demonstrated the need and desire for parks in their 

communities by matching stateside LWCF grant monies by at least equal dollars 

and in many cases many times beyond a dollar-to-dollar match. Because of this, 

LWCF stateside grants have a high return on investment per government dollar. 

The impact of LWCF State Assistance Program is also felt in other ways as recreation lands are developed and parks are built and enhanced. Studies by the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that physical activity has proven 

absolutely invaluable in helping people lose weight. Yet more than 50 percent of 

U.S. adults don’t get enough physical activity to recognize health benefits and 26 

percent are not active at all. More than a third of young people in grades nine 

through 12 do not regularly engage in vigorous physical activity. 

When people are active it not only makes them healthier; it also reduces the 

amount of money they, and the Federal Government, spend on health insurance, 

doctors, and medicine. Study after study suggests that the best way to get people 

active is to make recreation accessible. When there are parks, greenways, trail systems and playgrounds within reach of their homes, people exercise more. 

In a study published by the CDC, creation of or enhanced access to places for 

physical activity led to a 25 percent increase in the percentage of people exercising 

on three or more days per week. A group of studies reviewed in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showed that ‘‘creation of or enhanced access to places 

for physical activity combined with informational outreach’’ produced a 48 percent 

increase in frequency of physical activity. 

Between 2001 and 2005, Congress recognized the many benefits of close to home 

recreation and appropriated more than $100 million per year for stateside LWCF 

grants. 

The President’s fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 budget requests for LWCF 

stateside grants and UPARR zeroed out both programs. We thank you for rejecting 

that recommendation and through a bipartisan effort ensuring $30 million in funding for stateside LWCF grants last year. We urge you to restore funding to $100 

million for fiscal year 2007. 

Outdoor Industry Association believes LWCF stateside grants are an integral part 

of bringing quality parks and trails within 15 minutes of every child in the United 
432 

States. Developing recreation infrastructure is a goal many states share and for 

which many need LWCF funds to accomplish. 

FUNDING FOR RECREATION MANAGEMENT AT THE FOREST SERVICE AND BLM

Over the past fifty years, recreation has clearly emerged as the greatest use of 

Forest Service lands and the primary driver of the National Forest economy. Unfortunately for Americans, government funding for access and maintenance of public 

lands doesn’t begin to appropriately address the recreation opportunities and other 

benefits we derive from them. 

Recently, the Administration released numbers estimating that recreation accounts for 60 percent of the Forest Service’s contribution to the Gross Domestic 

Product. 

Unfortunately, staffing and funding for recreation in land management agencies 

doesn’t match up to this reality. Historically, direct recreation management and 

trails spending is only about 10 percent of the Forest Service budget—woefully inadequate when compared to the economic value of recreation in the forest economy. 

The Forest Service needs increased funding for recreation management and planning as well as funding to begin to reduce the $300 million in deferred maintenance 

of recreation facilities and trails. 

Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management is tasked with managing 261 million 

acres of land upon which a broad spectrum of recreation takes place. BLM is responsible for the management of 600,000 miles of roads and trails and like the Forest 

Service faces an increasing maintenance backlog. Increased funding is needed to develop resource and travel management plans as well as protect recreation destinations for future generations. 

Properly managed public lands provide limitless recreation opportunities. By adequately funding these recreation destinations, you improve the health of local economies that depend on recreation, the health of outdoor businesses that contribute significantly to the U.S. economy and the health and fitness of the American people. 

In order to achieve this outcome, OIA urges the subcommittee to provide $100 

million for the LWCF Stateside Assistance program and to adequately fund UPARR, 

federal LWCF and the recreation management budgets at the Forest Service and 

BLM. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

It is my privilege to present this statement on behalf of the Oklahoma members 

of our committee in support of adequate funding for water resource development 

projects in our area of the Arkansas River Basin. Other members of the Committee 

are: Mr. Ted Coombes, Tulsa; Mr. A. Earnest Gilder, Muskogee; Mr. Terry McDonald, Tulsa; and Mr. Lew Meibergen, Enid, who also serves as Chairman of the combined Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee. 

The Committee is encouraged about water resource developmental opportunities 

in the Arkansas River Basin for not only navigation, but also hydropower, flood control, recreation, water supply, and environmental stewardship. However, we are concerned that existing and proposed funding levels will not support the needs. 

Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108–137 authorized a 12-foot channel on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. The Corps is now obligated to operate 

and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over 90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel. Deepening the remainder of the channel 

to 12 feet will allow carriers to place 43 percent more cargo on barges, which will 

reduce the amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Funds in the amount 

of $7.0 million were allocated in fiscal year 2005 with $1.5 million used to complete 

the Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement with the other $5.5 million used on engineering, design, and construction activities. In conjunction with the 

deepening project the Corps is preparing a Basin Wide Master Plan that will include an integrated major maintenance construction and operational maintenance 

prioritized list for investment opportunities. Other environmental benefits include 

the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and the construction of Least Tern islands through beneficial use of dredged material. 

Therefore, we request $40 million to maintain the authorized depth by constructing dike structures to minimize dredging and dredging only necessary areas. 

This investment will increase the cost competitiveness of this low cost, environmentfriendly transportation method and help us combat the loss of industry and jobs to 

overseas. 
433 

Tow Haulage Equipment—Oklahoma.—We request funding of $5.0 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage equipment on the locks located along the Arkansas River portion of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System. 

The Power Plant at Webbers Falls Lock and Dam on the Arkansas River has suffered from greatly reduced reliability due to turbine design problems. One of the 

three turbines at the project has suffered major damage and will remain unavailable for generation until it can be rebuilt. Because this is a run-of-the-river facility 

with no storage, energy spilled due to off-line units is energy that is lost forever. 

A feasibility study recommending major rehabilitation of this unit has been approved by the office of the Chief of Engineers. 

Similar problems have been experienced at Ozark—Jeta Taylor Lock and Dam on 

the Arkansas River in Arkansas. Congress approved a new start and funding to 

begin the major rehabilitation of the Ozark powerhouse in fiscal year 2003. Congress approved the Administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request of $5 million 

in Construction General funding to continue this major rehabilitation. By combining 

the turbine replacements into a single contract, the Little Rock District awarded a 

contract in May 2005 to replace the turbines with a more reliable design. This contract also includes three options to provide newly designed turbines for the Webbers 

Falls project as well, if additional funding is forthcoming as recommended by the 

Corps’ Hydropower Design Center. The Corps has saved $5 million over the life of 

the project. Unfortunately, no funding for these projects was included in the Administration’s fiscal year 2006 and 2007 budget requests, and the conference report on 

the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill also excluded funding for them. 

The wholesale power customers are providing essential funding for the turbine replacement contract in fiscal year 2006 under terms of a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between the Corps, the customers and Southwestern Power Administration. 

However, the MOA is not a viable vehicle for long-term funding of the contract. 

The Committee recommends that Congress appropriate $19.5 million to start the 

Webbers Falls major rehab in early in fiscal year 2007. 

Arkansas-White Rivers Cutoff Study is to determine a solution to prevent the developing cutoff from joining the Arkansas and White Rivers near the confluence of 

the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System and the Mississippi Rivers. 

If not corrected, this occurrence could have a dramatic adverse effect on the navigation system. Unless corrected, this will effectively drain the water from the navigation system and halt the movement of commerce on the system. 

Therefore we request an appropriation of $300,000 to protect the navigation system from closure. 

There has been over $5.5 billion invested in the construction and development of 

the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System by the federal government 

($1.3 billion) and the public and private sector ($4.2 billion∂), resulting in the creation of over 50,000 jobs in this partnered project. 

Maintenance of the Navigation System.—In preparation for the deepening of the 

navigation system from 9 to 12 feet, there is a backlog of maintenance items that 

has been deferred due to insufficient budgets to allow proper maintenance. These 

maintenance items are required even to support navigation at the 9 foot depth in 

order to not jeopardize the reliability of the system. Therefore, we request additional 

funding in the amount of $1,549,000—plus the amount from Little Rock, over and 

above normal funding, for deferred channel maintenance. These funds would be 

used for such things as repair of bank stabilization work, needed advance maintenance dredging, and other repairs needed on the system’s components that have deteriorated over the past three decades. 

In addition to the system-wide needed maintenance items mentioned above, the 

budget for the Corps of Engineers for the past several years has been insufficient 

to allow proper maintenance of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System—Oklahoma portion. As a result, the backlog of maintenance items has continued to increase. If these important maintenance issues are not addressed soon, the 

reliability of the system will be jeopardized. The portion of the system in Oklahoma 

alone is responsible for returning $2.6 billion in annual benefits to the regional 

economy. The fiscal year 2006 O&M President’s budget for Tulsa District was $8.2 

million less (over 11 percent) than the fiscal year 2005 appropriation, which will result in no funding being available for critical infrastructure maintenance in fiscal 

year 2006. The fiscal year 2007 O&M President’s budget is currently proposed at 

$72.4 million which is presently $10 million more than the fiscal year 2006 budget. 

This $10 million increase is offset by higher energy, labor, and construction costs. 

We therefore request that $2.1 million be added to the budget to accomplish critical 

infrastructure maintenance items on the Oklahoma portion of the system as follows: 
434 

McClellan-Kerr—$600,000 to repair plate seals for the weirs; and Robert S. Kerr— 

$1,500,000 to repair erosion and construct emergency mooring wood dolphins. 

Additional O&M funds are also requested for other high priority, non-navigation, water resource needs including $600,000 for tainter gate repair at Kaw Lake; 

$1,200,000 to repair sluice gates and liners at Keystone Lake; $1,500,000 for tainter 

gate repair at Fort Gibson Lake; and $400,000 for tainter gate hoist equipment replacement at Tenkiller Ferry Lake. 

Miami, Oklahoma and Vicinity Feasibility Study.—We request funding of $350,000 to move into the feasibility stage for the vicinity in Ottawa County including and surrounding Miami, Oklahoma in the Grand (Neosho) Basin. Water resource planning-related concerns include chronic flooding, ecosystem impairment, 

poor water quality, subsidence, chat piles, mine shafts, health effects, and Native 

American issues. The State of Oklahoma’s desire is to address the watershed issues 

in a holistic fashion and restore the watershed to acceptable levels. Study alternatives could include structural and non-structural flood damage measures, creation 

of riverine corridors for habitat and flood storage, development of wetlands to improve aquatic habitat and other measures to enhance the quality and availability 

of habitat and reduce flood damages. 

Oologah Lake Watershed Feasibility Study.—We request funding of $500,000, which is $500,000 more than the President’s budget request, for ongoing feasibility 

studies at Oologah Lake and in the upstream watershed. The lake is an important 

water supply source for the city of Tulsa and protection of the lake and maintaining 

and enhancing the quality of the water is important for the economic development 

of the city. Recent concerns have been expressed by the City of Tulsa and others 

regarding potential water quality issues that impact water users, as well as important aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Concerns are related to sediment loading and 

turbidity, oilfield-related contaminants and nutrient loading. 

Grand (Neosho) Basin Reconnaissance Study.—We request funding in the amount of $450,000 to conduct a feasibility study of the water resource problems in the 

Grand (Neosho) Basin in Oklahoma and Kansas. There is a need for a basin-wide 

water resource planning effort in the Grand-Neosho River basin, apart from the 

issues associated with Grand Lake, Oklahoma. The reconnaissance report has been 

approved and indicated that there is a federal interest in this project and the feasibility will focus on the evaluation of institutional measures which could assist communities, landowners, and other interests in northeastern Oklahoma and southeastern Kansas in the development of non-structural measures to reduce flood damages in the basin. Feasibility Cost Share Agreements will be executed in 2006 but 

the fiscal year 2007 President’s budget did not provide funding to continue into the 

feasibility stage. 

Spavinaw Creek Watershed Study.—Spavinaw Creek and its downstream impoundments, Eucha and Spavinaw Lakes, are severely impacted by nutrient loading 

and excessive algae growth as a result of agricultural practices located in Arkansas 

and Oklahoma. Degradation of water quality has led to taste and odor problems, 

increased treatment costs, and a decreased recreational and aesthetic value of the 

lakes. Together, Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes provide 47 percent of the water supply 

for the Tulsa metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Utility Authority entered into the 

feasibility cost-share agreement in June 2004. We request funds in the amount of 

$210,000 to continue this study. 

Grand Lake Feasibility Study.—A need exists to evaluate solutions to upstream 

flooding problems associated with the adequacy of existing real estate easements 

necessary for flood control operations of Grand Lake, Oklahoma. A feasibility study 

is necessary to determine the most cost-effective comprehensive solution to the real 

estate inadequacies. We urge you to provide $500,000 to fund feasibility studies for 

this important project in fiscal year 2007 and to direct the Corps of Engineers to 

execute the study at full federal expense. This project has been a Congressional add 

for the past four years, but there are no funds in the fiscal year 2007 President’s 

budget request to continue this project. 

Section 205.—Although the Small Flood Control Projects Program addresses flood 

problems which generally impact smaller communities and rural areas and would 

appear to benefit only those communities, the impact of those projects on economic 

development crosses county, regional and sometimes state boundaries. There is limited funding available for these projects and we urge this program be increased to 

an annual limit of $65 million. 

We also request your support of the Planning Assistance to States Program (Section 22 of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act) which authorizes the Corps 

of Engineers to use its technical expertise in water and related land resource management to help states and Indian tribes solve their water resource problems. The 

Water Resources Development Act of 1996 increased the annual program limit from 
435 

$6 million to $10 million and we urge this program be fully funded to the programmatic limit of $10 million. We urge that you support the State of Oklahoma 

in requesting their full allocation of $500,000 for the Planning Assistance to States 

program for several important projects awaiting execution including the cities of 

Tulsa, Bristow, and Bartlesville and for State Water Planning efforts. 

In addition, we request your support of the Section 107 Navigation Program and 

ask that you provide $100,000 for the initiation of studies for a port in Wagoner 

County, Oklahoma. A Wagoner County Port could greatly benefit the region and utilize the authorized deepening of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation system to benefit the nation. 

We strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to raise the Corps of Engineers’ 

budget to $6.7 billion to help get delayed construction projects back on schedule and 

to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog which is out of control. This will help 

the Corps of Engineers meet the obligations of the federal government to people of 

this great country. 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this opportunity to present our view on these subjects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

REQUEST

The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for the full funding in fiscal year 2007 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation program as authorized in the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000 as Public Law 106–502 (H.R. 1444). The Administration has not request any funding in the fiscal year 2007 Budget submission 

for this program. 

FRIMA created a new federal partnership fish screening and passage program in 

the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service and partnered through state 

fishery agencies. 

The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific Northwest 

Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in the four Northwest states. 

As one of the members of that coalition, we appreciate your consideration of this 

request. 

NEED

Our association has represented irrigation districts in Oregon since 1912. About 

half of those districts are affiliated with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the districts were not developed under the Reclamation program. There 

are over 200 irrigation districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one 

million acres of cropland in Oregon. Almost all of these districts are affected by either state or federal Endangered Species Act listings of Salmon and Steelhead, Bull 

Trout or other sensitive, threatened or endangered species. 

Fish passage and fishscreen needs have become critical to fishery protection: 

—to keep protected fish species out of water canals and delivery systems; 

—to allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility structures; 

—and to eliminate water quality risks to fish species. 

Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in funding will be 

required to develop fish passage and fishcscreening needs. Limited cost-share funds 

are available from the Oregon Watershed Enhanced Board (OWEB) program in Oregon, but primarily the cost share for passage and screening needs has been provided by the districts and their water users. Many districts already have screening 

facilities in place, but requirements for screening have been changed to meet federal 

agency requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Life 

Service, driven by implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) so 

that existing facilities must be upgraded at significant cost. 

BACKGROUND OF PUBLIC LAW 106–502

FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share fish screen 

construction program for water withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife Service is to implement this program 

through the fishery agencies in the four states. The funding is to go to local governments for construction of facilities. Irrigation districts (local governments), can access the funding; individual irrigators can access funding through their local Soil 
436 

and Water Conservation District. (SWCD districts are local governments affiliated 

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service). 

FUNDING

The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among the four stated, 

from 2001 forward. The Service has never included funding in its budget requests 

since passage of the legislation. Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through 

a write-in of $4 million to be shared among the four states. The agency did not get 

the program up and running until late 2002, so the first moneys were distributed 

then. A 2003 budget write-in resulted in a $470,000 allocation to Oregon ($1.8 million total for the 4 states) 

Funding History 

2000: Congressional authorization for $25 million per year 

2001: Congressional write-in of $4 million as no agency budget line 

2002: No budget; agency did not disperse 2001 money until late 2002 

2003: Congressional write-in of $1.2 million as no agency budget line 

2004: No agency budget line 

2005: No agency budget line 

For the 4 years, 2001–2004: 

Congress—Authorized— $100 million 

CBO—Anticipated—$70 million 

Service—Budgeted—0 

Congress—Wrote-in—$8.8 million (2002–2004 total combined) 

In 2000, in the report accompanying the legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated outlays of $8 million for fiscal year 2001; $15 million in fiscal 

year 2002; $22 million in fiscal year 2003 and $25 million in fiscal year 2004 and 

years forward. While the CBO estimate would have provided $70 million between 

2001 and 2004, the actual appropriation was only $8.8 million during that time period and all of the money was a write-in. 

For fiscal year 2005, Congress provided $2 million for the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act and $2 million in fiscal year 2006. As you can see from 

the total amount of money that Congress has written in for the program, such 

amounts are woefully inadequate for what was anticipated for the program, yet appreciated. Funding continues to not be requested by the Administration for the program for fiscal year 2007 despite widespread benefits from the money that Congress 

has provided. A recently produced report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service covering the program years fiscal year 2002–2004 provides state-by-state coverage of 

how the Congressional provided funding has been used in the program. The program has been extremely beneficial in the State of Oregon. 

Funding funneled through the Service to state fishery agencies is distributed on 

the basis of an application and approval process that is based on a ranking system 

implemented uniformly among the states, including the following factors: 

—fish restoration benefits 

—cost effectiveness 

—feasibility of planned structure 

Each state is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding. Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding. 

PROJECT BENEFITS

The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to and present in the area, including those listed on state or federal endangered species or conservation lists. 

The project must applicable state and federal requirements for project construction and operation. Projects will increase the survival of many native fish species 

in a relatively short period of time. Compared to other recovery strategies, the risks 

posed by these activities are low and the assurance of success in increasing numbers 

of fish is high. Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is minor. Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted by landowners and rural communities. 

COST SHARE

The federal cost-share is 65 percent. The applicant’s cost-share is 35 percent plus 

the on-going maintenance and support of the structure for passage or screening purposes. 
437 

Applicants operate the projects and the state agencies monitor and review the 

projects. For more information, see the Services’ Fisher Resources website for the 

Pacific Region at http://pacific.fws.gov/Fisheries/Fish%20PassageScreening%20Program.htm. This program is headquartered in the Portland, Oregon 

regional office of the Service. 

OREGON’S PROJECT BENEFITS

The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA money: 

Santiam Water Control District Project.—Fishscreen project on a large 1050 cfs 

multi-purpose water diversion project on the Santiam River (Williamette Basin) 

near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion Soil and Water Conservation District, and 

the City of Stayton Approved FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 

project. Species benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, 

and cutthroat trout. 

South Fork Little Butte Creek.—Fishscreen and fish passage project on a 65 cfs 

irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near Medford, Oregon. Partners 

are the Medford Irrigation District and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Approved FRIMA funding is $372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. 

Species benefited include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat trout. 

Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.—Fishscreen project on a 60 cfs irrigation 

water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners 

are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and JeldWen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of 

$149,000. Species benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker. 

Lakeshore Gardens Project.—Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the 

Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Approved FRIMA funding is $5,691, leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.—An inventory to be 

conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify FRIMA-eligible 

passage and screening projects within the Rogue and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved FRIMA funding is $76,000. Estimated total project cost 

is $125,000. 

WHY FUND NOW

Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at diversions is one of the 

most cost-effective uses of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, 

with low risk and significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program 

be funded now. We urge the full authorization funding for fiscal year 2007 and urge 

Congress’ oversight in encouraging the Service to budget for this successful program 

in the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the hearing record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE POTAPAUG AUDUBON

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the 

Potapaug Audubon, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $1 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 

land acquisition within the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. 

Potapaug Audubon has been a ‘‘Friend’’ of Salt Meadow, one of the ten units in 

the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, for the last five years. Potapaug, 

a chapter of National Audubon, never had a physical address to call home. Since 

nurturing this relationship with the refuge and its staff Potapaug now feels right 

at home there. We hold special programs, meetings and field trips there throughout 

the year in addition to what we do elsewhere, and hope to continue to do so for 

years to come. We, and all the people who attend our programs at Salt Meadow, 

have learned an awful lot about the natural world through walking the trails and 

hands-on demonstrations. Adding this parcel of land to the refuge will enhance what 

is already there and will prevent the inevitable disruption of migration if this land 

is developed. 

Named to honor the late U.S. congressman who was instrumental in its creation, 

the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge was established to protect migratory bird habitat considered important to wading and shorebird species including 
438 

heron, egrets, terns, plovers and oystercatchers among others. Stewart B. McKinney 

NWR is currently comprised of eight units stretching along 60 miles of Connecticut’s 

coastline. In addition to the increase in habitat protection over the years, the refuge 

now provides opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish 

and wildlife oriented recreation. Located in the Atlantic Flyway, the refuge provides 

important resting, feeding, and nesting habitat for many species of wading birds, 

shorebirds, songbirds and terns, including the endangered roseate tern. Adjacent 

waters serve as wintering habitat for brant, scoters, American black duck and other 

waterfowl. Overall, the refuge encompasses over 800 acres of barrier beach, tidal 

wetland and fragile island habitats. 

Available for refuge acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 22-acre Menunketesuck 

Salt Meadow Marsh in Westbrook, Connecticut. The property is comprised of pristine coastal tidal marsh, a forested upland, scrubland, and a rock outcropping that 

towers above 1,000 feet of frontage along the gentle Menunketesuck River as it 

winds its way to Long Island Sound. As a migratory stopover for neotropical migrant land birds, this riparian area is the top priority for acquisition for the refuge. 

The marsh property will enhance the resources of the current Salt Meadow Unit of 

the refuge, as it contains part of the least developed upland borders of any remaining tidal marsh in all of Connecticut. As much of the state’s coastline has been built 

upon, it is rare to find an such a large undeveloped marsh area in Connecticut. 

Under imminent threat of development into condominiums, this parcel must be acquired by the refuge if it is to continue to serve as an island of forested habitat land 

on an otherwise highly developed coastline. In order to acquire the Menunketesuck 

Salt Meadow Marsh property, an appropriation of $1 million is needed from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. This priority acquisition 

will increase wildlife habitat protection at the Stewart B. McKinney NWR and ensure the public continued opportunities for recreation and environmental education 

along Connecticut’s coastline. 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $1 million for the Stewart B. McKinney NWR in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION

The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians writes to express our support for continued fiscal year 2007 funding of the Urban Indian Health Programs (UIHPs) and to 

request that funding be restored to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $32.7 million. The President’s budget eliminates funding for 34 urban Indian non-profit organizations providing health care services at 41 sites throughout the United States for 

430,000 eligible Indian users. 

In 1976, Congress passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Public Law 

94–437, to address poor health conditions in Indian Country. Title V of this law specifically targeted funding for the development of programs for American Indians and 

Alaska Natives living in urban areas. Title V has since been amended to strengthen 

UIHPs to expand the quantity and quality of services provided to the urban Indian 

population. 

In 1950’s and 1960’s the federal government encouraged Indians to move off their 

reservations and into various cities across the country. The 2000 census indicated 

that as many as 66 percent of all American Indians and Alaska Natives live in 

urban areas. Urban Indian populations are integral members of communities like 

Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, Detroit, Chicago, Denver, Baltimore, Boston, Phoenix, Omaha, Fort Lauderdale, Anchorage, Oklahoma City, Wichita, Reno, Sioux 

Falls, Albuquerque, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Billings, among many others. 

UIHPs provide affordable health care for an underserved population that is much 

more likely to die from certain diseases than the rest of the country. Indians suffer 

from diabetes, alcoholism, tuberculosis, influenza, and pneumonia at significantly 

higher rates than the general population. Urban primary care clinics and outreach 

programs provide culturally accessible, affordable, and accountable health services 

to our nation’s large off-reservation Indian population. UIHPs participate in a wide 

range of activities, including outreach and referral services, ambulatory health care, 

health assessment, health promotion, disease prevention, child abuse prevention, 

and immunization services. 

The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimates that average funding in previous budget years has been 22 percent of the projected need for this program, and that eighteen additional cities have! an urban Indian population large enough to support a 
439 

UIHP. UIHPs are all operating at maximum capacity, servicing over 2 million visits 

per year. 

The Administration contends that urban Indians live near hospitals and have access to Federal, State, and local health care programs. To accommodate the expected 

increase in visits to federal health clinics as a result of cutting UIHPs, the Administration will slightly increase funding for the Health Centers program. 

In a Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearing on the fiscal year 2007 IHS budget, 

Director Charles W. Grimm admitted that the Administration did not consult with 

tribes when coming to the decision to eliminate funding for UIHPs. The Administration also did not engage the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) 

in how HRSA will facilitate the addition of the urban Indian population into the 

Health Centers system. 

However, even with a small increase to Health Centers funding, it is unreasonable to expect that there will be no interruption of services or decrease in the level 

of health care provided to the urban Indian population. Open access health centers 

already serve 8.8 million users. 

Dealing with past budget cuts and an increased user population has stressed the 

limits of the service capabilities at these centers. Increasing the potential user population by 1.5 million will place a much larger burden on a system already operating 

at capacity to the detriment of both non-Indian and Indian users. 

We are committed to fiscal responsibility and understand that restraints on funding are a reality of the current budgetary climate—eliminating an already under 

funded program that hundreds of thousands of Americans have depended on since 

1976 is not a choice we can support. Without access to affordable and accountable 

health care centers, we fear that many urban Indian families will go without the 

services the federal government has been tasked with providing them. It is irresponsible to deny health care access to such a large and underserved population. 

We urge you to restore funding for UIHPs to the fiscal year 2006 budget level of 

$32.7 million, and thank you for your consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUEBLO OF LAGUNA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The President’s proposed fiscal year 2007 budget does not include direct funding 

for Tribal Education Departments (TEDs) through the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Such funding is authorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. See Section 1140 of NCLB Title X, codified at 25 U.S.C. 

§ 2020(a). 

The Pueblo of Laguna Department of Education urges you to correct this omission 

and make appropriations for TEDs so that they can help states, school districts, and 

tribal students meet the challenges of implementing NCLB., 

Although only one President’s proposed budget (fiscal year 1996) ever has requested appropriations for TEDs through the Department of the Interior, historically, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), has asked Congress for 

such appropriations. We join in NCAI’s recent request for TED appropriations at the 

level of $5 million so that our tribal students will achieve at their potentials and 

not be left behind. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past 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 the 24 national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2007 

through these appropriations: 

—National Park Service.—$10.683 million for the administration of 19 trails and 

for coordination of the long-distance trails program by the Washington Park 

Service office. 

—USDA Forest Service.—$3.04 million to administer 4 trails and $933,000 to 

manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or BLM; Construction: 

$4.822 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1.35 million for the Florida 

Trail, and $1 million for the Pacific Crest Trail. 
440 

—Bureau of Land Management.—To administer the Iditarod National Historic 

Trail: $272,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail: 

$230,000, the Old Spanish National Historic Trail: $331,000 and $3.15 million 

to manage portions of 9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest 

Service; $1,386,000 for operating four National Historic Trail interpretive centers. 

—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 ($1,500,000) 

for the other national scenic and historic trails or create a separate $1.5 million 

National Trails System Challenge Cost Share Program. 

—We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management’s Challenge 

Cost Share Program and 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 for 

land acquisition: 

—to the Forest Service: $5 million for the Pacific Crest Trail, $250,000 for management of the Pacific Crest Trail land acquisition program; $5 million for the 

Florida Trail; $5.6 million for the Appalachian Trial; $195,000 for the Overmountain Victory Trail in North Carolina; 

—to the Bureau of Land Management: $1.5 million for the Pacific Crest Trail; $1 

million for the Oregon Trail in Oregon; $1.4 million for the Continental Divide 

Trail in New Mexico; 

—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 $10.683 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, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year 

2006. The $717,000 we request will enable the Park Service to continue managing 

three new national historic trails—Ala Kahakai, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, 

and Old Spanish—the latter two co-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 $776,000 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 $87,000 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 trail images linked with the GIS map database of the trails. 

We request $1,837,000 for the Lewis & Clark Trail to complete resource protection 

and interpretation projects and to work with the public/private and inter-agency 

partnerships forged through the successful Lewis & Clark Bicentennial commemoration to develop a strategy for long-term cooperative stewardship of the Trail. 

All of these trails are complicated undertakings; none more so than the 4,200 mile 

North Country Trail. With more than 650 miles of Trail across 7 national forests 
441 

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. The $836,000 we request will enable these agencies to collaborate 

more effectively while also providing greater support for the regional and local resource inventory and GIS mapping, trail building, trail management, and training 

of volunteers 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 $936,000 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 2007 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 $3.04 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 $1.35 million for trail construction in fiscal year 2007 to enable the 

Forest Service and FTA to build 90 more miles and manage 3,410 acres of new Florida Trail land. 

The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service assistance and funding 

from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed the entire 3,200 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 $4.822 million to plan 490 miles and to 

build or reconstruct 242 miles of the CDT. 

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 

$1,000,000 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. 
442 

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 the 

national scenic and historic trails in the NLCS and to budget specific funding for 

each of them. We also applaud the recently released 10 Year ‘‘National Scenic & 

Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan.’’ 

We ask that you continue to support funding for the National Landscape Conservation System and that you appropriate for fiscal year 2007 as new permanent 

base funding $272,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, $331,000 to continue development of the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Old Spanish National Historic 

Trail, and $3,150,000 for management of the portions of the nine other trails under 

the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We request $166,000 for construction 

of new sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, $100,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and $1,386,000 to operate four historic trails interpretive centers. We request that you add $500,000 to the Challenge Cost Share 

program and allocate the money for the National Trails System as you have done 

for many years with the Park Service’s Challenge Cost Share program. Since the 

Bureau has no account specifically for ‘‘trails’’ in its budget we ask that you either 

direct that such an account be established or direct all of the requested money except the CCS to the ‘‘Recreation Management’’ account. 

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 $5 million requested for the Florida 

National Scenic Trail will continue another successful collaboration between these 

two agencies to protect another 13 miles of Trail and the $5.6 million requested will 

protect sections of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in three national forests 

in three states. The $195,000 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 $3.9 million requested for the Bureau of Land Management will close a gap 

in the Continental Divide Trail in New Mexico and 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 $7.92 million of fiscal year 2000–2006 LWCF funding with 

$15.7 million to help conserve the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. 

With this 2:1 match of State to Federal funds, Wisconsin has purchased 34 parcels 

totaling 5,694 acres and now has another 15 parcels under negotiation, appraisal 

or option to purchase. 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. 
443 

The private trail organizations commitment to the success of these trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress’ support for the trails has grown. In 

2005 the trail organizations channeled 723,191 hours of documented volunteer labor 

valued at $12,691,997 to help sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also applied private sector contributions of $7,275,556 to benefit the 

trails. These contributions are documented in Attachment 1. 

ATTACHMENT 1.—CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2005 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY 

NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS 

Organization Volunteer 

hours 

Estimated 

value of 

volunteer 

labor 

Financial 

contributions 

Appalachian Trail Conference .................................................................... 195,733 $3,435,114 1 $3,099,000 

Camino Real Trail Association .................................................................. 790 13,865 5,236 

Continental Divide Trail Society ................................................................ 1 1,500 26,325 ........................

Continental Divide Trail Alliance ............................................................... 17,640 309,582 999,553 

Florida Trail Association ............................................................................ 1 58,266 1,022,568 165,000 

Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation ............................................................... 90,524 1,588,696 564,289 

Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc. .......................................................... 1 896 15,725 1 80,000 

Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza & others ................................................. 1 2000 35,100 ........................

Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona .................................................................. 2,650 46,507 ........................

Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation .................................................. 87,119 1,528,938 495,796 

Mormon Trails Association ......................................................................... 1,140 20,007 4,577 

Iowa Mormon Trails Association ................................................................ 1 750 13,163 1,730 

Nebraska Mormon Trails Association ........................................................ 1 125 2,194 2,445 

National Pony Express Association ............................................................ 23,515 412,688 111,147 

Pony Express Trail Association .................................................................. 5,703 100,088 44,840 

Nez Perce Trail Foundation ........................................................................ 6,780 118,989 8,256 

North Country Trail Association ................................................................. 35,423 621,670 217,397 

Old Spanish Trail Association ................................................................... 10,126 177,711 55,531 

Oregon-California Trails Association ......................................................... 59,053 1,036,380 602,178 

Overmountain Victory Trail Association ..................................................... 7,985 140,137 36,800 

Pacific Crest Trail Association .................................................................. 41,100 721,305 577,748 

Potomac Heritage Trail Association ........................................................... 1 2,535 44,489 ........................

Santa Fe Trail Association ......................................................................... 39,639 695,664 138,808 

Trail of Tears Association .......................................................................... 32,199 565,092 65,225 

TOTALS .......................................................................................... 723,191 12,691,997 7,275,556 

1 Estimate. 
444 

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM 

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 

Project/Programs possible with increased funding 2006 cong. 

approp. 

2007 admin. 

request 

2007 partners 

request 

PARK SERVICE 

Ala Kahakai ........................................................................ $259,000 $261,000 $261,000 Continue preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for new trail; Appalachian ........................................................................ 1,205,000 1,217,000 1,755,000 $350,000 of the total supports volunteer-based trail and land management guided by ATC; Park 

ranger to deal with trail encroachments; support GIS work; 

Natchez Trace ..................................................................... 27,000 27,000 27,000 Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with SCA; El Camino Real Tejas ......................................................... 49,000 49,000 50,000 Begin to administer new national historic trail; El Camino Real Tierra ........................................................ 140,000 140,000 220,000 Full-time administrator; implement CMP with Bureau of Land Management; California ............................................................................ 278,000 278,000 303,000 Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database; Ice Age ................................................................................ 631,000 641,000 936,000 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 ....................................................... 305,000 313,000 313,000 Coordination of Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects with local agencies & 

organizations; Outreach to schools and Latino communities; 

Lewis & Clark ..................................................................... 1,798,000 1,837,000 1,837,000 Planning, coordination & support for local L&CNHT projects after the Bicentennial; Mormon Pioneer .................................................................. 128,000 128,000 153,000 Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database; North Country ...................................................................... 684,000 684,000 836,000 Advance Trail construction, route planning, protection and public awareness by providing regional 

services, GIS, and technical assistance for volunteers and partners; 

Old Spanish ........................................................................ 101,000 101,000 236,000 Full-time administrator; continue preparing CMP with Bureau of Land Management; Oregon ................................................................................. 286,000 293,000 311,000 Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database; Overmountain Victory .......................................................... 170,000 174,000 286,000 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 Begin to develop Four Trails Images Library/Database to complement GIS Database; Potomac Heritage ............................................................... 276,000 279,000 279,000 Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects; Santa Fe ............................................................................. 1 722,000 740,000 1,516,000 Preserve cultural resources; GIS mapping; produce interpretive media with SFTA; Selma to Montgomery ......................................................... 328,000 334,000 334,000 Comprehensive management plan developed and trail interpretation begun in collaboration with 

citizen support organizations & local agencies; 

Trail of Tears ...................................................................... 361,000 361,000 448,000 Develop GIS, interpret critical Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA; NTS-Washington Office ....................................................... 336,000 340,000 375,000 Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners 

National Trails System .......................................... 8,266,000 8,379,000 10,683,000 Total National Trails System operations funding. 

Challenge Cost Share ......................................................... 2 4,843,000 3 2,380,000 7,000,000 $2.5 million for Lewis & Clark; one-third of remaining $4.5 million for rest of National Trails System. Interagency GIS Project ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 4 1,253,000 Development of GIS for National Trails System; 
445 

BLM 

Iditarod Trail ....................................................................... 248,000 248,000 272,000 Coordination and support for collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail 

organizations and State of Alaska; bridges and cabins; Interpretive Plan; 

El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro ..................................... 15,000 230,000 230,000 Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service; Full-time Trail Administrator; Site certification and protection; Old Spanish ........................................................................ 235,000 331,000 331,000 Full-time Trail Administrator; Collaborative administration and management with National Park 

Service; Continue preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan; Site protection and interpretation; 

Continental Divide .............................................................. 194,000 219,000 410,000 Planning 101 miles of CDNST in Idaho, Montana and New Mexico; Interagency management collaboration; Full-time CDNST Liaison; Pacific Crest ....................................................................... 70,000 75,000 90,000 PCNST maintenance in California and Oregon; Interagency management collaboration; Juan Bautista de Anza ....................................................... 90,000 58,000 58,000 Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail in Arizona and California; California ............................................................................ 135,000 150,000 179,000 California NHT resource inventories in Utah, Nevada and California; Lewis & Clark ..................................................................... 2,058,000 1,680,000 1,680,000 Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana; Mormon Pioneer .................................................................. 227,000 193,000 227,000 Mormon Pioneer NHT resource inventories in Utah and Wyoming; Nez Perce ............................................................................ 142,000 27,000 149,000 Completion of Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects in Idaho and Montana; Oregon ................................................................................. 22,000 133,000 210,000 Interagency management collaboration and Oregon NHT resource inventories; Pony Express ....................................................................... 100,000 100,000 147,000 Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and Nevada; 

National Trails System .......................................... 3,164,000 3,524,000 3,983,000 Total National Trails System operations funding. 

Challenge Cost Share ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 500,000 Projects along the various national scenic and historic trails; Casper NHT Center ............................................................. 377,000 377,000 425,000 Operating ONHT, CNHT, MPNHT, and PXNHT interpretive center in Casper, WY; Oregon, Pompey’s Pillar & Camino Real Centers .............. 921,000 961,000 961,000 Operating ONHT, L&CNHT, and CRTANHT interpretive centers; Construction of: 

Pacific Crest Trail ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 100,000 Funding for maintenance and re-construction of Pacific Crest NST in California; Continental Divide Trail ............................................. ........................ ........................ 166,000 Funding for construction and re-construction of 102 miles of Continental Divide NST in Idaho, 

Montana, and New Mexico; 

FOREST SERVICE 

Continental Divide ..............................................................Florida .................................................................................Pacific Crest .......................................................................Nez Perce Trails ..................................................................

∂760,000 ∂650,000 ∂850,000 ∂640,000 

1,250,000 

650,000 500,000 640,000 

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 490 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 and certify 150 miles of the Florida Trail and further develop Trail GIS; $49,000 for Nez Perce Trail Foundation education and public outreach work; 
446 

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM—Continued 

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 

Project/Programs possible with increased funding 2006 cong. 

approp. 

2007 admin. 

request 

2007 partners 

request 

Total ...................................................................... 5 2,900,000 1,000,000 3,040,000 

Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age, Iditarod, California, 

Juan Bautista de Anza, Caminos Real Tierra Adentro & Tejas, Lewis & Clark, Oregon, Old Spanish, Mormon Pioneer, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Santa Fe, Trail of Tears.

925,000 350,000 933,000 Improved trail maintenance, marking, interpretation, archaeological studies, historic site protection and trailhead facilities for trail segments in National Forests; $200,000 to address deferred maintenance, remove blowdown trees on 30 miles of trail, make improvements 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 ...................................................... 995,000 ........................ 4,822,500 Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: reconstructing or building 242 miles 

of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico; 

Florida Trail ........................................................................ 498,000 ........................ 1,350,000 Trail construction projects totaling 150 miles of new trail and management of 3,410 acres acquired by the Forest Service for the FNST; Pacific Crest Trail ............................................................... 995,000 ........................ 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 .......................................... 6,333,000 1,350,000 11,145,500 Total: National Trails System funding 

Nat. Forest System Trail Maintenance ............................... 42,000,000 ........................ ........................ Trail maintenance throughout the National Forest System. Nat. Forest System Trail Construction ............................... 30,500,000 ........................ ........................ New trail construction and re-construction throughout the National Forest System. Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement & Maintenance—Trails. 76,000,000 60,341,000 90,000,000 Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System. 

LWCF FOR TRAILS 

LWCF grant—FS Pacific Crest ........................................... 500,000 1,600,000 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California (Tejon Ranch), 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 ..................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands in the Northwest Florida Greenway near Eglin Air Force 

Base and adjacent to St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. 
447 

LWCF grant—FS Appalachian ............................................ ........................ ........................ 5,600,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of 1,200 acres in the Cherokee NF in Tennessee, 820 acres in the 

George Washington-Jefferson NF in Virginia (last unprotected segment of the Appalachian NST), and 970 acres in the Green Mountain NF in Vermont. 

LWCF grant Ice Age—Wisconsin 6 ..................................... 1,000,000 ........................ 4,000,000 Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice Age Trail corridor and connect 

trail segments across private land in Dane, Chippewa, Kewaunee, Langlade, Lincoln, Manitowoc, Marathon, Portage, Sheboygan, Taylor, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties. 

LWCF grant—BLM Oregon ................................................. 1,600,000 750,000 1,000,000 BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River in Oregon. LWCF grant—FS Overmountain Victory ............................. ........................ ........................ 195,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of land to protect key link in the Overmountain Victory Trail near 

North Cove in North Carolina. 

LWCF grant—BLM Continental Divide ............................... ........................ ........................ 1,400,000 BLM acquisition of land between El Malpais National Conservation Area and the Gila National Forest. LWCF grant—NPS Lewis & Clark ...................................... 1,600,000 ........................ ........................

Total ...................................................................... 4,700,000 2,350,000 23,695,000 

1 Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail. 2 Includes $2.463 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: $2.9 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. 
448 

1These groups and individuals have endorsed the Citizen’s Agenda for Rivers which includes 

the ‘‘River Budget’’ for fiscal year 2007, a report of national funding priorities for local river conservation. For more information on the Citizen’s Agenda for Rivers go to www.healthyrivers.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUEBLO OF TESUQUE

The Presidents’ proposed fiscal year 2007 budget does not include direct funding 

for Tribal Education Departments (TED’s) through the U.S. Department of Education. Such funding is authorized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. 

See Section 7135 of NCLB Title VII, codified at 20 U.S.C. § 7455. 

The Pueblo of Tesuque, urges you to correct this omission and make appropriations for TED’s so that they can join in helping states, school districts, and tribal 

students meet the challenges of implementing NCLB. 

Although no President’s proposed budget ever has requested appropriations for 

TED’s through the Department of Education, historically the National Education 

Association (NIEA) has asked Congress for $3 million in appropriations for TED’s. 

We join in NIEA’s request so that our tribal students will achieve at their potential 

and not be left behind as evidenced in today’s State of New Mexico statistics. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN RIVERS

American Rivers, on behalf of more than 500 national, regional and local organizations representing more than 5 million constituents concerned with river conservation,1 urges the Committee to provide $7,776,233,000 for the following programs in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. 

I request that this testimony be included in the official record. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Funds.—The Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides capitalization grants to states, which 

in turn provide low-cost loans to communities for a variety of programs to clean up 

impaired water bodies and protect pristine waters. This program has been extremely effective in helping communities to improve water quality and provide safe 

drinking water. However, the needs to improve, repair and replace the nation’s 

aging water infrastructure are tremendous. Postponing necessary water infrastructure investments will only defer and increase costs that must eventually be met. 

The annual need for clean water funding is close to $20 billion. Historically, the federal government has provided between 10 and 20 percent of those funds or what 

should be $2 to $4 billion. The SRF programs have also been used to fund nonstructural projects that reduce non-point source pollution, protect estuaries, prevent 

contamination of drinking source waters, and reduce polluted runoff by protecting 

natural areas and other ‘‘green infrastructure,’’ such as stream buffers. These approaches are often more cost-effective then traditional pipe and cement options and 

provide a wide array of environmental and social benefits, including open space, 

wildlife habitat, recreation, and improved water supply. American Rivers urges the 

Committee to appropriate $3.2 billion for the Clean Water SRF and $2.0 billion for 

the Drinking Water SRF in fiscal year 2007. Additionally, within the funds appropriated for the Clean Water SRF $250 million should be used for nonstructural 

projects. 

Enforcement of Discharge Permits under the Clean Water Act.—The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to enforce environmental laws is critical 

to our nation’s efforts to fulfill the Clean Water Act’s stated objective of restoring 

waters to fishable and swimmable conditions. It is essential that EPA maintain a 

strong enforcement presence working with the states to undertake civil and criminal 

enforcement activities at facilities that can result in real improvements in environmental quality. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $492 million 

for EPA’s Enforcement programs in fiscal year 2007. 

Water Efficiency.—EPA established a water efficiency market enhancement program in the fiscal year 2005 budget similar to the Energy Star program that promotes energy efficient appliances and practices. Promoting water efficient products 

and practices would represent a significant step forward in moving the nation towards more efficient water use. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $2 million for the Water efficiency program in fiscal year 2007. 

Total Maximum Daily Loads.—The establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) allow states and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify 

all sources of water quality impairment to rivers, streams and lakes that do not 

meet water quality standards, develop specific goals for improvement, and design 
449 

plans to reduce pollutant loads into receiving water bodies. The development of 

strong TMDLs by the states done through funding under Section 106 of the CWA 

requires a commitment of adequate resources. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $250 million for State Program Management Grants in fiscal 

year 2007. 

Non-point Source Management Program, Clean Water Act Section 319.—The Section 319 Non-point Source Management Program provides grant money that states, 

territories, and Indian tribes can use for a wide variety of non-point source pollution 

reduction activities including technical and financial assistance, education, training, 

technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring. American Rivers urges 

the Committee to appropriate $250 million for Section 319, the Non-point Source 

Management Program in fiscal year 2007. 

Chesapeake Bay Program.—The Chesapeake Bay Program focuses on restoring 

tributaries, underwater bay grasses and fish passage, and also reducing agricultural 

runoff pollution and toxics. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate 

$30 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program, including $3 million Chesapeake Bay 

Small Watershed Grants Program in fiscal year 2007. 

Targeted Watersheds Grants.—The Targeted Watersheds Grants program provides 

direct grants to a limited number of watershed groups, tribes and communities 

working to improve water quality. Portions of these funds are designated for technical assistance programs and to train community groups engaged in watershedlevel protection and restoration projects. This training is essential to protect and restore the nation’s rivers and watersheds. American Rivers urges the Committee to 

appropriate $35 million, including $3.5 million dedicated to technical assistance for 

Targeted Watersheds Grants in fiscal year 2007. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA).—This program has 

helped produce some of the best examples of conservation based local-federal partnerships by providing communities with assistance to help revitalize riverfronts, 

protect open space, and build trails and greenways. If funded at $15 million, RTCA 

could expand to assist approximately 250 additional projects in some 25 new and 

currently underserved locations. American Rivers urges the Committee to fund the 

RTCA program at $15 million in fiscal year 2004 in fiscal year 2007. 

Elwha River Restoration.—Removal of Glines Canyon and Elwha dams will restore salmon access to the Elwha river’s wilderness heart in the Olympic National 

Park for the first time in 100 years. This dam removal will produce a landmark in 

river restoration for our national parks and an unprecedented opportunity to study 

a large dam removal and its impact on the river and wild salmon populations. 

American Rivers urges the Committee to provide $35 million to complete the restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and its fisheries. 

Dam Safety Program.—Dams that have outlived their average life expectancy now 

threaten the health of rivers inside the National Park System. Of the 482 dams in 

the Park System, some 330 are in poor or fair condition. Since its formation, the 

Dam Safety program has repaired 198 dams and removed 159 hazardous dams. 

American Rivers urges the Committee to fund the Dam Safety Program at $3.6 million in fiscal year 2007. 

U.S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

National Fish Passage Program.—Working with local, state, tribal, and federal 

partners, the Fish Passage Program has used $2.3 million, with partners matching 

$6.2 million (73 percent) of total costs to initiate projects, opening more than 3,000 

miles of river and 60,000 acres of wetlands for fish spawning and rearing habitat. 

This program is key to the success of the Administration’s new small dam removal 

initiative coordinating with NOAA and NRCS. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate the National Fish Passage Program with $5 million in fiscal 

year 2007. 

Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act Program (FRIMA) is a unique 

voluntary program that helps improve anadromous and resident fish passage 

through installing better fish screens for irrigation and water diversions in Oregon, 

Washington, Idaho and western Montana without impairing existing water withdrawals. American Rivers urges the Committee to fund Fisheries Restoration and 

Irrigation Mitigation Act Program at $5 million in fiscal year 2007. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.—This program has worked with more 

than 27,000 landowners to restore 574,800 acres of wetlands; 884,800 acres of native 

prairie, grassland, and other upland habitats; and 4,190 miles of riparian and in- 
450 

stream aquatic habitat. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $52.2 

million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program in fiscal year 2007. 

Coastal Program.—The Coastal Program has worked through partnerships to reopened 3,300 miles of coastal streams for anadromous fish passage; restored 54,160 

acres of coastal wetlands, 19,670 acres of coastal upland habitat, 645 miles of riparian habitat; and protected 230,000 acres of habitat through conservation easements 

since 1994. American Rivers urges the Committee to fund the FWS’s Coastal Program at $15 million in fiscal year 2007. 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF).—Every Congressionally appropriated dollar given to the Foundation translates into an average of three dollars 

in on-the-ground conservation. NFWF has made more than 5,000 grants and committed more than $226 million in federal funds. Matched with non-federal dollars, 

NFWF funds have delivered more than $617 million for conservation. American Rivers urges the Committee to fully fund the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

at $28 million in fiscal year 2007. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

These water resource investigation programs provide vital information on water 

quality conditions and trends on the health of our nation’s rivers and water supply. 

American Rivers urges the Committee to provide the following amounts in fiscal 

year 2007: 

—National Water Quality Assessment Program: $70 million 

—Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: $17.4 million 

—National Streamflow Information Program: $28.4 million 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

Abandoned Mine Land Program—Clean Streams Initiative.—The Clean Streams 

Initiative coordinates and funds community, citizen, and government abandoned 

mine reclamation efforts. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $285 

million to the Abandoned Mine Land Program and should earmark $20 million for 

the Clean Streams Initiative in fiscal year 2007. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Bureau of Land Management: Land Use Planning—National Landscape Conservation System.—The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing 36 wild 

and scenic rivers, as part of the National Landscape Conservation System. American 

Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $7 million for WSR Management and $5 

million for completion of WSR studies in fiscal year 2007. 

U.S. Forest Service: National Forest System—Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness.—The U.S. Forest Service has responsibility for the largest number of wild and 

scenic rivers and has a mandate to complete studies of potential wild and scenic rivers through its forest planning process. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $9 million for Forest Service wild and scenic river management, $3 million 

for the creation of river management plans, and $3 million for completion of wild 

and scenic river studies in fiscal year 2007. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wildlife Refuge System.—The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service manages nine wild and scenic rivers and must study rivers located on national refuge lands for potential designation. American Rivers urges the 

Committee to appropriate $1,787,000 for FWS wild and scenic river management, 

restoration and studies in fiscal year 2007. 

National Park Service.—The National Park Service manages 36 wild and scenic 

rivers and is responsible for studying rivers both in National Park areas and outside 

of federal lands. 

—Rivers and Trails Studies.—American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $1 million for wild and scenic rivers studies and $16 million for wild and 

scenic river management in fiscal year 2007. 

—Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers.—American Rivers urges the Committee to 

appropriate $1.846 million for Partnership Wild and Scenic rivers in fiscal year 

2007 

None of these agencies currently receives sufficient funding to adequately protect 

our nation’s Wild and Scenic Rivers System and to ensure that a broad diversity 

of rivers are represented. 

PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT

An unprecedented approach to river restoration that will reconfigure hydropower 

facilities and maintain energy production while opening up more than 500 miles of 
451 

habitat to 10 native species of anadromous fish, improve water quality, boost wildlife and create new opportunities in communities along New England’s second largest river. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $10 million for the 

Penobscot River Restoration Project for in fiscal year 2007. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) provides much-needed dollars 

for purchasing ecologically important lands. LWCF has proven highly successful, 

projects have helped states and localities purchase some 2.3 million acres of land 

and advanced river restoration through acquisition of riverside lands to serve as 

buffer zones. In particular, there are three river protection projects that deserve 

funding this fiscal year: the USFS Goose Creek, Phase 3 (CA) needs $2.7 million 

in fiscal year 2007; the USFS Beaver Creek and Marsh (WA) needs $1.5 million; 

and the BLM Sandy River (OR) needs $1 million. American Rivers urges the Committee to appropriate $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 

fiscal year 2007. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Sub activity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery Operations & Maintenance Sub 

activity, Hatchery Operations Project) to support the ongoing operation of the FWS’ 

Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

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 2007 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 2006 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 carryout 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 2007 

budget. The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe’s priorities and 

special appropriation requests for fiscal year 2007; 

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 

435 Tribes and Alaskan Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division 

currently has twenty-six (26) commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed 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 limited equipment, patrol vehi-
452 

cles 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 Detention 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 detainee’s 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 is documented in the September 2004 report issued by the U.S. Department of 

Interior Inspector General’s Office. 

—Request Subcommittee support to fund the BIA Public Safety and Justice Law Enforcement activities at the $201 million level proposed in the fiscal year 2007 

budget to operated law enforcement services. 

—Support from the Subcommittee on the Tribes request for funding to design and 

construct an Adult & Juvenile Detention Facility on the Puyallup Reservation, 

in the amount of $6.5 million. 

—Support from the Subcommittee to restore proposed funding cuts to the Tribal Courts budget in the amount of $5.3 million and request that the Subcommittee 

issue directive language to the BIA to include this amount as line item funding 

for the Tribal Courts in the fiscal year 2008 budget. 

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 $350,000.00 for additional fisheries staff. We further support the 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission’s request for the existing BIA hatchery 

maintenance budget be increased to $1.5 million per year for the next decade 

to meet basic infrastructure maintenance costs for tribal hatcheries. 

—Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program/Forest and Fish Report 

(TFW–FFR) The TFW–FFR 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. Tribes bring a high level of skills and technical capabilities that if appropriately funded, would greatly facilitate and enhance a successful outcome in state forest practice, rules, regulations and greater fish protection. However, base funding for this program is being proposed to 

be discontinued in the President’s fiscal year 2007 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–FFR process. We request Committee support for base funding level of $3 

million in base funding for the TFW fiscal year 2007 budget. We further support 

the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission’s request that the Subcommittee 

issue directive language to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include this amount 

in their fiscal year 2008 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 
453 

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 $95,000.00 for the HuntingWildlife Management Program. We further support the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission’s request to restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and 

Fishing Rights line item and request that these funds be appropriated to the 

base budget. 

Operation of Indian Programs & Contract Support Costs.—The President’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget calls for $1.966 billion to be allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Operation of Indian Programs, which is an increase of $4.4 million from the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. For the fiscal year 2007 budget, the Department of 

Interior reformulated its presentation of the Operation of Indian Programs funding. 

Previous formulations were based on Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). The Interior’s new format groups program funding according to functions which are; Tribal 

Government; Human Services; Trust-Natural Resources Management; Trust-Real 

Estate Services; Education; Public Safety and Justice; Community and Economic 

Development; and Executive Direction and Administrative Services. These budget 

functions include 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. 

These functions, as detailed in previous ‘‘TPA’’ allocations have not received adequate funding to allow tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and 

self-governance. Further, the small increases ‘‘TPA’’ has received over the past few 

years has 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 Operation of Indian Programs fiscal year 2007 request, at a minimum, at the requested amount of $1,966,000,000, an increase 

of $4.4 million. 

—Support by Congress to restore funding for the Johnson O’Malley Program in the amount of $16,300,000. 

Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2007 budget request 

is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The President’s fiscal year 2007 

budget request includes an increase of $19 million over the fiscal year 2006 enacted 

level for BIA Contract Support Costs. At a minimum, we request your support and 

endorsement in the following; 

—Support by Congress to fund, at a minimum, BIA Contract Support Costs for 

fiscal year 2007 as proposed in the President’s budget request. 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) operates a comprehensive ambulatory care program to an expanding population in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. There are no IHS hospitals in the Portland 

Area so all specialties and hospital care have been paid for out of our contract care 

allocation. In recent years our Health Authority has had the highest patient visits 

in both medical and dental services in the Portland Area of Washington, Oregon and 

Idaho. It is operating at twice the capacity it was designed and staffed for. In fiscal 

year 2005 our contract health budget went $2.8 million over what is provided by 

the IHS. The Puyallup Tribe is now faced with having to subsidize the Puyallup 

Tribal Heath Authority when its own tribal members constitute only 14 percent of 

the patient population. Because of the excessive demand for service we have had 

to add staff without the IHS funding in order to match the workload. An additional 

$6 million is needed to operate at this rate. 

Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS and tribal facilities, are annually asked to do more 

with less whether the federal budget is in a surplus or a deficit. This is no longer 

possible. This continued philosophy has put our clinic system into a funding crisis. 

IHS has lost $1.9 Billion in purchasing power since 1992. Preserving purchasing 

power and ensuring that medical needs are met must be paramount to Tribes, IHS 

and HHS. 
454 

The IHS Budget request is for an increase of $130 million over the fiscal year 

2006 level for pay costs, population growth, inflation and staffing requirement at 

new facilities. It is, however, estimated that it will take an increase of $482 million 

to maintain current facilities and services in fiscal year 2007. We request congressional support for the fiscal year 2007 IHS budget in the following areas: 

—Fund IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent. While the President’s budget includes an increase of $2 million for Contract Support Costs funding, this will 

not fund tribe’s actual contract support costs. It is estimated that the IHS Contract Support Cost shortfall is currently over $70 million. Funding for IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent is requested and essential; 

—We oppose the proposed elimination of the Urban Indian Health Program, 

which was funded at $32.7 million in fiscal year 2006. The budget request 

states that this program duplicates other community health center services, 

with no evaluation or evidence to support this contention or the impacts of 

eliminating funding for this program will have on the American Indian and 

Alaska Native populations. We urge the Subcommittee to restore funding for 

the Urban Indian Health Program, at a minimum $32.7 million, and issue directive language to the Indian Health Service to include this amount in their 

fiscal year 2008 budget. 

—Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority contract health care fund an additional $4.8 million to match expenditures. 

—Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority’s direct care services the additional 

$6 million it needs to match its doubled workload since it was staffed in 1993. 

—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 by 

$62.3 million for fiscal year 2007; 

—The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (Public Law 94–437) provides funding for the Indian Health Services. Re-authorization of this Act was due in 2000 

and subsequently has been extended by Congress. IHCIA re-authorization was 

introduced in the 107th and 108th Congress. While the Health and Human 

Services Secretary has pledged support for re-authorization of the IHCIA, the 

bill has failed to satisfy the Administration for re-authorization. The Puyallup 

Tribe of Indians supports all efforts by Congress and the Administration to pass 

the Indian Health Care Improvement Act during this session of Congress. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE QUABBIN TO CARDIGAN CONSERVATION

COLLABORATIVE

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $3,000,000 from 

the Forest Legacy Program for the Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond tract in New 

Hampshire, a $2,500,000 appropriation from the Forest Legacy Program to the 

Southern Monadnock Plateau project in Massachusetts, and a $1,000,000 appropriation from Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to the Temple Mountain 

project in New Hampshire. 

The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative (Q2C) is a public/private partnership of 

more than twenty private conservation organizations and public agencies seeking to 

protect a broad corridor of interconnected public and private conservation lands 

along the Monadnock Highlands, which stretch more than one hundred miles from 

the Quabbin Reservoir in central Massachusetts north to New Hampshire’s Mt. Cardigan, and beyond to the White Mountains. Thanks to a long history of farsighted 

private and public land protection and stewardship, the region contains one of the 

largest remaining areas of intact contiguous forest in central New England. But 

today an unprecedented combination of factors—the globalization of the forest products industry, growing development pressure, and sharply rising land values— 

threaten the future of the region’s unique landscape and way of life. 

Harnessing the full resources and expertise of the region’s public and private conservation organizations in a coordinated effort, the Collaborative seeks to conserve 

large forest blocks while they are still in relatively unfragmented ownerships, and 

secure links between new and existing conservation lands to form a continuous corridor of conservation and protected working forest land. In keeping with the region’s 

traditions, the Collaborative supports conservation on a strictly willing-seller basis 

through a combination of conservation easements and fee acquisitions, managed by 

private owners, conservation organizations and public agencies. The three projects 
455 

that are the subject of this testimony are all high priorities for the Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative. 

ROBB RESERVOIR/WILLARD POND, 1,667 ACRES, NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative supports a $3,000,000 appropriation from 

the Forest Legacy Program to the Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project in New 

Hampshire. The project would protect a 1,667-acre tract in Cheshire County, one of 

the few areas in southern New Hampshire where large unfragmented blocks of 

forestland can still be found. Protection of the property will link together the 1,466- 

acre Willard Pond New Hampshire Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with two other private easements. Altogether these conservation efforts will link a block of over 40,000 

acres of permanently protected forestland in a densely populated area of the state. 

Under the terms of a conservation easement, the project area would continue to 

provide public access for hunting, hiking, nature viewing, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing, as well as fishing for warm and cold water species in the North 

Branch River and Robb Reservoir. A network of established recreation trails will 

connect this property to an adjacent trail network at the Audubon wildlife sanctuary. Mountainous portions of the property offer unobstructed views of the reservoir and surrounding mountains, and provide excellent vantage points for wildlife 

viewing. The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond property is home to diverse and interesting plant and animal species. Several state threatened and endangered species 

have been documented on the property including the bald eagle, pied-billed grebe, 

osprey, purple martin, and northern harrier. 

New Hampshire has recognized Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond as its number one priority for the Forest Legacy Program this year, and $3 million has been included 

for the project in the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget. This year, a total appropriation of $3 million of Forest Legacy funding is needed to acquire and protect the 

1,667-acre Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir property. 

SOUTHERN MONADNOCK PLATEAU PROJECT, 2,270 ACRES, MASSACHUSETTS

The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative also supports a $2,500,000 appropriation 

from the Forest Legacy Program to the Southern Monadnock Plateau project in 

Massachusetts. The project would permanently protect approximately 2,270 acres of 

forested land in the towns of Ashburnham and Westminster. The Southern Monadnock Plateau Project seeks to weave a viable network of permanently protected forested landscapes linking more than 15,000 acres of currently protected land held by 

the state, local governments and land trusts in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program has identified 

1,595 acres of the project as containing significant wildlife habitat and the project 

includes lands containing three state-listed rare species: the Sand Violet, Ebony 

Boghaunter and Subarctic Darner dragonfly. 

The entire Southern Monadnock Plateau project falls within the designated region 

of the Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative. In addition, the Q2C Collaborative has 

identified the Midstate/Wapack Trail corridor as a special focus area for conservation efforts with over 800 acres of the land proposed for protection in this project 

are within this focus area. Complementary strategic efforts underway in NH to protect large contiguous blocks of forest land along the Wapack Trail. Currently only 

approximately 50 percent of the overall Midstate Trail corridor is protected (only 30 

percent in Westminster), and like the forestland is threatened by fragmentation due 

to increasing development pressures. This project protects over three miles of 

Midstate Trail, ensuring continued public access along this popular 92-mile, historic 

trail. Safeguards the public’s right to use the trail by securing formal easements 

across project lands. 

TEMPLE MOUNTAIN, 352 ACRES, NEW HAMPSHIRE

The Quabbin to Cardigan Collaborative supports a $1,000,000 appropriation from 

the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to the Temple Mountain project in 

New Hampshire. Monadnock Conservancy, in partnership with the New Hampshire 

Department of Resources and Economic Development, is seeking the appropriation 

for the protection of a 352-acre property on Temple Mountain in the towns of Temple, Sharon, and Peterborough. 

Temple Mountain is one of the most visible and beloved landmarks in southern 

New Hampshire. The subject property includes a prominent ridgeline, seven distinct 

natural communities, a spectacular section of the 21-mile Wapack Trail, a crosscountry ski trail network, and remote wildlife-rich wetlands. The land abuts existing 

conservation areas, including Miller State Park on Pack Monadnock. The Conservancy and the state are working to establish a new state park at the site of the 
456 

former Temple Mountain Ski Area. The state park proposal enjoys the public support of local, state, and federal officials. If successful, the Temple Mountain acquisition would be the first new state park in southern New Hampshire in more than 

25 years, and is the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development’s 

highest priority for acquisition anywhere in the state. 

The mountain’s owners are currently offering the property to the state for 

$1,000,000, which is below appraised value. They are very supportive of conservation, but cannot afford to hold the land for much longer. It is important that the 

acquisition be completed no later than June 2007. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support 

of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN INTERSTATE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of this distinguished Committee, my name is Lew 

Meibergen. I am Chairman of the Board of Johnston Enterprises headquartered in 

Enid, Oklahoma. It is my honor to serve as Chairman of the Arkansas River Basin 

Interstate Committee, members of which are appointed by the governors of the 

great states of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. 

In these times of war on terrorism, homeland defense and needed economic recovery, our thanks go to each of you, your staff members and the Congress. Your efforts 

to protect our nation’s infrastructure and stimulate economic growth in a time of 

budget constraints are both needed and appreciated. 

Our nation’s growing dependence on others for energy, and the need to protect 

and improve our environment, make your efforts especially important. Greater use 

and development of one of our nation’s most important transportation modes—our 

navigable inland waterways—will help remedy these problems. At the same time, 

these fuel-efficient and cost-effective waterways keep us competitive in international 

markets. In this regard, we must maintain our inland waterway transportation system. We ask that the Congress restore adequate funding to the Corps of Engineers 

budget—$6.7 billion in fiscal year 2007—to keep the nations navigation system from 

further deterioration. If this catastrophic problem is not addressed immediately, we 

are in real danger of losing the use of this most important transportation mode. 

As Chairman of the Interstate Committee, I present this summary testimony as 

a compilation of the most important projects from each of the member states. Each 

of the states unanimously supports these projects without reservation. I request 

that the copies of each state’s individual statement be made a part of the record, 

along with this testimony. 

EQUUS BEDS AQUIFER—KANSAS

Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.—Continuation of a City of 

Wichita, Groundwater Management District No. 2 and State of Kansas project to 

construct storage and recovery facilities for a major groundwater resource supplying 

water to more than 20 percent of Kansas municipal, industrial and irrigation users. 

The project will capture and recharge in excess of 100 million gallons per day and 

will also reduce on-going degradation of the existing groundwater by minimizing migration of saline water. Federal authorization of the project through House Bill 1327 

introduce last year or through similar legislation this year. Construction Phase One 

is scheduled for completion in 2007. Continued federal funding is requested for fiscal 

year 2007 consistent with this legislation which will authorize funding for 25 percent of the project cost up to a maximum of $30 million during the construction 

phases. 

ARKANSAS RIVER NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Chairman, Public Law 108–137 authorized a 12-foot channel on the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System.—The Corps is now obligated to operate 

and maintain the system as a 12-foot channel. Over 90 percent of the system currently is adequate for a 12-foot channel. Deepening the remainder of the channel 

to 12 feet will allow carriers to place 43 percent more cargo on each barge, which 

will reduce the amount of fuel consumed and emissions released. Other environmental benefits include the creation of new aquatic habitat through new dike construction and the construction of least tern islands through beneficial use of dredged 

material. 

Therefore, we request $40 million to construct dike structures to scour out the 

channel, and dredge necessary areas for improving the depth of the channel. This 

investment will increase the cost competitiveness of this low cost, environment- 
457 

friendly transportation mode and help us combat the loss of industry and jobs to 

overseas. 

TOW HAULAGE EQUIPMENT—OKLAHOMA

We request funding of $5.0 million to initiate the installation of tow haulage 

equipment on the locks located along the Arkansas River portion of the McClellanKerr Arkansas River Navigation System. Total cost for these three locks is $5 million. This project will involve installation of tow haulage equipment on W.D. Mayo 

Lock and Dam #14, Robert S. Kerr Lock and Dam #15, and Webbers Falls Lock and 

Dam #16, on the Oklahoma portion of the waterway. The tow haulage equipment 

is needed to make transportation of barges more efficient and economical by allowing less time for tows to pass through the various locks. 

The testimony we present reveals our firm belief that our inland waterways and 

the Corps of Engineers’ efforts are especially important to our nation in this time 

of trial. Transportation infrastructure like the inland waterways need to be operated 

and maintained for the benefit of the populace. Without adequate annual budgets, 

this is impossible. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of this Committee, we respectfully request that you and 

members of your staff review and respond in a positive way to the attached individual statements from each of our states which set forth specific requests pertaining to those states. 

We sincerely appreciate your consideration and assistance. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of $2.5 million from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund for acquisition projects in the Chequamegon 

National Forest in Wisconsin. 

The northern hardwood forests of Wisconsin are a considerable natural treasure 

in our state. The ‘‘Northwoods’’ is a place where the forests are interspersed with 

an abundance of lakes, rivers, and streams providing residents and visitors outstanding recreational opportunities. The beauty of the area has historically lured 

many of our national leaders here include President Eisenhower who loved to fish 

muskies in the pristine waters of Wisconsin, and President Kennedy found the area 

so rich in beauty and natural resources that he protected a portion of it as the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore. The Northwoods provides tens of thousands of acres 

of prime habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, include a growing wild elk herd 

that was reintroduce to this area in 1995. 

The Forest Service has recognized the unique attributes of the northern forests 

in Wisconsin and has undertaken a land protection program focused on undeveloped 

properties along lakes and rivers and the consolidation of publicly owned lands for 

the benefit of recreation and natural resources. The Wild Wisconsin Waterways program has been supported by annual congressional funding from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. This year two properties are available for acquisition. 

The 1,150-acre Venison Creek property in Sawyer County is located along a tributary of the West Fork of the Chippewa River. Critical to the consolidation of the 

national forest and the expansion of recreational opportunities, this inholding is surrounded on three sides by the Chequamegon. The forests and riparian areas of the 

property support habitat for bald eagles and a known pack of gray wolves, in addition to the reintroduced elk herd that lives in the area. 

The 240-acre Indian Farms property in Taylor County is located on the North 

Fork of the Yellow River. This inholding is completely surrounded by the national 

forest and holds many cultural and historic resources. Two Native American settlements and a related cemetery are located on the property. 

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supports these two acquisitions. The Venison Creek tract is particularly important as it falls within the dispersal area of the 

wild elk herd. I am very proud to say that the Elk Foundation is involved with the 

purchase of this property and is working with other organizations to permanently 

conserve and secure Venison Creek for future generations. 

Due to increased development and conversion of land from forest uses in northern 

Wisconsin, these two properties and their important natural, cultural, and recreational resources are highly threatened. An appropriation of $2.5 million will protect these properties in the Chequamegon National Forest and ensure the continued 

success of the Wild Wisconsin Waterways program. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of this testimony in support 

of Venison Creek and Indian Farms projects. 
458 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER, RAMAH BAND OF NAVAJOS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: As the Vice-President of the 

Ramah Navajo Chapter, Ramah Band of Navajos, I am pleased to present this testimony on the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget and the 

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) budget for fiscal year 2007. My testimony today focuses on providing additional funding for the following: 

1. To improve and meet jail standards for our Law Enforcement Detention facility 

for the amount of $500,000.00 (BIA) 

2. Funding request under the Indian Reservation Roads Program and Public 

Lands Discretionary Fund (IRRHPP) for road construction/improvements for BIA 

Routes RN 122 and RN 125 for $12 million (IRR Funding). 

3. Windmill Repair & Maintenance funding request for $90,000.00 to abate urgent 

water safety and supply issues for our people and our livestock (BIA) 

4. Civic Center Building for the amount of $1,808,000.00 (BIA) 

LAW ENFORCEMENT DETENTION FACILITIES

The current detention facility was constructed in 1972 as a temporary, 48—hour 

holding facility. Long-term inmates were to be transported to Navajo Nation jails 

in Window Rock, AZ and Crownpoint, NM. However, due to court decree issued 

against the Navajo Nation jail system, inmates from our facility are no longer accepted. This is a serious problem for the Ramah Navajo Police Department, which 

is forced to use a short term holding facility for long-term inmates, which has created severe overcrowding conditions. 

According to the BIA Standards for Adult Detention Facilities, our detention was 

designed to hold six male inmates and four female inmates. However, the average 

daily population increased from 7.5 in 1997 to 9.2 in 2005. With these conditions, 

there are no secure cells for segregation or detoxification, nor are there separate 

rooms for visitations and recreation. Furthermore, supervision of inmates is a constant problem. The other problem with our current facility is structural deterioration. During recent inspections by the Indian Health Service’s, Environmental 

Health Department, several structural deficiencies were noted. This includes cracks 

in the walls indicating that the foundation is settling and that the facility does not 

meet handicapped accessibility standards. With these overcrowding and security 

issues, and the fact that the facility does not meet modern jail standards, the 

Ramah Navajo Police Department, the Ramah Navajo Chapter and the Navajo Nation are extremely vulnerable to liability and litigation. 

To compound the problem, the Director of BIA Law Enforcement Services recently 

issued a directive to tribal jails limiting the number of inmates to its current capacity. Should a tribal facility continue to hold inmates above the established capacity, 

the facility’s funding from the BIA would be withdrawn. Since our detention facility 

receives funds from the BIA for operations, we had to adhere to this directive thus, 

further limiting the number of inmates we can hold. By our compliance, it is also 

placed a limitation on our District Court Judge on sentencing. This creates a concern when a person facing a mandatory jail sentence cannot serve a jail term such 

as a multiple DUI offender. 

In an attempt to address the need for a new jail facility, the Ramah Navajo Community has committed ten acres of land for the construction of a new facility. Since 

then, the Chapter officials have presented proposals for construction of new facility 

to the State of New Mexico, Cibola County, Department of Justice and Congress. 

Funding for a new facility was estimated at $5 million. To this date, none of these 

proposals have received funding. 

Without the realization of funds to construct a new facility, the Chapter has initiated plans to add on and renovate the existing structure. Included in this effort is 

to purchase a separate office facility. By moving office space out, the current office 

space would be used to add additional holding cells. 

The Chapter has estimated the total cost of additions and renovations at 

$500,000.00. The following is a budget of this amount: 

Amount 

Modular Office Building ....................................................................................................................................... $100,000 

Modular Cell Unit ................................................................................................................................................. 300,000 

Renovations to existing facility ........................................................................................................................... 100,000 

Total Amount Requested ........................................................................................................................ 500,000 
459 

INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS FUNDING

The Ramah Navajo Chapter receives approximately $1.1 million per year for road 

construction, and to complete the two roads BIA RN–125 and RN–122, it will require approximately twenty years to complete under the current Indian Reservation 

Roads (IRR) program. The previous transportation authorization has authorized million of dollars for Public Land Discretionary Projects. The two roads mentioned are 

projects vital to the Ramah Navajo Chapter because they will dramatically improve 

school bus routes that are in grave disrepair on the reservation. They will also serve 

New Mexico’s overall transportation infrastructure by providing improved access to 

Interstate Route 40, which is important, both for the traveling public and for the 

Chapter’s homeland security needs. RN 125 is a north-south paved road traversing 

the entire length of the community. In addition it serves as a major connector for 

two New Mexico state roads, State Road 53 and 602. If RN 125 is completed, it will 

provide additional access for the traveling public and address the need for additional 

access to I–40 in case of emergency. 

RN 122 is a school bus route that loops off of RN 125 on the north and reconnects 

on the south to RN 125. Because RN 122 is unimproved, the cost of transporting 

students to and from school each day on this road is ever-increasing due to mounting fuel cost and vehicle maintenance. The school must either reduce the amount 

of transportation—-which isn’t a realistic option—-vehicle maintenance and repair 

or divert money from other school programs to pay for the increase. This funding 

will enable us to both transport our students to school, and to keep education funds 

where they belong: in the classroom. 

The Chapter has estimated the total cost for RN 122 & RN 125 in the following 

budget: 

Amount 

RN 122 ................................................................................................................................................................. $5,000,000 

RN 125 ................................................................................................................................................................. 7,000,000 

Total Amount Requested ........................................................................................................................ 12,000,000 

WINDMILL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE

The Ramah Navajo community has a traditional pastoral economy. It has been 

the mainstay of the people and at present, one third of all community producer income is still derived from livestock production and a few dry—land farms. This winter and previous winters have been particularly dry, and there is no evidence that 

the summer will be much different. We know we are facing yet another drought situation, which will severely affect the community livestock and subsequently, livestock producer income. 

Approximately 60 percent of the Ramah Navajo community members who have 

no running water and live far from domestic water systems. The members are using 

water from windmills for domestic use, including drinking water. These sources of 

water are not potable and do not meet any health standards, thus endangering the 

well—-being of community members. The second is supplying water to livestock 

through use of well and windmills. The community cannot depend on water collection in a series of earth stock tanks and diversions in a drought situation. The third 

is providing feed for livestock. The community cannot depend on rangeland, which 

is adversely affected by the drought. 

We are experiencing severe water shortages in the outlying areas of our reservation due to the ill state of repair of our windmill-driven water wells. The BIA originally installed these wells as far back as twenty and thirty years ago and have 

failed to maintain them, thus leading to current water shortage. There are no funds 

available from the BIA, the Chapter or the Navajo Nation to initiate the repairs 

needed to keep our outlying wells in proper operation or to repair and/or upgrade 

wells that are no longer producing efficiently or at all. Repairs and upgrades includes structural repairs, replacement of pumps as needed, upgrading or out-changing power source and pump systems, repairs and segregation to stock troughs and 

spigots to prevent wastage and cross-contamination of potable water, and installation of special isolation conditions adapted filtered tanks for potable water. 

The Chapter has estimated the following total cost of windmill operations and 

maintenance: 

Amount 

Windmill Repair & replacement ........................................................................................................................... $50,000 
460 

Amount 

Domestic Water Development .............................................................................................................................. 30,000 

Livestock Feed Assistance ................................................................................................................................... 20,000 

Total Amount Requested ........................................................................................................................ 100,000 

CIVIC CENTER BUILDING

The Ramah Navajo Chapter House was constructed in the 1950’s of low-grade materials that are beginning to show their age. The cement slab floor is cracking and 

settling; the cinderblock walls have no insulation; the windows (though more recently replaced) are drafty allowing dust, snow, and cold wind to enter the building; 

weathering and staining are apparent; the restrooms’ plumbing is nearly shot and 

need of constant repair; and there is little sunlight or structural aesthetics. Though 

a central government building should be a pride for any community, our Chapter 

House building is in dire state of repair, even though we conduct regular maintenance and upkeep. 

The Chapter government administration is scattered about the Chapter complex 

in portable dilapidated and condemned trailers and mobile homes that has been 

cited by the Environmental Health Service with the IHS. One of these is a fairly 

new metal building but the rest are older converted mobile homes. The one housing 

the offices of the Chapter President and other elected officials is in deplorable condition. 

The proposed facility would include a Civic Center Building for the Community 

Government and Administration Facility with a Wellness Center in the basement. 

The Administrative Facility will provide accommodation for public community meetings. The Wellness Center will accommodate community members to have better 

health through regular aerobic and other therapeutic exercise programs, especially 

for a community with very high diabetes rates that threatens the lives of our members. 

The Chapter estimated the total cost of the Civic Center Building in the following 

budget: 

Amount 

Architectural and engineering fees ..................................................................................................................... $108,000 

Construction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,700,000 

Total Amount Requested ........................................................................................................................ 1,808,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RAMAH NAVAJO SCHOOL BOARD, INC. 

Mr. Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Nancy MartineAlonzo, and I am the President of the Board of Trustees of the Ramah Navajo 

School Board, Inc. (RNSB), which governs the BIA-funded Pine Hill School on the 

Ramah Navajo Reservation in Pine Hill, New Mexico. RNSB administers its federal 

programs under the auspices of the Navajo Nation through contracts under the ‘‘Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act’’ of 1975, as amended (Public 

Law 93–638). My testimony is on the need for Congress to adequately fund BIA 

schools so they will have a fair opportunity to meet the mandates of the ‘‘No Child 

Left Behind Act.’’ 

BIA EDUCATION REORGANIZATION PLAN

The Ramah Navajo School Board (RNSB) requests that Congress direct the BIA, 

through language in the fiscal year 2007 BIA/OIEP budget, to transfer the RNSB/ 

Pine Hill School to the Ramah Navajo Agency, or, in the alternative, to transfer the 

RNSB/Pine Hill School to ‘‘SPA/ELO New Mexico South,’’ under the ‘‘BIA/OIEP Reorganization Plan,’’ 

In 2005, the BIA proposed a Reorganization Plan for the Office of Indian Education Programs whereby OIEP offices and their assigned schools would be reorganized on a national level; held consultation hearings with tribal leaders; finalized 

its Plan; and is now proposing to implement this Plan. Under the proposed Plan, 

the RNSB/Pine Hill School is scheduled to be moved to ‘‘Navajo Nation South 

(Grants NM),’’ along with Alamo Navajo and Tohajiilee Navajo schools. We object 

to this transfer of the Pine Hill School to ‘‘Navajo Nation South’’ for several reasons. 
461 

First, the proposed move is being done despite objections raised by the RNSB 

School Board President during the BIA’s consultation hearings. Second, there is no 

apparent reason for this move other than that Pine Hill is a Navajo community 

school. Third, this move is contrary to local control in Indian education in that the 

expressed wishes of the community are being ignored, once again, by the BIA. 

Fourth, since its founding in 1970, the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., has established a successful relationship with the BIA’s Southern Pueblo Agency (SPA), as 

witnessed by: (a) The growth of the Pine Hill School to a K–12 school with nearly 

500 students; (b) the addition of the four preschool programs of Head Start, FACE, 

Early Intervention and the Child Care Center; (c) the building of the School Farm 

and its Fair & Rodeo Grounds; (d) the establishment of the KTDB Radio Station, 

greatly needed in this rural community; and many other programs for the support 

of the school and community, such as the health clinic, social services, behavioral 

health, college scholarships, adult education, and other services. Therefore, the 

Ramah Navajo School Board respectfully requests that Congress direct the BIA to 

transfer the RNSB/Pine Hill School to the Ramah Navajo Agency or, in the alternative, to the ‘‘SPA/ELO New Mexico South’’ under its Reorganization Plan. 

RAMAH NAVAJO RESERVATION SCHOOL BUILDING

The Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress authorize $5 million for 

the construction of an ‘‘Education Multipurpose Building’’ for the Pine Hill School 

on the Ramah Navajo Reservation at Pine Hill, New Mexico. 

The K–12 Pine Hill School is a BIA-funded Grant School that opened in 1975 and 

serves nearly 500 Ramah Navajo students in its K–12 programs. Since the completion of all the school’s buildings in 1980, there has been no new construction, meaning that all six major school buildings are at least 25 years old and are now in constant need of repair and renovation. 

A new multipurpose school building is needed for the following reasons: First, 

over the past 25 years, school enrollment has greatly increased, which requires us 

to add more classroom space to meet federal and state classroom size requirements. 

Second, new programs and services are continuously being added to the school’s 

services, especially services that we were required or recommended to add in order 

to help us meet standards set under the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act.’’ Third, the new 

‘‘Pine Hill School Dormitory’’ that will open for the 2006–07 School Year will further 

impact school facilities since the new dorm will bring 100 students residing within 

two blocks from the school, instead of 25 miles away in the village of Ramah. These 

students will be using the school buildings during evenings and weekends as well. 

Therefore, a new educational multipurpose building will provide the additional 

space and functional rooms needed by the school’s students, staff and parents. The 

proposed building will include a gymnasium and athletic training room; a computer 

tech room to enable us to link all students, teachers, staff, parents and programs 

electronically, and to keep up with advances in computer technology; administration 

offices; meeting and conference rooms with audio visual conferencing; classrooms for 

distance learning access; a school nurse’s office; a dining area; and the usual support rooms. Our preliminary estimate is for a building of 24,000 square feet for $5 

million. 

BIA SCHOOL OPERATIONS SUPPORT

The Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., requests that Congress increase SEP funding by $7 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget for a total of $360 million, which 

would be at the fiscal year 2006 ISEP funding level. This will raise the WSU level 

to $4,131, $80 more than the fiscal year 2006 level. 

The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) has not received any meaningful 

increases since fiscal year 2002, when Congress increased ISEP by $14 million, 

which resulted in a WSU of $3,916 per student. In fiscal year 2004, ISEP received 

$349 million for a WSU of $3,966; in fiscal year 2005, ISEP was $348 million for 

a WSU of $3.985; in fiscal year 2006, ISEP was $353.5 million for a WSU of $3,974. 

The proposed budget for all School Operations is cut $9 million, from $529.6 million 

to $518.1 million. It is unlikely that the fiscal year 2007 WSU will be increased, 

but will most likely remain at the fiscal year 2006 level of around $4,000. While 

we support the intent of the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act,’’ the cost of meeting the 

law’s mandates has made it difficult financially to reach the standards for BIA 

schools. Needs that have built over the past 40 years continue to plague BIA 

schools, such as transportation, facilities, technology, teacher recruitment and retention, curricula, standards, assessments, parent involvement, fuel cost, and so on. 

Yet, these are all necessary components of education vitally important for American 
462 

Indian students in BIA schools, who now may be even more ‘‘left behind’’ before the 

Act because of inadequate funding. 

It is becoming ever more difficult for BIA schools to recruit and retain qualified 

teachers since we cannot compete with New Mexico’s public school districts, which 

are paying teachers an entry level salary of $31,000, plus sign-on bonuses as high 

as $14,000. And it will become even harder when New Mexico’s proposed threetiered licensure classification system is fully implemented, for then a teacher’s salary schedule will start around $32,000 for Tier I, $45,000 for Tier II, and $50,000 

for Tier III. BIA schools near public school districts will encounter drastic teacher 

shortages when their teachers start to migrate to public schools with these higher 

salaries. BIA schools have to budget, on the average, about 80 percent of their total 

school operation cost for personnel. What is left has to cover the rest of school operations: staff development, school supplies, curricula development, text books, technology, consultants, and extracurricular activities. 

ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

The Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress fund administrative cost grants at 100 percent, or $63.5 million for the fiscal year 2007 budget, and provide 

separate start-up funding for BIA-operated schools converting to new ‘‘grant’’ and 

‘‘contract’’ school status. 

Administrative Cost Grants (ACG) should enable tribes to exercise their self-determination rights guaranteed by Congress under the ‘‘Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act of 1975.’’ (An Act which, by the way, was largely 

based on the initiative and successful grassroots movement in the Ramah Navajo 

community in the late 1960s and early 1970s to establish its own local communitycontrolled school.) Yet, Congress has only once approved Administrative Cost Grants 

at 100 percent for Grant and Contract schools. Consequently, the Self-Determination Act can never be fully realized until Congress funds the program at the 100 

percent level. Until this happens, tribes will have to continue to administer their 

school programs with less support for their schools due to fiscal constraints. 

Administrative Cost Grants funding has gone from 74 percent to 71 percent this 

year. The amount for fiscal year 2004 was $44.6 million; for fiscal year 2005, $44.7 

million; for fiscal year 2006, $44.5 million: and proposed for fiscal year 2007, $44.06 

million. Thus, Administrative Cost Grant funding has decreased $596,000 in four 

years. During that time, four schools became Grant-operated schools and a special 

congressional set-a-side was authorized for their start up costs. However, additional 

set-a-sides were not reauthorized. Administrative Cost Grants are funded at only a 

71 percent, thus creating less ACG grant amounts for schools that have been in the 

system. If more schools become Grant Schools (Public Law 100–297) without any increase in Administrative Cost Grants, the negative impacts becomes greater for existing Contract and Grant schools in the BIA system. 

The negative impact created by the shortfalls is not myth, but reality. Many BIAfunded school boards had to make tough decisions in reductions-in-force, terminating well-trained staff members and consolidating required programs. Some BIA 

schools have even switched to ten-month operations, which imposes more problems 

since there is no time for year-end administrative close-out work and preparation 

for the up-coming school year, not to mention the work required for the annual 

audit. Therefore, the Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress honor 

Public Law 93–638 and Public Law 100–297, which provide that American Indian 

and Alaskan Native entities have the right to operate their own education programs 

with adequate funding through Administrative Cost Grants, and that Congress 

must realize that without adequate funding, BIA schools cannot be expected to succeed or meet the mandates under the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act.’’ 

STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

The Ramah Navajo School Board requests that Congress fund the BIA Student 

Transportation Program to match the national level of $3.67 per mile. 

For the last 25 years, Indian tribes have requested an increase for student transportation funding. The failure of Congress to do so can only be attributed to a failure to fully understand the rural settings and road conditions on most Indian reservations. Every day, many BIA schools run their buses as many as 140 miles crisscrossing between paved and unpaved roads, good and terrible roads, dry and then 

knee deep in mud roads for 180 days a year. Bus transmission and drive line repairs 

are constant problems and the cost associated with school transportation repairs 

and the high cost of gasoline and diesel fuel absorbs most of the student transportation funds before the year is over. Consequently, schools have no choice but to dip 

into their limited ISEP funds to pay for transportation cost since students must be 
463 

transported to the school before any education can begin. This then increases the 

financial burden on the total school operation costs. Some school buses have approached or exceeded 120,000 miles. It used to be that GSA would provide new 

buses after 60,000 miles, but that has not happened for the past 10 years. Since the 2002–03 School Year, BIA-funded schools have received less than $2.20 

per mile: $2.17 per mile in 2002–03; $2.13 per mile in 2003–04; and $2.15 per mile 

in 2004–05. Even with the increased funding in fiscal year 2006, the mileage support will not increase since the total miles increases every year, and it is likely that 

the per mile rate will stay under $2.20 per mile. We do not foresee Congress providing an increase that would enable BIA-funded schools to receive transportation 

support on par with public schools. A level of about $2.20 per mile is anticipated 

for fiscal year 2006, but even this falls far below the nationwide average of $3.21 

that was reported for public schools in 2002. In addition to that amount, public 

schools also receive separate additional funding for fuel and maintenance, whereas 

the funds for BIA-funded schools for transportation covers all expenses associated 

with school transportation. 

On behalf of the Board of Trustees for the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., I 

would like to express our appreciation for your support for Indian education programs. I hope that our testimony will help you better understand the situation of 

American Indian schools at the grassroots level throughout the country. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RIVERS & TRAILS COALITION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Rivers & 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 $10.1 million in fiscal year 2007. 

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 & Trails Coalition formed 

many years ago to support this valuable 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 cooperation of local, state, and federal partners restores rivers and wildlife habitat, 

develops trails and greenway networks, preserves open space, and revitalizes communities—all contributing to improved quality of life and close-to-home recreation. 

RTCA is a very successful and popular program, coordinating nearly 300 projects 

annually. On average, the program partners protect nearly 700 miles of rivers, create more than 1,300 miles of trails, and conserve more than 61,000 acres of open 

space each year. 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. Current demand for RTCA services greatly exceeds the 

program’s capacity. 

In addition to regional trail systems and greenway development, and open space 

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. 

Despite RTCA’s demonstrable successes each year, RTCA funding has remained 

relatively stagnant during the last decade and has lagged well behind the rate of 

inflation. The program’s funding was decreased by $200,000 in fiscal year 2006, resulting in significant cuts to staff and reduced staff participation in on-the-ground 

projects, diminishing essential services of this field-based program. RTCA currently 

has approximately 75 program staff, compared to about 90 staff in 2002. 

RTCA receives .003 of the NPS budget, less than a third of 1 percent of the total 

funding for the National Park Service, yet succeeds in leveraging the federal investment many times over by building partnerships, and securing local and state funding for projects. The RTCA program multiplies the original federal investment in 

both direct funding and in-kind matches from local and state sources. Each year, 

the modest amount of National Park Service funding spent for staff time has helped 
464 

leverage millions of dollars from other sources for its projects. Highly effective and 

cost efficient, the RTCA program is an excellent value for the American taxpayer 

and merits increased funding to accomplish its mission as a community-based NPS 

technical assistance and outreach program. 

The President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2007 calls for a reduction of $500,000 to the RTCA program. The Rivers & Trails Coalition strongly opposes the 

President’s proposed program budget cut of $500,000 and respectfully requests that 

Congress restore funding to this program and increase the program budget by $2 

million to meet the real needs that this program serves. 

The President’s proposed budget cut of $500,000 would reduce overall funding for 

the program to $7.7 million. If the Administration-proposed fiscal year 2007 funding 

level were to be enacted, it would result in severe cuts to this valuable program and 

put many of the projects presently underway at risk. It would result in a further 

loss of staff and likely closure of field offices. RTCA is not a program that should 

be cut by any amount and it actually requires a $2 million increase to redress its 

declining real budget and enable the program to continue and expand upon its successes throughout the country. In 2004, the Senate approved a funding increase of 

$1.5 million, but the entire amount was never approved by the Congress. 

We see evidence in communities across America of the tremendous value of 

RTCA-assisted projects and partnerships, and we can report the unparalleled success of RTCA in bringing greenways, blueways, and creative conservation partnerships to fruition. The requested funding level by the Coalition 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 the National Park 

Service and Congress should 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 

$10.1 million in the fiscal year 2007 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 & Trails Coalition, comprised of the following organizations: The Accokeek Foundation; American Canoe Association; American Hiking Society; American Outdoors; American Rivers; American Society of 

Landscape Architects; American Trails; American Volkssport Association; American 

Whitewater; Appalachian Mountain Club; Association of State Floodplain Managers; 

Bicycle Federation of America; Bikes Belong Coalition; Conservation District of 

Southern Nevada; East Coast Greenway Alliance; International Mountain Bicycling 

Association; Jacksonville Woodlands Association; Land Legacy; Land Trust Alliance; 

League of American Bicyclists; 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; 

Northern Forest Canoe Trail; Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor Coalition; Outdoor Industry Association; Outside Las Vegas Foundation; Parks & Trails New York; Partnership for the National Trails System; Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and 

Rivers; Rails to Trails Conservancy; River Network; Scenic America; South Carolina 

Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association; Student Conservation Association; Trout Unlimited; Walk Boston; Washington 

Area Bicyclist Association; Washington Trails Association; and Washington Water 

Trails Association. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE

The Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture urge the Subcommittee on Interior 

and Related Agencies to appropriate $130 million for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Management Program. We also applaud your leadership in past years 

in securing funding for this vital program at levels significantly above the Administration’s request. 

Our proposed figure would provide a slight increase over the program’s current 

funding level. As a result, the Forest Service could continue programs vital to pro-
465 

tecting America’s forests from highly damaging introduced insects and diseases, including such threats as the Asian long-horned beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak 

death, the hemlock woolly adelgid, and gypsy moth. The Forest Health Management 

program also counters other introduced insects that have attracted less attention, 

but that still damage America’s forests. These include a pathogen killing redbay and 

sassafras trees in coastal Georgia and South Carolina; and several insects and 

pathogens on the islands of Hawai‘i and Guam. 

Such a funding level will also enable the USFS to continue vital support for the 

pest eradication and containment programs carried out by the USDA Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service. Forest Service expertise in the pests’ biology and 

detection and management methodology is crucial to the success of these programs. 

Failure to complete eradication of the Asian long-horned beetle will expose to destruction hardwood forests reaching from New England into Minnesota and smaller 

areas of the West. Particularly threatened are the hardwood timber, maple syrup, 

and autumn foliage tourism industries of the Northeast, and street trees across the 

Nation valued at $600 billion. 

The threat posed by the emerald ash borer is particularly critical. If it spreads 

from Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana to the rest of the country, it could cause 

undiscounted losses of city trees worth $20 to $60 billion. Losses to the timber industry would be $25 billion in Eastern states. It is vitally important that the Forest 

Service effort targeting this insect not be reduced. 

The Forest Service has the lead responsibility for detecting and combating any 

outbreaks of sudden oak death in the hardwood forests of the East. While these detection efforts can be scaled back to some extent after several years of intense surveys, they must not be halted completely as the risk of this pathogen being spread 

by infected nursery plants has not been eliminated. Furthermore, greater vigilance 

is needed to prevent introductions from Europe or elsewhere of other pathogens 

threatening to cause similar levels of damage. 

Finally, the Forest Service needs adequate funding to expand its Early Detection 

project. This program has been responsible for detecting more than a dozen introduced insects, including two which threaten the economically important pine forests 

of the Southeast: the Mediterranean pine beetle and Sirex wood wasp. Steady or increasing funding is necessary to expand this program to cover all states and to develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly damaging wood-boring beetles. 

The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating newly introduced 

forest pests is not the USDA Forest Service, but rather the USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). USDA APHIS falls outside your jurisdiction. 

However, the Subcommittee cannot achieve its goal of protecting the Nation’s forests’ health as long as funding shortfalls undermine USDA APHIS eradication programs. The Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture encourage the Subcommittee 

to work with the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee to find ways to increase 

funding for forest pest line items in the USDA APHIS Emerging Plant Pest account. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

On behalf of our America’s fish and wildlife agencies, I urge the Subcommittee 

on Interior and Related Agencies to support funding in the amount of $85 million 

for the State Wildlife Grants Program in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act. 

The State Wildlife Grants Program is our nation’s core program for keeping wildlife from becoming endangered. State fish and wildlife agencies enjoy a strong partnership with the federal government in managing our nation’s wildlife resources. 

Working together, we are able to ensure robust fish and wildlife populations and 

keep species from declining to the point of becoming endangered. State Wildlife 

Grants is an integral element of this partnership, providing the federal government’s share of support for proactive on-the-ground conservation projects aimed at 

declining fish and wildlife species and their habitats. State Wildlife Grants is not 

just a grants program. It truly is a core program of the Department of Interior for 

advancing a pressing national need. 

The President’s budget includes $74.7 million, an increase of $5 million above the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $68.5 million. We appreciate the Administration’s 

continued support for this program as a core component of their collaborative conservation agenda. 

Although the budget is tight, America’s fish and wildlife agencies are recommending that Congress provide a funding level of at least $85 million in order to 
466 

restore this program back up to the highest level of funding it has ever received, 

in fiscal year 2002. Consistent funding is essential to the long-term success of this 

program, and the completion of wildlife action plans in every state and territory 

only underscores the need for adequate and reliable resources. A funding level of 

$85 million would send an important message about the Congress’s commitment to 

following through on providing the support needed to implement the wildlife action 

plans. We are pleased that 170 Representatives have already formally signed on to 

this commitment in the form of a ‘‘dear colleague’’ and we hope you will match that 

strong demonstration of support. 

We also urge your consideration of additional language to provide an incentive for 

states to cooperate on projects with other states as well as federal agencies when 

implementing the actions in their plans. Allowing implementation projects that include several states working together to implement actions identified in their comprehensive state wildlife strategies at a 75:25 match (vs. 50:50) will provide greater 

benefits to the nation. In addition, allowing federal funds to be used as a match for 

a particular State Wildlife Grants project will encourage greater cooperation between a federal entity within that state and the state wildlife agency in implementing the strategies/plans together. The strategies/plans have the potential to encourage everyone to work together resulting in a greater cumulative impact as well 

as avoiding costly duplication and unnecessary overlap. 

The President’s budget includes a proposal to set aside $5 million of the new 

funds recommended for State Wildlife Grants for a new program of competitive 

grants. While we appreciate the intent to reward effective conservation proposals, 

we believe that the time is not yet right for a new competitive program to be created 

within State Wildlife Grants. The creation of such a program should be predicated 

on the attainment of higher levels of funding. State Wildlife Grants has provided 

a tremendous enhancement to the capacity of every state to address wildlife conservation. While we cannot currently support the creation of a competitive funding 

program, we are committed to making any programs that are enacted by Congress 

a success. If Congress deems that this is an appropriate course of action, we will 

work together with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make it a success. 

In closing, I again extend the appreciation of America’s wildlife agencies for your 

continued support for the state-federal wildlife conservation partnership. We sincerely urge you to provide our requested level of $85 million for State Wildlife 

Grants. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STODDARD CONSERVATION COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $3 million from 

the Forest Legacy Program for the Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond tract in New 

Hampshire. 

Stoddard is a small hilltop town perched on the high, rocky divide between the 

Connecticut and Merrimack River valleys. While its population is relatively small, 

Stoddard is the second largest town in Cheshire County, geographically. Stoddard 

has a long history of sustainable timber management due in large part to the vision 

and forward thinking of the Stoddard Lumber Company’s founder Christopher Robb, 

who is also Robb Reservoir’s namesake. Today the town of Stoddard’s newly prepared Master Plan clearly underscores the importance of maintaining the quality of 

life and protecting the natural resource beauty of the town by protecting important 

blocks of unfragmented forestland, wildlife corridors, and wetlands, including the 

Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond tract. Because of this, the Stoddard Conservation Commission whole-heartedly supports this request for $3 million from the Forest Legacy 

Program to purchase and protect this ‘‘keystone’’ parcel of land. 

New Hampshire’s forests are the economic engine that drives tourism and the majority of manufacturing in the state. Private landowners and industries own eighty 

percent of the state’s forestland. The New Hampshire Forest Legacy Program seeks 

to protect blocks of forestland of varying sizes and values that are threatened by 

conversion to nonforest uses, so that they may provide for the continuation of traditional forest uses. To date, more than 200,000 acres of forestland in New Hampshire 

have been protected through the Forest Legacy Program. 

The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project is a 1,667-acre tract in Cheshire County, 

one of the few areas in southern New Hampshire where large unfragmented blocks 

of forestland can still be found. Protection of the property will link together the 

1,466-acre Willard Pond New Hampshire Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary with two 

other private easements. Altogether these conservation efforts will link a block of 
467 

over 40,000 acres of permanently protected forestland in a densely populated area 

of the state. 

The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond project area has also been identified as a critical 

target for protection due to its ecological value and central location in the Quabbinto-Cardigan Conservation Initiative, an inter-organizational collaborative effort organized to establish a contiguous conservation corridor from the southern White 

Mountains in New Hampshire to the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts. Approximately 75 percent of the property is productive forestland and will be managed to 

provide for sustainable timber production. This property is under considerable development pressure because of its commuting distance to Concord, Manchester and 

Keene. 

Under the terms of a conservation easement, the project area would continue to 

provide public access for hunting, hiking, nature viewing, cross-country skiing, and 

snowshoeing, as well as fishing for warm and cold water species in the North 

Branch River and Robb Reservoir. A network of established recreation trails will 

connect this property to an adjacent trail network at the Audubon wildlife sanctuary. Mountainous portions of the property offer unobstructed views of the reservoir and surrounding mountains, and provide excellent vantage points for wildlife 

viewing. Documented archaeological sites, located along the north branch of the 

Contoocook River, reveal clues to the lifestyle of the Penacook people, who lived on 

this landscape for millennia. A historic Native American travel route, the Kon-wegti-ok Trail, once ran through the property along the river, connecting Native American villages. 

The Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond property is home to diverse and interesting 

plant and animal species. Several state threatened and endangered species have 

been documented on the property including the bald eagle, pied-billed grebe, osprey, 

purple martin, and northern harrier. In addition, a state listed endangered plant 

species, the arethusa, is found growing on the property within the three state designated Exemplary Natural Communities: Atlantic white cedar swamp, southern 

New England level bog, and southern New England acidic seepage swamp. Of these 

three, the Atlantic white cedar swamp is designated as ‘‘critically imperiled’’ due to 

its extreme rarity. In 1991, the north branch of the Contoocook River, which runs 

through the property, was designated as protected by the New Hampshire Rivers 

Management Protection Program. 

New Hampshire has recognized Robb Reservoir/Willard Pond as its number one 

priority for the Forest Legacy Program this year, and $3 million has been included 

for the project in the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget. This year, a total appropriation of $3 million of Forest Legacy funding is needed to acquire and protect the 

1,667-acre Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir property. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support 

of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO OIL & GAS CONSERVATION

COMMISSION

I am writing to urge you to prioritize funding for a project that will streamline 

oil and gas permitting, enhance oil and gas production, and protect the environment 

on federal lands. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would like to take 

advantage of the Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) and associated 

electronic commerce applications developed by the Ground Water Protection Council 

(GWPC). This innovative project will allow western oil and gas producing state 

agencies and the BLM to exchange permitting and other environmental data 

seamlessly. Opening this avenue for data sharing will help the BLM comply with 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 365, Pilot Project to Improve Federal Permit 

Coordination. The BLM, state agencies, and industry all are supportive of this 

project. Please consider appropriating $400,000 for the GWPC to manage the 

project. 

State oil and gas agencies and industry have relied on RBDMS applications to 

store and analyze data to make decisions that result in the best possible balance 

of exploration and environmental considerations. Smaller producers are often in the 

most need of access to the data in such a system because the costs associated with 

regulatory compliance affects them the most. The RBDMS electronic commerce approach is one of the best examples of how government, working with industry, can 

improve both production and environmental protection at the same time. Using this 

system to manage permitting and related data on federal lands will reduce the time, 

cost, and burden for oil and gas producers seeking federal environmental permits 

before drilling or exploration. 
468 

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY

Your support is needed in securing adequate fiscal year 2007 funding for the Bureau of Land Management’s participation in the federal/state Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Program. This important program is vital to the Colorado River 

water, users in San Diego County, as well as to the water users throughout the 

seven-state Colorado River Basin. 

The Colorado River is the primary source of drinking water for more than 3 million people in San Diego County. Excess salinity causes economic damages in the 

San Diego region worth millions of dollars annually. It also hinders local water 

agency efforts to stretch limited supplies by recycling and reusing water. The local 

impacts of excess salinity include: —reduced crop yields for farmers, who produce more than $1 billion of agricultural products in the San Diego region; 

—the reduced useful life of commercial and residential water pipe systems, water 

heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers; 

—the increased household use of expensive bottled water and water softeners; 

—increased water treatment facility costs; 

—difficulty meeting federal and, Califomia wastewater discharge requirements; 

and 

—fewer opportunities for recycling due to excess salt in the product water, which 

limits usefulness for commercial and agricultural irrigation. 

The Salinity Control program has proven to be a very cost-effective approach to 

mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado River. Continued federal 

funding of the Bureau of Land Management’s portion of this important program is 

essential. 

Maintenance of the Colorado River’s water quality through an effective salinity 

control program is an investment that avoids millions of dollars in economic damages caused by excess salinity. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), on behalf of the seven 

Colorado River Basin states, submitted testimony to your Subcommittee requesting 

that Congress appropriate $5,200,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2007 for activities that 

help control salt contributions from BLM-managed lands in the Colorado River 

Basin. The Water Authority agrees with this request, and urges your support for 

these needed funds. 

The Water Authority appreciates your support of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and asks for your assistance in securing adequate funding for 

fiscal year 2007. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SWAN ECOSYSTEM CENTER

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of continued federal investment in the Swan Valley, 

Montana and to specifically urge a fiscal year 2007 $16.2 million appropriation to 

the U.S. Forest Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and 

a $6.2 million appropriation to the State of Montana from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) for the Swan Valley conservation effort. The Swan Valley is unique in 

Montana because land is exceptionally good at growing trees, the rich and diverse 

habitat provides for a diversity of species, and the scenic and recreation amenities 

are superb. The people in the Swan Valley care deeply about this place and need 

help protecting it. 

Swan Ecosystem Center formed in 1996 as an inclusive 501(c)(3) nonprofit community group in the Swan Valley of northwest Montana. Anyone who lives in the 

Swan Valley and participates is a member. Swan Ecosystem Center has an office 

and visitor center in the U.S. Forest Service Condon Work Center through a partnership with the Forest Service. Three full-time staff and 4–7 part-time staff develop programs to meet SEC’s mission, goals and objectives. Volunteers with diverse 

backgrounds and opinions annually contribute over 4,000 hours each year, a substantial commitment from a community of about 900 people. According to surveys, 

most people in the Swan Valley want to protect forests, wildlife and public access. 

This request is an important component of our multi-stakeholder strategy as indicated in the Swan Ecosystem Center Mission: We, citizens of the Upper Swan Valley, Montana, have a self-imposed sense of responsibility to maintain a strong, vital 

community, one involved in setting its own destiny through partnerships that encourage sustainable use and care of public and private land. 
469 

The Swan Valley conservation effort is a cooperative venture among private landowners, public land management agencies, public resource management agencies, 

the community, and non-governmental organizations. These groups are working to 

develop a multi-faceted, long-term conservation strategy that effectively protects the 

significant ecological and recreational resources of the Swan Valley, while promoting 

the sustainable management of the valley’s forest resources. This process has included a science-based assessment of wildlife and fisheries resources, timber productivity, and recreational activities as well as considerable input from a broad base 

of Swan Valley residents. Conservation strategies include: 

—Land and Water Conservation Fund program to protect critical habitat and public recreation opportunities through Forest Service acquisitions. 

—Forest Legacy Program to protect working timberlands with multiple resource 

values through conservation easements and limited acquisitions by the State of 

Montana. 

—Residential land conservation easement program through local land trusts. 

—Habitat Conservation Plan program and other mitigation programs to protect 

core habitat for threatened or endangered species. 

—Special conservation areas to be managed by a nonprofit community group with 

a broad representation of interests and backgrounds. 

—Private foundation funding and investment capital to further conservation objectives. 

This year, five properties totaling 2,680 acres are available for acquisition through 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund to continue the conservation efforts in the 

Swan Valley. The parcels are located within grizzly bear habitat and are important 

for species recovery. Some parcels also contain stream reaches important for bull 

trout habitat and other native species, important habitat for elk and other big game, 

and/or recreation resources important to Montana residents and visitors alike. 

These acquisitions will prevent further fragmentation of forestland ownership and 

land uses, and improve coordinated land management through blocking up of public 

ownership in areas of checkerboard ownership. 

The Swan Forest Legacy Program conservation easements and acquisitions will 

promote a sustainable working forest in the Swan Valley in order to maintain the 

forest-based economy of the Valley by protecting the most productive forestlands 

from conversion to non-forest uses. This year’s proposal helps to protect access to 

public lands, maintain traditional outdoor recreation activities and conserve important wildlife and fisheries habitats. The proposal includes acquisition of 1,655 acres 

of Plum Creek lands within the Swan River State Forest checkerboard area, which 

would be conveyed to the State of Montana for on-going forest management. 

It should be noted that private investment and commitment to conservation in the 

Swan Valley plays a significant role alongside the public conservation efforts. There 

is growing recognition that the conservation resources of the area blanket much of 

the Swan Valley, regardless of land ownership boundaries and that effective resource protection requires a multi-faceted approach. The efforts of private landowners, the Swan Ecosystem Center, other organizations, and private foundations 

are all contributing toward successful implementation of the conservation strategy. 

The funding this committee has most generously provided for fee and easement 

acquisitions in the Swan Valley in previous fiscal years has reduced the checkerboard ownership pattern in the area, protected sensitive habitat and recreation 

lands from development, and protected forestlands from conversion to non-forest 

uses. We are extremely grateful for those past appropriations, and we ask you for 

your continued support as the committee considers the fiscal year 2007 Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriation bill. Please support the Swan Valley Conservation 

Effort. Thank you for the opportunity to present this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STERLING FOREST PARTNERSHIP

On behalf of over 2,000 supporters of Sterling Forest Partnership which advocates 

for the protection of Sterling Forest State Park and its surrounds in both New York 

and New Jersey, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 

fiscal year 2007 Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

In particular, we urge you to provide: 

—Full $10 million funding for the Highlands Conservation Act conservation partnership projects, 

—$1 million for USDA Forest Service technical assistance and research programs 

in the Highlands, and 

—$85 million for the Forest Legacy program. 
470 

Sterling Forest Partnership is an all-volunteer grass roots organization which has 

worked successfully over the past ten years to rally strong support to conserve Sterling Forest State Park lands and the environment of the region. We are a member 

of the Highlands Coalition and together with them strive to conserve priority lands 

in the Highlands region of NY and NJ. 

In the fall of 2004, Congress enacted and President Bush signed the Highlands 

Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance of the more than three-million acre Highlands region as a source of drinking water, productive forests and 

farms, wildlife habitat and recreation within an hour of major metropolitan areas 

including Philadelphia, New York City, Newark and Hartford. The Act authorized 

$10 million annually to assist the Highlands states in conserving priority lands from 

willing landowners, and to continue USDA Forest Service research and assistance 

to private landowners in the Highlands. Under the Act, the states are required to 

match federal funds for land conservation partnership projects on an equal basis to 

greater leverage these funds. However, in the President’s budget for 2007, only $2 million has been included 

as funding for the Highlands Conservation Act which is to support several projects 

in all 4 qualifying states. We urge you to restore full funding of this appropriation 

as authorized in the original act. 

The Governors of the four Highlands States have jointly submitted projects totaling $10 million in need to the Department of the Interior for funding in fiscal year 

2007. Our particular concern is for critical funding for: 

GREAT SWAMP AND STERLING FOREST AREAS (NY)

Cost—$10,600,000 

HCA Request—$2,500,000 

Size—1,300 Acres 

Description 

Arrow Park.—New York requests funds to assist in the acquisition of an addition 

to Sterling Forest State Park. The Arrow Park property is situated adjacent to the 

northeastern corner of Sterling Forest State Park and in close proximity to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. The property contains a highly scenic lake, woodlands and wetlands, as well as significant frontage on Orange Turnpike, a well 

maintained access road. The Arrow Park lake drains into Little Dam Lake, a wetland within Sterling Forest State Park which supports a healthy population of the 

NY State endangered Northern Cricket Frog. Portions of the property were acquired 

in 2002 as additions to the State Park, while the disposition of the remaining 350 

acres was being considered by the owners who are now willing sellers. 

Great Swamp.—New York State requests funds to assist in the acquisition of 

properties that will further protect the Great Swamp, one of New York’s most important wetland complexes and the largest and highest quality red maple hardwood 

swamp in the State. It also contains breeding habitat for more than 80 bird species 

and migratory habitat for more than 150 species of waterfowl and other birds. The 

Great Swamp also contains a south flowing section based on the East Branch 

Croton River, a critical part of New York City’s water supply system; and a north 

flow section based on the Swamp River which flows into the Housatonic and, ultimately, to Long Island Sound. 

We are also very concerned about the proposed cuts to the Land & Water Conservation Fund, which is slated to receive only $85 million in the President’s budget, 

the lowest level of funding in over three decades. Without adequate funding to the 

Highlands Conservation Act, Forest Legacy Program and Land & Water Conservation Fund, precious natural treasures of the Highlands may be developed in this 

rapidly growing area and lost to conservation forever. 

Thank you again for considering our comments on the fiscal year 2007 Interior, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STRONGER, INC. 

The State Review Process is a joint project of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and State-Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. 

(STRONGER) It implements requirements under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), and its prime objective is to improve the environment by 

helping state oil and gas regulatory programs improve their performance. Since the 

first review in 1992, thirty have been conducted of nineteen state regulatory programs representing over 95-percent of U.S. onshore oil and gas production. Recent 

initial reviews have been undertaken in Indiana, Michigan and Virginia. Recent fol-
471 

low-up reviews undertaken include California, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia. A second follow-up review was undertaken in Pennsylvania, with a review currently underway in Kentucky. Additional follow-up reviews are planned for New York in 2006 and Colorado in 2007. These reviews have 

resulted in documented improvement of state programs which identify strengths 

and weaknesses and urge environmental improvements to address those weaknesses. 

The State Review Process is highly valuable. Congress told the industry and the 

states to do exactly what STRONGER does. The Process was developed to implement the conclusions of EPA’s 1987 Regulatory Determination. The Regulatory Determination concluded that direct federal regulation of certain oil and gas exploration and production wastes was inappropriate and unnecessary under the RCRA 

Subtitle C because states were effectively regulating these wastes and the Subtitle 

C structure was not suited to regulation of them. The Determination also concluded 

that reviews of the state programs would assure that they remained effective. The 

Process is unique in that it brings the environmental community, state agencies and 

the industry to work together assisting the states to identify strengths and weaknesses in the programs and urge ongoing environmental improvements. 

Several key aspects of the Process were innovations in regulatory program quality 

improvement in 1990, and remain unique today. They include: 

—That state environmental regulatory programs are reviewed and benchmarked 

against published national Guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs in protecting public health and the environment; 

—That the guidelines standards are stakeholder consensus of the necessary elements of a successful regulatory program, and are developed by the process participants; 

—That the reviews are performed by multiple-stakeholder teams composed of representatives of the regulated industry, other state and federal agencies, and the 

environmental/public interest communities, and are open for public observation; 

—That the reviews address environmental performance, and evaluate state program measurements for their effectiveness in tracking environmental results; 

—That the review reports document program strengths and program areas needing improvement; and make specific recommendations to improve program performance; and, 

—That follow-up reviews are conducted to examine state responses to earlier recommendations and review additional program areas. 

In this spring of 2006, the State Review Process is threatened and unnecessarily 

so. During the Process’ lifetime, funding has been provided by USEPA and the U.S. 

Department of Energy through a USEPA grant and by the American Petroleum Institute (API). In fiscal year 2005, Congress appropriated $300,000 from the EPA 

budget to expand and carry the process forward. STRONGER has demonstrated the 

benefits and substantial cost savings of the State Review Process and received a 

new three-year grant. No fiscal year 2006 funds were provided, and that last grant 

will soon expire. 

For fiscal year 2007 and beyond, STRONGER is requesting programmatic funding. Programmatic funding for STRONGER is entirely appropriate because it recognizes that the State Review Process is an ongoing function of USEPA and is not 

a state or local specific project or activity. Stated within the contexts of this year’s 

appropriations deliberations, its funding should not be included in contemplated 

constraints on earmarked funds, for funds for the Process should never have been 

regarded as earmarks. USEPA funding for this Process should have been among its 

fiscal year 2007 Budget Message requests for customary USEPA programs. For 

whatever reasons, it was not. This is unfortunately the case despite this USEPA 

sponsored program providing a needed and well thought through stakeholder-driven 

process to improve state regulatory program oversight of oil and natural gas exploration and production activity. The exploration and production industry fully supports this program and provides 25 percent of the funding. Ultimately, the best and 

most credible way to fund Congress and EPA’s mandate, which serves the national 

public good, is through public dollars. If the industry’s contribution percentage were 

any higher, the environmental community may well retreat for fear of industry 

dominance; the credibility of the Process would be at stake. Participating environmental organizations are reimbursed for their participation during reviews. 

Therefore, STRONGER requests $300,000 in programmatic funding in fiscal year 

2007 appropriations, this actual amount being needed to sustain the Process’ commitment level and the balanced federal, state, industry and environmental relationships. To ‘‘cut the baby in two’’ here would threaten the entire Process for that reason. 
472 

We are supported in this request by: The Independent Petroleum Association of 

America (IPAA), US Oil & Gas Association, New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, 

Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, Independent Oil and Gas Association of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association, Michigan Oil and 

Gas Association, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, California Independent Petroleum Association, Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, Texas 

Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association, Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association, Kentucky Oil and Gas Association, Illinois Oil and Gas Association, and Association of Energy Service Companies. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAN JUAN WATER COMMISSION

The San Juan Water Commission is requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

The San Juan Water Commission is requesting the Subcommittee’s assistance for 

fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in these 

vitally important programs. Thank you for your past support and please call me at 

505–564–8969 if you have any questions regarding this important issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION

On behalf of Salt Lake City and those cities with urban Indian healthcare facilities, I write to express strong support for full funding of Urban Indian Health Program. There are currently 34 urban Indian healthcare facilities in operation 

throughout the country, and eliminating funding for this program would mean devastating cuts in the provision of services or outright closure of many facilities. 

The Urban Indian Health Program provides critical funding for our local urban 

Indian health facility. Recent data indicates that over 66 percent of all Native Americans live in urban areas. Federal funding for this program is critical to ensuring 

the federal government maintains its commitment to providing quality health care 

services to this important population. The fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $32.7 

million for this program is estimated to be only 22 percent of the total need of this 

population. Further reductions in funding will only serve to further deteriorate 

healthcare services to our urban Indian populations. 

Given the dramatic impact the President’s proposed funding reduction would 

mean to the Urban Indian Health Program, I strongly support its full funding in 

fiscal year 2007. Each year, appropriators must make priority decisions regarding 

the distribution of limited resources against expanding needs. The Urban Indian 

program has provided needed, high-quality, and effective services to our urban Indian populations for many years. 

Thank you for your time and attention to this request. 
473 

LETTER FROM GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, 

February 27, 2006. 

Hon. CONRAD BURNS, Chairman, 

Hon. BYRON DORGAN, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 

Senate. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BURNS AND RANKING MEMBER DORGAN: I am writing this letter 

to request 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 partnership programs 

involve the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests; and have as their dual 

objectives recovery of the four Colorado River endangered fish species while water 

use continues and water development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act, state law, and interstate compacts. I respectfully request your support 

and action by the Subcommittee to provide for the following: 1. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endan- gered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $211,000 within the $5,631,000 item 

entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 2 expenses for managing and implementing the San Juan 

Program’s diverse recovery activities. 2. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; En- dangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to allow 

FWS Region 6 to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same level of funding appropriated 

to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006. 3. 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 2007. 

These two programs rely upon substantial state and other non-federal cost-sharing reflecting strong commitment to these effective partnership efforts and have the 

support of the Department of the Interior, who has pointed to them as national 

models of effective conservation partnerships. The requested FWS appropriations 

will be used in conjunction with other funding to continue vitally important recovery 

program activities. We in New Mexico thank the Subcommittee for your past assistance and again seek the Subcommittee’s assistance again this year to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming federal fiscal year. 

Sincerely, 

BILL RICHARDSON, 

Governor. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

The State of Colorado is an active partner in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Program, both of which have been very successful in working toward recovery of four endangered and threatened fish species in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin while allowing water development to continue. 

Today I request your consideration and support for two items funding these Programs which appear in the President’s Budget for the upcoming fiscal year: 

(1) Appropriation of $697,000 in recovery funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for fiscal year 2007. This appropriation allows the Service to continue 

its participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

The specific designation of this appropriation is under ‘‘Ecological Services Activity; 

Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element’’ and this would appropriate 

$697,000 within the $5,631,000 entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’. 

(2) Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds to the Service’s 

Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah for fiscal year 2007. These specific dollars 

would be appropriated under the Service’s budget designated ‘‘Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery Operations & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project’’. 
474 

Furthermore, I request that your Committee strongly urge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allocate $211,000 in recovery funds to the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program. Such an allocation will allow the Service’s Region 2 offices to pursue ongoing recovery work and undertake new recovery processes as they continue doing the good work of species conservation in the San Juan 

Basin. 

As you know, these programs accomplish the recovery of the four endangered fish 

species while allowing the ongoing water development in the basins. To date, over 

1,000 separate water depletion projects representing over 2.9 million acre feet of 

water per year carry on with these Programs serving as the means of Endangered 

Species Act compliance. Thank you for your help with these important projects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

I am writing to urge you to prioritize funding for a project that will streamline 

oil and gas permitting, enhance oil and gas production, and protect the environment 

on federal lands. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would like to take 

advantage of the Risk Based Data Management System (RBDMS) and associated 

electronic commerce applications developed by the Ground Water Protection Council 

(GWPC). This innovative project will allow western oil and gas producing state 

agencies and the BLM to exchange permitting and other environmental data 

seamlessly. Opening this avenue for data sharing will help the BLM comply with 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 365, Pilot Project to Improve Federal Permit 

Coordination. The BLM, state agencies, and industry all urge support of this project 

and ask that $400,000 be appropriated for the GWPC to manage the project. 

State oil and gas agencies and industry have relied on RBDMS applications to 

store and analyze data to make decisions that result in the best possible balance 

of exploration and environmental considerations. Smaller producers are often in the 

most need for access to the data in such a system because the high cost associated 

with regulatory compliance hits them the hardest. RBDMS is the only comprehensive, fully relational, PC-based, oil and gas regulatory system now in use in many 

state agencies in the country. RBDMS is one of the best examples of how government, working with industry, can improve both production and environmental protection at the same time. Using the highly successful RBDMS program to manage 

permitting and related data on federal lands will reduce the time, cost, and burden 

for oil and gas producers seeking federal environmental permits before drilling or 

exploration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF UTAH, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

I am writing to request your support and assistance to ensure continued funding 

for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These ongoing cooperative partnership programs involve the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests; and 

have as their dual objectives recovery of the four Colorado River endangered fish 

species while water use continues and water development proceeds in compliance 

with the Endangered Species Act, state law and interstate compacts. Utah respectfully requests support and action by the subcommittee that will provide the following: 1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; En- dangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) for fiscal year 2007 to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same 

level of funding appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006. 2. 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 2007. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery 

actions. 

As the subcommittee members know, these two programs rely upon substantial 

state and other non-federal cost-sharing (reflecting strong commitment to these effective partnership efforts) and have the support of the Department of the Interior 
475 

who has pointed to them as national models of effective conservation partnerships. 

The requested FWS appropriations will be used in concert with other funding to 

continue vitally important recovery program activities. I thank the subcommittee for 

their past assistance, and we seek that assistance again this year to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming federal fiscal year. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

I am writing to request your support and assistance in ensuring continued funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. These ongoing cooperative 

partnership programs involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, Indian tribes and federal agencies, as well as water, power, and environmental interests. The dual objectives of these programs are the recovery of the four 

Colorado River endangered fish species while continuing water use and development 

in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, state law, and interstate compacts. 

Wyoming respectfully requests support and action by the Subcommittee that will 

provide the flowing: 1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; En- dangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) for fiscal year 2007 to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same 

level of funding appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. 2. Appropriation of $437,000 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries Activity; Hatchery Operation & Maintenance Subactivity, Hatchery Operations Project) to support the ongoing operation of the FWS’s 

Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2007. 3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expense managing and implementing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery actions. 

As the Subcommittee members know, these two programs rely upon substantial 

state and other non-federal cost-sharing (which reflects strong commitment to these 

effective partnership efforts) and have the support of the Department of the Interior. DOI points to these programs as nation models of effective conservation 

partnering. The requested FWS appropriations will be used in concert with other 

funding to continue vitally important recovery program activities. Wyoming thanks 

the Subcommittee for its past assistance. We seek that assistance again this year 

to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming federal fiscal year. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SHOSHONE-PAIUTE TRIBES

I write to support the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ request for full funding of indirect 

contract support costs in fiscal year 2007 (and for a technical correction to the appropriations language); to ask that the Committee closely scrutinize and correct the 

failure of the Indian Health Service to make a comparable request for added contract support; and to request that the Committee press Secretary Leavitt to finally 

settle the outstanding five year old Zuni contract support litigation before Tribes 

witness a repeat of the Cobell litigation. 

While we share many criticisms across Indian country over the BIA’s Budget, one 

bright spot is the Bureau’s recognition after last year’s Supreme Court Cherokee decision that contract support costs are a contract obligation that must be paid. As 

the Supreme Court said, all government contracts, including contracts with Tribes, 

are legal obligations that cannot simply be ignored. The BIA has gone out of its way 

in a very difficult budget climate to correctly prioritize payments under those contracts, payments that will benefit every Tribe in the Nation. 

By contrast, IHS has utterly failed to meet its legal obligations to Tribal contractors. This is particularly shocking given that the Secretary and IHS lost the Cherokee decision and have had more than a year to make necessary adjustments. 

NIHB, NCAI and Tribal leaders have repeatedly urged IHS to prioritize full funding 

of contract support costs, and the failure to do so risks further litigation in the years 

ahead. 

Finally, the time has come for the Secretary and IHS to settle all outstanding contract support cost claims. The Supreme Court has spoken. The liability is clear. The 

shortfall amounts are known. And yet, HIS is now fighting CSC claims more vigorously than ever, as if protecting the Treasury were more important than honoring 
476 

legal obligations owed the Tribes. Before the ongoing litigation becomes another 

Cobell for Indian country, I ask that the Committee bring its influence to bear so 

that these historic claims might at long last be resolved. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN, NEWRY OWNER, SUNDAY RIVER

INN, BETHEL, MAINE

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $2 million from 

the Forest Legacy Program for the Grafton Notch, Maine’s #1 Forest Legacy Project 

this year. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2007 includes a recommendation of 

$2 million for Grafton Notch. 

Programs that fulfill ‘‘essential priorities’’ is what President Bush called the areas 

that would get funding in his federal budget for 2007. My neighbors and I were 

pleased and proud to see that Maine’s top conservation priority, Grafton Notch, was 

also the Bush administration’s top Forest Legacy priority in the country. The Forest 

Legacy Program helps states conserve private forests and maintain traditional forest uses, such as timber production and recreation. 

Recently, 112 Bethel area residents turned out to attend the first public meeting 

dealing with the fate of Grafton Notch and the Mahoosuc Range, the spine of the 

Appalachian Mountains running out of eastern New Hampshire into western Maine. 

They represented a cross-section of Maine, a multi-generational group from every 

walk of life. All in attendance shared feelings of enthusiasm and pride in the fact 

that the Grafton Forest project led the list of Forest Legacy projects and expressed 

a desire to protect the Mahoosucs and our rural way of life. We are a community 

that continually comes together to develop and support our vision for conserving forests and our forest-based local economy, and the Grafton Notch project represents 

a successful outcome of our collaboration. 

Residents of communities in western Maine realize that the 3,688 acres of the 

Grafton Forest are essential to keeping the new 42-mile Grafton Loop Trail intact, 

and preserving the east slope of Old Speck Mountain and a renowned section of the 

Appalachian Trail. Mainers have long recognized the importance of this parcel as 

an outlot in a mosaic of otherwise conserved lands in the heart of the rapidly developing western Maine mountains. The parcel is virtually surrounded by over 27,000 

acres of other conservation lands, including the Grafton Notch State Park. 

The effort to protect this wild link between New Hampshire’s North Country and 

Maine’s North Woods has brought conservation groups, community and business 

groups and individual citizens together in an innovative collaboration focused on reinforcing connections between economic vitality, quality of life, and land protection. 

This portion of the North Woods is dotted with small towns where a relatively large 

proportion of jobs are directly related to timber harvesting and processing. Under 

the long-term ownership of wood products companies, the North Woods have long 

supported local jobs and small businesses through harvesting, wood products manufacture and outdoor recreation. Living close to the land has also shaped a way of 

life as generation after generation grew up hunting, fishing, camping, hiking and 

canoeing in the industrial forests where owners gave the public the gift of access 

to their lands. Now, with large-scale economic changes underway in the forests, 

these rural communities are facing a more uncertain future, both in terms of job 

creation and impacts to quality of life. 

As owner of an inn focused on serving outdoor enthusiasts from hard core 

backcountry skiers and whitewater canoeists to wildflower seekers and bird watchers. The forests, rivers, streams and mountains of Western Maine are the essential 

resources that attract our guests and enable us to educate and entertain them as 

we guide them through the area. The fact that 75 percent of our guests return, 

many for years and years, is testament to their enjoyment of our surroundings and 

our ability to interpret the value of those surroundings to them. In fact, the entire 

economy of this area is dependent upon the continued existence of large blocks of 

undeveloped land where the pursuits of forestry, recreation, education and relaxation can coexist. The Grafton Forest is an integral part of the conservation mosaic 

that will insure that these activities and business opportunities are available to our 

neighbors and guests and to future generations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony to your 

Subcommittee on behalf of the Grafton Notch Forest Legacy project. 
477 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SKYLINE SPORTSMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of the Skyline Sportsmen’s Association of Butte, Montana, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present this testimony in support of a $2.6 million appropriation from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund for the second phase of the Selway Creek conservation 

project in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. 

Skyline Sportsman’s Association has been at the forefront of conservation in 

Southwest Montana for many years. Skyline’s early activity included reintroducing 

elk to western mountain ranges and continues today in efforts to maintain habitat 

for wildlife and hunting opportunities. 

Organized into nine separate units, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in 

southwest Montana covers over 3.3 million acres and is the largest national forest 

in the state. Lying in eight southwest Montana counties, the forest blends stunning 

11,000-foot mountain peaks with renowned blue-ribbon fly-fishing streams that have 

cut deep valleys into the lush landscape. The result is an enormous public playground that begins in the semi-arid grassland foothills, climbs up to the coniferous 

forests of lodegpole pine and Douglas fir, and culminates in the peaks of the Bitterroot and Centennial ranges. An extensive system of roads and trails makes it easy 

for visitors to make their own discoveries and adventures within the forest, such as 

it’s wilderness trekking in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, driving the Pioneer Mountains Scenic Byway, or camping in one of the fifty campgrounds in the forest. Campers, anglers, hikers, skiers, equestrians, snowmobilers, and many others enjoy 1,500 

miles of trails, 155 high mountain lakes, 1,050 miles of great fishing streams, two 

wilderness areas, numerous picnic and boating sites, two downhill ski areas, and 

250 miles of groomed snowmobile trails. 

Located approximately 35 air miles west of Dillon within the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest is the 1,240-acre Selway Creek Property. In the second 

phase of this project, approximately 873 acres are now available for acquisition. The 

property is part of the Dragging Y Ranch—one of the largest cow-calf operations in 

the northern Rockies. It has extraordinary scenic, recreation, wildlife and fisheries 

values and is the number one land acquisition priority for the forest. It also includes 

a large wetland system and approximately three and a half miles of Selway Creek, 

an extremely productive fishery with large populations of brook and rainbow trout. 

The creek and its many tributaries are regarded by local fishermen as some of the 

best fly-fishing waters in the local area. It also provides an important food source 

for bald eagles, which can often be seen flying up and down the valley patrolling 

for fish. Occupying a long, lush valley bottom, the Selway property also provides exceptional habitat for deer and elk, particularly in the calving season, which generally lasts from May to July. During this period, more than 200 head of elk can 

often be seen on the property at the same time. Other animals routinely occupying 

or migrating through the Selway property include pronghorn antelope, black bear, 

moose, and an occasional gray wolf. 

It should be noted that this project includes two separate conservation easements, 

which the owners will make available for purchase once the second phase of the 

Selway Creek purchase is complete. One of these easements would be placed on a 

nearby 1,381-acre property known as the Hilger Ranch, which includes a two-mile 

stretch of Horse Prairie Creek and some of the best riparian bottomland in the local 

area. The other easement would be placed on a 7,249-acre property known as the 

Knox Ranch, which is located approximately 20 miles south of Dillon. Both easements would conserve incredible wildlife habitat and allow public hunting access 

every fall. No additional federal funding will be required for either of these easement purchases, but the impact on the broader landscape will be enormous. However, without the federal funding needed to complete the Selway purchase, this 

broader resource protection opportunity will be lost. 

An appropriation of $2.6 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 

fiscal year 2007 is needed to complete the second and final phase of this property’s 

acquisition and to ensure that 1,240 acres of prime wildlife habitat and recreation 

lands within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF are forever preserved. It would also 

serve as a catalyst in conserving 8,630 additional acres of private ranchland in nearby area. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.6 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

for the second phase of the Selway Creek conservation project in Montana. 
478 

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 2007 proposed budget for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly federal grants to 

state and local air quality agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air 

Act. STAPPA and ALAPCO are extremely concerned that EPA’s proposed $35.1 million cut—16 percent—in grants to state and local agencies will be devastating and 

will impair our ability to provide clean, healthful air throughout the country. Accordingly, our associations recommend that Congress restore this funding and increase the budget request by at least $35.1 million, for a total of $220.3 million. Additionally, grants for the PM monitoring program should not be shifted from Section 

103 authority to Section 105. 

STAPPA and ALAPCO are the national associations of air quality officials in 53 

states and territories and over 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, on the frontlines of implementation, must work to limit or prevent emissions of many pollutants, such as 

particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone and toxic air pollution. They must implement activities designed to reduce those pollutants and protect public health and 

welfare, including, among many others, monitoring air quality, developing emissions 

inventories, preparing State Implementation Plans, permitting sources, inspecting 

facilities, enforcing regulations, educating the public and responding to citizens’ 

complaints. 

Our concern about the effects of the proposed funding cuts is shared by many 

members of the United States Senate. In fact, a bipartisan group of 33 Senators 

sent a letter on April 7, 2006 to Senators Conrad Burns and Byron Dorgan of this 

Subcommittee urging that funding for state and local air grants be restored to 

$220.3 million in fiscal year 2007 and that funds for PM monitoring not be shifted 

from Section 103 authority to Section 105. 

AIR POLLUTION IN AMERICA

While great strides have been made in reducing levels of air pollution, millions 

of Americans continue to breathe unhealthful air. Over 160 million tons of pollution 

are emitted annually in this country and more than 150 million people live in areas 

that violate at least one of the six health-based National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). Fine PM 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. 

There are many other pollutants that threaten the health of the public. New information just released as part of EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment presents 

a very troubling picture about the prevalence of toxic air pollutants. For example, 

when the cancer risks from all air toxics compounds listed as known, probable or 

possible carcinogens based on human data are combined, EPA estimates that more 

than 270 million people live in census tracts where the combined upper-bound lifetime cancer risk exceeded 10 in one million risk (one in one million risk is generally 

considered acceptable). Additionally, more than 92 percent of the population in this 

country lives in areas with ‘‘hazard index’’ values for respiratory toxicity greater 

than 1.0 (with 1.0 being the level above which adverse effects to the respiratory system occur). 

FUNDING FOR STATE AND LOCAL AIR GRANTS

State and local air pollution control programs are funded through state and local 

appropriations, the federal permit fee program under Title V of the Clean Air Act, 

state and local permit and emissions fees, and federal grants under Sections 103 

and 105 of the Clean Air Act. Section 103 has usually funded specific monitoring 

efforts, 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 
479 

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. 

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 close to $600 million annually. However, the fiscal year 2006 budget for 

state and local air quality grants under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act 

was $220.3 million, which is far short of the amount needed. Furthermore, over the 

past decade, federal grants for state and local air agencies to operate their programs 

(not including the Section 103 monitoring program) have decreased by 25 percent 

in terms of purchasing power (based upon U.S. Department of Labor inflation statistics). 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 PROPOSED BUDGET

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request not only fails to provide necessary additional funds, but would decrease state and local grants by $35.1 million (16 percent), from $220.3 million to $185.2 million in the following manner: (1) $15.6 million from the Section 105 grant program; (2) $17 million from the Section 103 fine 

particulate monitoring program (also, under the fiscal year 2007 budget request, the 

funds remaining in the fine particulate monitoring program—$25 million—would be 

funded under the Section 105 authority, rather than the Section 103 authority, so 

state and local agencies would have to provide additional matching funds, pursuant 

to Section 105 requirements); and (3) $2.5 million from the regional planning organizations. 

BUDGET CUTS WOULD SEVERELY UNDERMINE STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY EFFORTS

Cuts of this magnitude would severely hamper state and local efforts to provide 

important public health protections. The reductions would be detrimental to critical 

efforts to reduce ozone, small particle and toxic air pollution, enforcement and compliance activities, monitoring and a host of other programs that are key to improving and preserving healthful air quality. The impacts of the cuts would be further 

exacerbated by the budget’s proposal to shift grants in the PM monitoring program 

from Section 103 authority (which does not require a 40-percent match) to Section 

105 authority. Under the budget proposal, state and local agencies would need to 

supply additional funds in order to accept the federal grants. 

State and local air quality agencies face several very important new requirements 

that will be costly to implement. For example, EPA has designated over 475 counties across the nation as nonattainment for the PM and ozone air quality standards. 

States must develop and submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) by 2007 and 

2008, identifying specifically how those areas will meet the health based standard 

by the deadlines. 

Very recently, STAPPA and ALAPCO asked state and local air agencies to estimate the real-world ramifications of a 16-percent budget cut to their programs. The 

associations compiled those estimates into a report entitled, Impact of Proposed fiscal year 2007 Budget Cuts on State and Local Air Quality Agencies (March 14, 

2006), which paints a vivid picture of the difficulties state and local air agencies 

would have accommodating such deep cuts. This report has been provided to each 

member of the Appropriations Committee and additional copies are available from 

STAPPA/ALAPCO (www.4cleanair.org). 

The report contains alarming information about what the proposed budget could 

mean for air agencies. If the proposed reductions occur, on average, each state will 

lose $700,000 (i.e., an average reduction of approximately $340,000 in fine particulate monitoring and $360,000 from the other elements of the air quality program). 

While some agencies will experience greater or lesser reductions than the average, 

all agencies will likely be affected by these decreases. 

Most state and local agencies reported that they would be forced to lay off staff 

or leave current vacancies unfilled. This loss of staff and expertise is very significant 

because, even if there are budget increases in future years, the trained personnel 

that leave the agency would likely be unavailable to the agency in the future and 

training new staff would be very costly. 

Many agencies reported that they would have to shut down existing monitors or 

otherwise curtail their monitoring programs. Many also reported that the reductions 

would impair their ability to conduct inspections and carry out enforcement activities, thus rendering the clean air requirements less effective. Additionally, permits 
480 

for non-Title V sources (e.g., minor sources) will take longer to process and customer 

service will diminish. 

The funding cuts could seriously impair the ability of state and local agencies to 

prepare new plans for implementing ozone and PM standards. The development of 

effective State Implementation Plans (SIPs) is essential to ensure that measures 

will be adopted that reduce air pollution and protect public health. Without funds 

to develop and carry out the SIPs, several areas currently meeting the standards 

may no longer attain them. Not only would air quality worsen, but nonattainment 

areas are subject to more onerous requirements. 

Several agencies noted that they could be forced to return portions of their programs to EPA due to a lack of funds to carry them out. Not only will this place 

excessive burdens on EPA, but there would be an additional loss of resources for 

the air program as state and local funds that are currently leveraged as part of the 

matching requirements would no longer be spent on those Clean Air Act activities. 

The budget cuts would be further exacerbated by the proposal to shift the fine 

particulate monitoring program from Section 103 to Section 105 authority, requiring 

a 40-percent match. Some agencies do not currently have additional funds for the 

match. Because of two-year legislative cycles or the timing of budget development, 

some agencies can not supply additional matching funds without a reasonable transition period in which to make adjustments. They could be forced to turn away 

grant funds. 

Perhaps most troubling of all, if the proposed reductions occur, several local air 

quality agencies face the very real possibility of having to close their operations entirely. This would be a terrible loss for those local areas. 

CONCLUSION

The proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 calls for a significant reduction in Section 103 and 105 grants at the same time that the workload of state and local air 

agencies is dramatically increasing. Such cuts will have a devastating effect on 

many state and local air agencies’ programs. We understand that the federal budget 

is finite and Congress must make very difficult choices. However, air pollution poses 

a very serious threat to public health and the environment. In fact, we are not 

aware of any other environmental problem that presents a greater risk. The benefits 

of air quality programs have been estimated to exceed their costs many times over. 

Therefore, when establishing priorities for federal funding, it is prudent to identify 

the improvement and protection of air quality as one of the government’s highest 

priorities. 

STAPPA and ALAPCO recommend that the fiscal year 2007 budget for federal 

grants to state and local air quality agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the 

Clean Air Act be increased above the President’s request by at least $35.1 million 

(from $185.2 million to $220.3 million), restoring it to the final fiscal year 2006 

level. Additionally, grants for the particulate monitoring program should not be 

shifted from Section 103 authority to Section 105. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of our recommendations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SKOKOMISH TRIBE

My name is Gordon James, I am Chairman of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington 

State. The Skokomish Indian Reservation is a rural community located at the base 

of the Olympic Peninsula with a population of over 1,000 people. The Skokomish 

Tribe appreciates the work of the Subcommittee and ask that you provide funding 

in areas that are key to the continuing development of tribal communities: Law Enforcement and Education. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Skokomish Tribe requests increased funding for law enforcement programs 

within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

In the last ten years, the Skokomish Tribal Police Department has grown from 

one (1) untrained officer, to a force of thirteen (13) Washington State/BIA certified 

law enforcement officers. In addition, the Skokomish Tribe’s Public Safety Department provides the only marine law enforcement and rescue services in a thirty-five 

mile radius of the southern Hood Canal. The Police Department works very closely 

with non-Tribal law enforcement agencies to combat the scourge of drug trafficking 

in this isolated rural area. These Tribal officers play a key role in the detection and 

bust of methamphetamine labs on the Reservation. 
481 

The Tribe experienced a significant growth in the Reservation’s population during 

the 1980s and early 1990s. Along with the increased population, the Skokomish Indian Tribe experienced an alarming increase in the extent and severity of drug 

abuse among the residents of the Reservation. According to data from the Tribe’s 

Alcohol Service Program, more than 53 percent of young adults ages 18–24 are presently impacted by drug abuse dependency. Unfortunately, along with increased drug 

use, the community has had to endure a significant escalation in associated crimes, 

including drug manufacturing and selling, armed assaults, domestic violence, and 

burglary. In the last six months, the Tribe’s officers have responded to 1,800 calls, 

which resulted in 300 arrests—many involving non-Indian people. More than onethird of these arrests involved substance abuse. It is clear to the community and 

the partnership of law enforcement personnel and agencies involved that if the 

Tribe is forced to close its department, this rural community will become a haven 

for drug manufacturing and selling, and associated crimes. 

Despite the growth in law enforcement need, there has not been a corresponding 

growth in law enforcement funding. The Skokomish Tribe is not receiving an appropriate share of funding from the BIA, as compared to other Tribes in the state. To 

address this we ask that Congress increase this funding overall. 

EDUCATION

The BIA is proposing the elimination of Johnson O’Malley funding. The Johnson 

O’Malley program provides funding to local public schools to provide outreach and 

academic assistance to Indian children attending these schools. At Skokomish we 

have a number of children who attend two public schools. Hood Canal Elementary 

and Jr. High and Shelton High School. Both are public schools, and without the 

JOM program, we could not track or assist our children to succeed academically. We 

believe the JOM funding is money well spent and we would urge Congress to maintain funding for this Program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

The Southwestern Water Conservation District was established by the Colorado 

General Assembly in 1941 to conserve and protect the water of the San Juan and 

Dolores Rivers and their tributaries in nine counties in Southwest Colorado. Therefore, we are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the San Juan River Basin Recovery 

Implementation Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 

3. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTH YUBA RIVER CITIZENS LEAGUE

The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) appreciates the opportunity to 

present this testimony in support of a $2.5 million appropriation from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund for the Tahoe NF Middle Yuba projects. 

SYRCL was established in 1983 as a river education and advocacy group and was 

legally incorporated as a 501(c)3 organization shortly thereafter. SYRCL has an annual operating budget of over $800,000 and is regarded as a highly-effective and 

multi-faceted watershed organization regionally, state-wide and nationally. In 2003 

Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger awarded SYRCL the ‘‘Governor’s Environmental 

and Economic Leadership Award’’ in the area of ‘‘watershed and ecosystem restoration.’’ With a membership base of 5,000 people and mission of protecting the 1,300 
482 

square mile Yuba Watershed, SYRCL serves scores of small rural communities as 

well as rapidly expanding towns and cities in the Sierra Nevada mountains. 

In fiscal year 2007, lands important to SYRCL are available for acquisition in the 

Tahoe National Forest: 

Middle Yuba (Phase I).—Twenty-one parcels of land, covering over 4,000 acres, 

are available for acquisition over the next two years in the vicinity of the Middle 

Yuba River in Sierra and Nevada Counties. The first phase of this project calls for 

the acquisition of eleven parcels, consisting of approximately 2,550 acres in fiscal 

year 2007. According to Forest Service biologists, there have been bald eagle 

sightings nearby, and the area has historically served as spotted owl territory. The 

Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) crosses one of the parcels and this higher-elevation mixed 

conifer forest is especially popular with PCT hikers. In addition to its recreational 

values, these parcels provide riparian corridor habitat for numerous species, not 

only along the Middle Yuba, but also along key tributaries of the North Yuba River, 

such as Milton Creek. Acquisition of these important lands can go forward with a 

$2.5 million appropriation from the Land Water Conservation Fund. 

The first phase of this project can be acquired with an appropriation of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2007. Once protected, they will help ensure public access, critical 

habitat protection, and water protection in the High Sierra. I urge you to include 

this project in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PENOBSCOT NATION OF THE STATE OF MAINE

Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan and Honorable Subcommittee Members, thank you very much for accepting and reviewing the testimony of the Penobscot Nation of the State of the Maine. The Penobscot Nation’s specific requests for 

the fiscal year 2007 Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs budget includes 

$250,000 for the Tribe’s Wildlife Management Program, to fund four full-time game 

wardens, $150,000 for Community Fire Protection, and $100,000 for Economic Development. 

The Penobscot Nation has a number of serious concerns with the Administration’s 

proposed fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. While the President proposed a nominal increase of $4.4 million to overall Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), 

a number of programs that are of vital importance to the Penobscot Nation would 

be decreased or even completely eliminated, including the Community Fire Protection Program. The Penobscot Nation, as do most tribal communities, relies heavily 

upon BIA funding to support their essential community needs, such as fire protection, law enforcement, education, and housing, among other things. Further, the Penobscot Nation is working on several economic development projects with the anticipation that they will come to fruition and the economic gains will assist us in attaining our ultimate goal of self-sufficiency. However, if Congress enacts the proposed budget reductions, all of our already strained resources will once again be expended on maintaining limited basic human needs with no community hope of 

achieving the ‘‘American Dream’’ or more importantly, our ‘‘Self-Sufficiency Dream’’. 

What is more, Congress must consider the impact of inflationary costs. We direct 

your attention to the ‘‘Quiet Crisis—Federal Funding and Unmet Needs In Indian 

Country’’ a report prepared by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2003. After 

a detailed analysis, the Commission concluded that funding for programs for Indian 

tribes simply has not kept up with spending for non-native programs, or with the 

increase in population growth in Indian country. Specifically, for BIA the Commission noted that, when adjusting for inflation, the impact of TPA funding shortfalls 

becomes more evident as the TPA budget has diminished the real spending power 

of tribal governments dramatically. 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 flat spending or reductions make it impossible for tribal governments to continue to operate programs that the Federal government has a legal obligation through treaties, settlement acts, and statues to provide. Tribal self-determination will be endangered if these reductions are enacted. 

Tribes, like the Penobscot Nation, who have no other funding sources to pay for the 

program operational shortfalls may be left with no alternative but to consider retrocession of these programs. Under the Indian Self-Determination Act we can retrocede a program we are operating 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. We can assure 

you there is no way they could operate these programs at the funding levels they 

are providing to us. 
483 

Specific concerns regarding the proposed fiscal year 2007 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

budget are as follows: 

Wildlife Management Program.—Under the Maine Indian Land Claims Settlement Act of 1980, the Penobscot Nation has exclusive jurisdiction over lands held 

in trust for the Tribe by the United States. With a recent acquisition of 26,000 acres 

in trust, the Penobscot Nation now has approximately 100,000 acres of land in trust. 

However, the Tribe only has funding sufficient to employ two full-time game wardens to enforce tribal fish and wildlife regulations on our lands. The Penobscot Nation has a severe need for additional funding, in the amount of $250,000, to employ 

four additional full-time game wardens to help protect our fish and wildlife resources. As anecdotal evidence of the acute need for increased regulation on our 

lands, the first day tribal game wardens patrolled our recently-acquired lands they 

issued five citations for violations of tribal fish and wildlife regulations. There are 

also homeland security concerns, as three years ago a tribal game warden incarcerated five individuals crossing the border from Quebec at Alderstream, one of whom 

was on the U.S. terrorist’s list. 

Fire Protection.—One major concern that the Penobscot Nation has regarding the 

fiscal year 2007 BIA budget pertains to the proposed total elimination of the Community Fire Protection program. Proposed elimination of this program directly contradicts the Department of Interior’s Strategic Plan (2003–2005) which clearly identifies it as one of its four missions to provide for the ‘‘Protection of Lives, Resources, 

& Property’’. Certainly, the BIA’s Community Fire Protection contributes to fulfilling this mission. 

Currently, the Penobscot Nation’s BIA funding for Community Fire Protection is only $70,000. This inadequate funding level provides only enough funds to pay for 

1 part-time firefighter and minimal operational costs, such as insurance, fuel, equipment/vehicle maintenance, and fire pagers. Over the last few years, it has become 

increasingly evident that the Penobscot Nation’s population and infrastructure has 

grown to the extent that it warrants a full-time fire department. The Penobscot Nation has approximately 300 single-family homes which house approximately 545 

people, 16 elderly apartments, a school with 100∂ students in attendance, a six bed 

assisted living complex, and six tribal buildings housing approximately 125 employees. Additionally, we are currently in the planning stages of building 15 new single 

family homes. 

In addition to our infrastructure growth, it has become progressively more difficult to operate the fire department on a volunteer basis. Many of the volunteers 

have outside employment obligations and are not available to attend fire calls 

throughout the day. Additionally, many of these volunteer firefighters have lost 

their required firefighter certifications because of their inability to attend the required training sessions. In realizing that the Penobscot Nation was unable to provide adequate fire protection to our community because of inadequate funding, we 

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. Further, at this meeting the mutual-aid agreement between Old Town and 

the Penobscot Nation was reviewed and we were reminded that this agreement contained a provision that affirmed we would be responsible for providing 4 full-time 

firefighters for fire calls. Currently, we are unable to comply with this provision and 

are potentially jeopardizing this mutual-aid agreement. The Penobscot Nation’s requests that funding for the Community Fire Protection Program be restored and an 

additional $150,000 be added to our TPA Base to provide for the protection of the 

lives, resources, and property or our people and our government. These funds will 

be utilized to employ full-time firefighters. 

Economic Development.—Presently, economic development within our community 

is non-existent and it’s an on-going challenge each day in determining how to pay 

for basic essential community services. Furthermore, with the escalating decline in 

federal funding it is becoming increasingly more evident that our community’s welfare relies upon our own self-sufficiency. The Penobscot Nation is currently working 

on several economic development projects, including a Mail-Order Pharmacy Service 

and a Native American Manufacturing Initiative. The Penobscot Nation is confident 

that these projects have the potential to change our devastating economic conditions. In fact, the State of Maine in recognizing the tribe’s economic plight and potential of these projects, is being supportive and is working with us. They have assisted us in obtaining State grant funds for both the Mail-Order Pharmacy Service 

and the Native-American Manufacturing Initiative. In the latter instance, the Maine 

Technology Center is helping us to try and obtain government contracts in the manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, the State of Maine is dealing with its own budget crisis and can only provide very limited financial resources. 
484 

However, in developing both of these projects it has become apparent that the Penobscot Nation needs an Economic Development Specialist. Regrettably, we have 

not been able to secure the financial resources to employ such a person and are 

presently forced into relying upon existing staff to perform this function. However, 

these staff persons do not have the expertise or required time to devote to these economic development initiatives. Therefore it is imperative for the successful development of these projects and other economic ventures that we secure funding to employ a full-time Economic Development Specialist. Once these two economic development ventures are realized the Penobscot Nation will be financially capable of retaining the Economic Development Specialist. 

The Penobscot Nation requests that one-time funding in the amount of $80,000 

be added to their BIA TPA to obtain a full-time Economic Development Director. 

We feel confident that this funding will assist us in achieving our ‘‘self-sufficiency’’ 

goal, including our ability to retain this position. 

Direct Contract Support.—The Penobscot Nation applauds the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs for taking positive steps toward proposing a policy that recognizes contract 

support costs associated with tribal Self-Determination programs and for taking 

similar approaches taken by the Indian Health Service, particularly with regards to 

direct contract support costs. However, the Penobscot Nation supports the recommendation of the National Contract Support Cost Policy Work Group (composed 

of tribal and Bureau representatives) to utilize existing Awarding Officials in the 

negotiation of ‘‘direct contract support cost’’ instead of BIA proposal to utilize the 

National Business Center (NBC). This concern relates to staffing and the cost of implementing the policy. 

With the number of tribes operating Bureau programs under the Indian Self-Determination Act, it would be extremely difficult for the NBC to negotiate the agreements in a timely manner. Not only are there a sufficient number of Awarding Officials, but they are more knowledgeable of the true costs associated with operating 

Self-Determination programs than are officials at NBC. We are also opposed to the 

Bureau’s use of contract support funds to pay the NBC for performing this function. 

Our second recommendation concerns a ‘‘transition period’’ strategy. We propose 

the Bureau adopt an approach similar to that used by the Indian Health Service 

in adopting a formula that essentially represents 15 percent of direct salaries in the 

initial year then allowing tribes to renegotiate their ‘‘direct contract support costs’’ 

amounts in subsequent years. This approach will: (1) ease the burden of negotiating 

‘‘direct contract support cost’’ amounts in the initial year and in subsequent years; 

(2) reduce the amount of funding required to implement the new policy; (3) allow 

the Bureau, Department and tribes to seek increased appropriations for ‘‘direct contract support costs’’, and (4) allow the Bureau and tribes to become familiar with 

the new policy. Again, we commend BIA commitment to establish an annual Contract Support Cost Work Group and its commitment to collect data and prepare an 

annual contract support cost shortfall report. However, we are requesting your assistance in directing the Bureau of Indians to move forward in adopting a Contract 

Support Policy with meaningful consultation with the Tribes. 

Finally, the Penobscot Nation would like to see the integration of employee fringe 

benefits into the calculation of direct contract support costs. This is another area 

where parity between tribal and non-tribal funding for similar programs and functions is necessary. 

The Penobscot Nation appreciates the opportunity to express their concerns pertaining to the proposed fiscal year 2007 Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs budget and your attention to these crucial matters. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRI-COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

We are requesting your support for the following appropriations in fiscal year 

2007 to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as recommended in the President’s budget. 

1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

2. 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. 
485 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’ Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Recovery Program. 

We thank you for your past support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance 

for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure FWS’ continuing financial participation in 

these vitally important programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HIGHLANDS COALITION, THE LITCHFIELD COUNTY

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, AND THE GARDEN CLUB OF LITCHFIELD

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments about the fiscal year 2007 appropriations for the Highlands Conservation Act. 

—I urge you to provide full funding of the Highlands Conservation Act. 

—I also call your attention to the Litchfield Farms project. 

The four-state Highlands region includes the northwestern portion of the state of 

Connecticut, including the towns of Litchfield, Kent, Salisbury, Cornwall and New 

Milford, to name only a few of the historic and scenic places nestled into the 

Litchfield Hills. 

Tourism is a major industry and source of employment in the Litchfield Highlands. Our fall foliage and pristine rolling hills attract visitors not only from other 

states but from the entire world. But we are facing a serious threat. 

Our treasured natural resources may be ‘‘sprawled’’ out of existence in the next 

decade or two. We are in a desperate ‘‘save it or pave it’’ race to preserve our most 

important environmental assets before they are bulldozed for strip malls and housing developments. 

Thus we put an extremely high priority on full funding under the new Highlands 

Conservation Act. We urge you to provide the entire $10 million authorized, plus 

the $1 million authorized for USDA Forest Service technical assistance and research 

in the Highlands area. 

This is a new program enacted, with bipartisan support, too late in 2004 to be 

included in last year’s fiscal year 2006 appropriations cycle. Therefore, fiscal year 

2007 is the first opportunity to fund this very important and urgently needed program. 

The Connecticut Highlands region is facing an inundation of people pushing outward from the major metropolitan areas to our south. For us, protection of our open 

spaces with their incredible environmental values—drinking water source lands, forests and farms, wildlife and endangered plant and animal habitats, and passive 

recreation—is a top priority. 

Connecticut is putting its own public and private money where its mouth is on 

this issue. 

—Last summer, the state enacted legislation to impose a $30 real estate document recording fee which will generate nearly $15 million annually for matching grants for preserving open space and farmland. 

—State bonding authority for open space and farmland preservation also was increased. 

—This year, a major push is being made in the state legislature to enact even 

more bonding authority for land preservation. 

—Locally, the town of Litchfield established an ‘‘Open Space and Land Acquisition 

Fund.’’ 

—Private citizens are participating through half a dozen area land trusts in raising private funds locally for acquisition of high priority parcels. 

—Local corporate, nonprofit and individual donors sponsored the Litchfield Hills 

Greenprint, a GIS mapping project to identify places that have significant environmental values. 

—More than 130 people turned out in the tiny borough of Bantam on a cold February week night to attend a Garden Club public forum on how we could work 

together to preserve high priority open spaces. 

The Litchfield Farms in our town is one of those high value places with especially 

strong environmental values. This is a 753-acre property spanning two watersheds 

(Bantam and Naugatuck). It has large areas of wetlands, prime agricultural soils, 

diverse forests, state-listed endangered species, and extraordinary scenic vistas. In 

fact, elevations of up to 1,300 feet make it one of the highest points in the Litchfield 

Township and the adjoining city of Torrington. 

This exceptional property is under imminent threat of development. It is difficult 

to know whether or for how long the window can be kept open for groups to amass 

the very substantial funds needed to acquire this special land and prevent it from 
486 

becoming rolling hills of condos, town houses, starter mansions and shopping centers. 

Connecticut’s Governor Jodi Rell has designated the Litchfield Farms in the request to the Interior Department jointly submitted by the four Highlands states 

(Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania). She asked for $2.5 million 

for the Litchfield Farms. 

Federal support for acquisition of the Litchfield Farms at this $2.5 million level 

would be possible only if the Highlands Conservation program receives full funding 

at the $10 million level for land conservation partnership. The Administration’s request of $2 million for all four states combined would not be sufficient to assure that 

the Litchfield Farms could be saved. 

A $10 million full-funding appropriation, which would allow $2.5 million for the 

Litchfield Farms lands, not only would indicate that the federal government places 

a high value on the Litchfield Farms lands, it also would encourage national, state 

and local groups to redouble their efforts to raise the additional funds required to 

acquire these exceptional lands for conservation purposes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOUNTAINEERS

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1.7 million 

for the Cascade Checkerboard Program in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in Washington. 

The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest extends more than 140 miles along 

the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains from the Canadian border to Mt. 

Rainier National Park. The forest covers portions of Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, 

King, and Pierce Counties. Over 3.5 million people, or 62 percent of the state’s population, live within a 70-mile drive of the forest. Another 1.5 million residents of the 

Vancouver, British Columbia, metro area are also within easy reach of the northern 

part of the forest. This large population base, coupled with easy road access, makes 

the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest one of the most visited national forests 

in the country. 

The central Cascades are bisected east and west by the Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe Railroad and by Interstate 90. The original railroad through the 

Snoqualmie Pass was constructed by the Northern Pacific Railway, which received 

land grants from the federal government in alternating square miles along the 

route. The legacy of this 19th century land grant system is the large checkerboard 

ownership pattern that threatens this critical area of wildlife connectivity and migratory movement north and south. Because of the checkerboard pattern in the Central Cascades and the relatively limited amount of protected land, this region has 

acted as a bottleneck for migratory wildlife. Private timber companies continue to 

log their land grant parcels and have started to sell off cut over lands for real estate 

development. 

Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 are two parcels located in the vicinity 

of Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass along the crest of the Cascade Mountains. Located less than 50 miles from Seattle, these proposed acquisitions are primarily 

within the boundaries of the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie NF, with a corner of the Stampede Pass parcel lying in the adjacent Wenatchee NF. In addition to their key role 

in providing wildlife connectivity, they are very important for recreational purposes. 

The 618-acre Stampede Pass parcel, which is available for $975,000, contains two 

miles of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (PCT). It is a priority of the Pacific 

Crest Trail Association and its acquisition will provide permanent protection for this 

segment of the trail. 

The 640-acre Dandy Pass parcel lies just south of the PCT and is available for 

$725,000. Its acquisition will provide additional protection for the landscape visible 

from the trail. In addition to hiking, visitors can enjoy camping and cross-country 

skiing. Public ownership will also ensure public access to adjacent Forest Service 

lands. 

Acquisition of these parcels is part of an ongoing, multi-year program of consolidating lands in the central Cascades, which has long been a Forest Service priority. 

This program seeks to consolidate federal land management priorities and prevent 

future fragmentation due to subdivision and other development. Fragmented 

forestlands present difficult and expensive challenges to forest managers with respect to fire suppression, containment and eradication of invasive species, maintaining wildlife habitat, limits on public access, and protection of watersheds. Although 

several parcels were acquired by the Forest Service through its I–90 Option Lands 
487 

project, many more critical parcels, including Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass, also 

need to be protected. 

The acquisitions of the Stampede Pass and Dandy Pass parcels will improve forest 

management on a landscape level that will enhance recreational activities and secure vital wildlife migration corridors. An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.7 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Forest Service Cascade 

Checkerboard program is necessary to bring these lands into protected public ownership. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to present this testimony and for your 

consideration of this 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 2007 appropriations. My name is Jimmie Powell and I am the Director of Government Relations at the Conservancy. 

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. Our on-the-ground conservation 

work is carried out in all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries and is supported by 

approximately one million individual members. We have helped conserve nearly 15 

million acres of land in the United States and Canada and more than 102 million 

acres with local partner organizations globally. 

Wildland Fire Management.—The Conservancy commends the President for maintaining stable levels of Hazardous Fuels Reduction funding. We have five priorities 

to promote the restoration of fire-dependent forests. First, we recommend that the 

Committee establish funding for emergency fire suppression to avoid the problem 

of ‘‘fire borrowing’’ that diverts program dollars away from their primary purpose 

in years when fire suppression needs exceed the annual appropriation. The Conservancy also supports the President’s budget direction to allow Forest Service regions 

to retain unobligated fire suppression funds for use in hazardous fuel reduction in 

subsequent years as a critical incentive to control suppression costs. Second, we recommend that the Committee direct the agencies to spend Hazardous Fuels Reduction funding on projects that are collaboratively developed (through a Community 

Wildfire Protection Plan or other collaborative developed forest or watershed plans). 

Third, restoration of altered fire regimes will, in the long run, result in diminished 

costs for wildfire suppression. Therefore, we request that the Committee encourage 

Wildland Fire Use by directing the agencies to report acres burned through 

Wildland Fire Use as fuels treatments. Fourth, we recommend that the Committee 

direct the agencies to use hazardous fuel reduction performance measures that include Fire Regime Condition Class as the metric to gauge treatment effectiveness. 

Fifth, the Conservancy believes that forest health cannot be addressed without developing commercial markets for the wood by-products of restoration. Thus, we support an appropriation of $50 million in the Hazardous Fuels budget line item for 

implementation of Section 210 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (commercial biomass 

use). 

Forest Health Management.—America’s forests are under siege by numerous exotic insects and diseases, and the pace of introductions appears to be increasing. We 

recommend that the Forest Health Management (FHM) program receive $130 million. This is the principal Forest Service program that protects the Nation’s forests 

from economically and ecologically damaging non-native pests and pathogens, including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, 

Sudden Oak Death, Sirex woodwasp, and redbay wilt. Additional funds to this program, for example, are important to help contain the Emerald Ash Borer. This introduced pest threatens ash forests across North America. Its quarantine area now covers nearly 20,000 square miles in Michigan’s Lower Peninsula and nearby areas in 

Ohio and Indiana and Ontario. Expanded USFS engagement would help detect additional infestations, assist in outreach programs designed to curtail movement of 

firewood and other vectors, and advise states and private landowners on management practices. A particularly important FHM program element is the Early Detection project which provides flexibility to address immediate needs when new pests 

are discovered. In 2005 and 2006, for example, FHM provided crucial immediate 

funding to assess the impacts of the redbay wilt in Georgia and South Carolina and 

two introduced insects in Guam. Sustained investments in this program are essential to containing the growing threat to the ecological and economic values of the 
488 

Nation’s forest resources caused by an ongoing invasion of introduced insects and 

pathogens. 

Invasive Species.—Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native species is the most 

pervasive threat to native biodiversity. 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 2007 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 $600,000 in refuge operations for Willapa National Wildlife Refuge and 

$600,000 in targeted Partners for Fish and Wildlife funds for this purpose. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—We are very concerned with the declining 

levels of support for the nation’s principal source of federal land acquisition funding. 

The nation is richer because of our historic commitment to protecting biologically 

significant lands. Yet, development pressures are unrelenting, threatening to degrade nationally significant resources in once remote areas as diverse as the Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, Georgia’s Chattahoochee NF and Montana’s Blackfoot 

Valley. We recommend a funding level of $220 million, the average of funding over 

the past 5 years and about the same as the President’s fiscal year 2005 request. 

The Conservancy specifically proposes funding of 25 biologically rich land acquisition projects totaling $57.8 million. Priorities include multi-year projects to protect 

Ivory-billed woodpecker habitat in the Cache River NWR and a key inholding at St. 

Marks NWR. Several projects, including the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Area and Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR, 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 an $80 million appropriation for this program, including such priority projects as the Upper Great Lakes 

Forest in Michigan, North-South Corridor in Rhode Island, Moro Big Pine in Arkansas, and the Pee Dee and Savannah Rivers projects in South Carolina. 

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. 

USGS.—We support the President’s increases for the new LANDSAT 8, a critically important investment for ecological monitoring in this country and globally. 

Within the USGS Water Resources programs, we support the $2.325 million increase for streamgages in the National Streamflow Information program. 

Following the 2005 hurricanes, biological assessments are needed to map the 

overall extent of natural resource loss, identify priorities for remedial action and inform decisions regarding rebuilding and recovery of the Gulf coast. The USGS Biological Resources Division through the National Wetlands Research Center in Lafayette, LA is taking the lead for federal agencies in collecting and centralizing information on Gulf coast-wide impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and has developed a three-year plan for assessment of hurricane impacts. To begin the initial 

phase of this effort, we request report language that designates $12 million to the 

National Wetland Research Center for collection and synthesis of data on hurricane 

impacts to natural resources. 

Endangered Species.—The Conservancy supports $90 million for the FWS’s Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible tool for building cooperative, voluntary partnerships. The Conservancy and its partners have used the Habitat Conservation Plan and Recovery Land Acquisition programs to secure key habitat for numerous endangered species in Southern California, as well as Atlantic 

salmon in Maine, Karner Blue Butterflies in New York and endangered freshwater 

mussels in Tennessee. We have also worked with states to develop HCP Plans funded by this program, including the bi-state Tennessee and Kentucky Northern Cumberland’s plan. 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 
489 

survival of listed and candidate species. We have also worked with states to implement HCP plans. 

State Wildlife Grants.—The Conservancy strongly supports this program and con- curs in the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition in recommending funding of $85 million. 

State wildlife agencies and their many partners are working to protect wildlife habitat by implementing the comprehensive wildlife conservation plans that were completed last fall. 

Cooperative Conservation.—Cooperative conservation partnerships are a cornerstone of the Conservancy’s work around the world. By finding common ground with 

communities and developers, ranchers and farmers, government agencies and corporations, we develop creative and practical solutions that balance human needs 

with conservation goals. 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 $24.4 million for the Landowner Incentive Program and $9.4 million for Private Stewardship 

Grants. We support the $15 million for the FWS Coastal Program. We also support 

the President’s request of $20.296 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 $50 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program. The Conservancy supports the Administration’s request of $3 million for 

the National Fish Habitat Initiative. 

Migratory Bird Programs.—The Conservancy supports funding equal to or greater 

than the President’s request of $45,000,000 for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. 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. 

Coral Reefs.—The Conservancy supports the President’s request for an additional 

$1.2 million to implement 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 EPA Gulf of Mexico Program works to 

protect the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico and is the only federal program solely focused on the five Gulf coast states. The Program’s successes have led 

to an ever increasing demand to extend their technical services to reach more coastal communities across the region. The Program was well on its way toward helping 

build more resilient coastal communities before the historic storm season of 2005, 

and the demand for the Program’s assistance has continued to rise as the Gulf coast 

rebuilds. In an effort to achieve long-term protection of the Gulf of Mexico and ensure environmental and economic recovery from the 2005 hurricanes, we support 

$10 million for the EPA Gulf of Mexico program. We also support $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. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for the Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TOWN OF OPHIR, COLORADO

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: As Mayor of the Town 

of Ophir located in southwest Colorado, I am writing to respectfully request that 

$2.5 million be allocated to the U.S. Forest Service’s fiscal year 2007 budget from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. These funds will be used for the first phase 

of a public purchase of 1,200 acres of privately owned patented mining claims in 

the Ophir Valley. During the first phase, the Forest Service would acquire 600 acres 

of this incomparable Colorado landscape. An additional $2.5 million LWCF appropriation will be needed in fiscal year 2008 to complete this outstanding land conservation project. 
490 

This project enjoys broad and deep community support in San Miguel County, and 

throughout southwest Colorado, for the following reasons: 

(1) The Ophir Valley is one of Colorado’s most outstanding places, and is a cherished corner of San Miguel County. Against a backdrop of unsurpassed alpine scenery, the Valley offers an abundance of recreational opportunities for residents and 

visitors. Hiking, camping, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, four-wheeling, and 

fishing are all popular pastimes. In addition, the Valley supports habitat for the Canadian lynx, a federally listed threatened species, and provides important habitat 

for the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly and other sensitive species. It 

also contains the headwaters of the Howards Fork, a key tributary to the San 

Miguel River, which sustains globally rare streamside habitats. 

(2) Federal acquisition of this property will facilitate improved public lands management in eastern San Miguel County and will protect access to surrounding public 

lands. The property to be acquired consists of patented mining claims that occur as 

inholdings within surrounding national forest system lands. Purchasing these 

inholdings will ensure that they can be managed for their natural and recreational 

values in a manner that is consistent with management of adjacent lands already 

in public ownership. Importantly, acquisition of the property will guarantee access 

to surrounding public lands, and will help avoid conflicts between traditional public 

access expectations and private property rights. 

(3) The current property owner, Mr. Glenn Pauls, is a willing seller. Mr. Pauls 

has purchased the mining claims that comprise his property from many different 

sellers over the last several years. He has offered them for sale to the public 

through the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national non-profit land conservation organization with a successful track record of acquiring thousands of acres of mining 

claims in the area under the Red Mountain Project. The opportunity that Mr. Pauls 

has afforded the public to acquire such a large number of mining claims from a single seller is a rare one that should not be missed. 

The Town of Ophir is located in San Miguel County, approximately 10 miles south 

of Telluride, in an alpine mountain valley at an elevation of 9,600 feet, surrounded 

by mountain peaks and ridges rising to 13,000 feet. Incorporated in 1881, Ophir has 

a long and colorful history, beginning as a mining town, then becoming a ghost 

town, and now is a thriving residential mountain community. The mountainsides 

surrounding the town, are as of yet undeveloped, but these hillsides are 

checkerboarded with fee simple patented lode claims, which are developable, privately owned inholdings within the national forest. 

Recognizing the development potential of the patented claims, the Ophir community has actively sought to protect this stunning area from sprawl development for 

more than 12 years through a town-funded and staffed Open Space Protection Program. With limited financial resources, the town has shown its commitment to conservation over the past 15 plus years. By working cooperatively with landowners, 

Ophir has acquired and conserved over 160 acres of remote lands, which are protected through conservation easements and are open to the public for recreational 

purposes. 

This is an exciting regional project. The scenic value of the high country in the 

San Juan mountains has long been recognized by San Miguel, Ouray, and San Juan 

counties. All three counties have portions of dramatic mountain jeep passes within 

their jurisdictions. The Ophir project is part of a larger San Juan Skyway initiative 

to protect key landscapes and to develop and protect outdoor recreation opportunities. Protection of the high country open space will protect scenic vistas that are an 

important asset to the regional economic engine. 

We want to thank you for your support and leadership in conserving Colorado’s 

land and water resources. Protection of the Ophir Valley with LWCF funding will 

contribute greatly to ensuring that Colorado remains the special place that it is. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

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 2007 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 2007 funding recommendations for a number of important conservation 

programs. 

Adequate funding for the programs discussed below is vital to protect America’s 

wild areas and environmental values, essential components of our American identity 
491 

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. 

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. And while the administration says its budget funds the program at $533 million, in reality the fiscal year 2007 budget provides only $85 million for LWCF’s core programs—funding federal land acquisition at $84 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. 

We urge the Subcommittee to provide $450 million for Federal Land Acquisition 

and reinstate state-side LWCF to $100 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 $130 million in fiscal year 2006 

to $84 million proposed for fiscal year 2007. 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 43 priority projects for fiscal year 2007, listed in Appendix 

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 $80 million for the Forest Legacy program. Since its 

inception, the Forest Legacy program has proven an extremely popular means to 

combat the conversion of privately-owned timberlands to development. According to 

the recent USDA Forest Service report, ‘‘Forests on the edge,’’ over 40 million acres 

of private forestlands are likely to be developed in the next three decades, threatening critical water and other ecological resources. In fiscal year 2007, 43 states 

submitted 91 projects totaling $204 million in need from Forest Legacy. Fourteen 

states that submitted projects were excluded completely from the President’s budget. Funding to the Forest Legacy program must rise to respond to these increasing 

development pressures and better meet demand from participating states. 

ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Fish and Wildlife Service.—The National Wildlife Refuge System is suffering 

under a $2.5 billion backlog in operations and maintenance. Consequently, we 

strongly recommend that funding to the Refuge System be increased over the fiscal 

year 2006 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. 

Forest Service: Wildfire Management.—Recognizing that borrowing funds for wildfire suppression caused disruptions in management, Congress established a suppression account in 2004. We support maintaining this account and recommend it remain intact, even during funding emergencies, so critical programs are not compromised by borrowing. We also urge the Committee to replace any funds used. Up 

to 85 percent of the land around communities at highest risk for wildfires is state 

or private. State and Local Assistance programs aid these states and localities, including State Fire Assistance and the Economic Action Program (EAP). We recommend that no less than 20 percent of the five-year average National Fire Plan 

(NFP) appropriations, $570 million, be allocated to State and Local Assistance Programs, with 50 percent of those funds, $285 million, targeted specifically to State 

Fire Assistance. We suggest $39.5 million for EAP in fiscal year 2007. We recommend that, in fiscal year 2007 and until an alternative program is developed, 

base EAP receive at least the program’s five-year average, $27 million. We also rec-
492 

ommend that the NFP sub-program be restored to $12.5 million and that NFP funding be retained in any alternative program. 

BLM’s Oil and Gas Program.—We urge you to reduce the Bureau of Land Man- agement’s (BLM) proposed budget of $115 million for its oil and gas program by $20 

million. Though the BLM has requested an unprecedented $26 million increase in 

appropriations for its oil and gas program for fiscal year 2007, the subcommittee 

should be aware that the BLM is receiving an additional $20 million ‘‘off budget’’ 

from lease rentals to fund seven ‘‘pilot permitting programs’’ established by the Energy Policy. In effect, the BLM is asking for a $46 million increase in funding for 

its oil and gas program, while the BLM’s request neglects other high priority programs, such as: the National Landscape Conservation System; Wildlife and Fisheries; Soil, Water, and Air; Riparian Management; and Recreation. 

We recommend that the subcommittee take the following actions with respect to 

the BLM’s oil and gas program request: (1) Limit the increase in appropriation for the BLM’s oil and gas program to $6 million, given the fact that the BLM is receiving an additional $20 million ‘‘off budget’’ for its seven ‘‘pilot programs.’’ Also, of the $6 million increase, $2.9 million 

should be allocated for Inspection and Enforcement activities, with report language 

directing that such funds and personnel may not be diverted for other oil and gas 

program responsibilities; 

(2) Adopt the Administration’s proposal to amend Sec. 365 of the Energy Policy 

Act by striking Sec. 365(i) which prohibits the BLM from requiring fees from permit 

applicants to cover the administrative costs of APD processing; 

(3) Direct the BLM to stop diverting BLM appropriations from other programs to 

the oil and gas program; and 

(4) Prohibit the BLM from initiating a commercial oil shale leasing program until 

the subcommittee has received and reviewed a report after the completion of the existing oil shale research and development leasing program. We recommend that the $20 million in savings be used to rebalance funding for 

other BLM programs, with increases in funding for the National Landscape Conservation System; Wildlife and Fisheries; Soil, Water, and Air; Riparian Management; Wilderness and Recreation Resources Management; and a sufficient allocation 

to the National Academy of Sciences to complete the coalbed methane study authorized in Sec. 1811 of the Energy Policy Act. 

National Landscape Conservation System.—We urge the committee to increase the 

Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget for the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) by $11.3 million, for operations and maintenance, to provide a total of $46 million to conserve the unique National Monuments, Conservation Areas, Trails, Rivers, and Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas that comprise the 26 million acre System. This would restore funding levels to those proposed by the President in fiscal year 2006. Priority unmet needs include law enforcement, resource monitoring, and cultural resource protection. We also ask the 

committee to support any member requests for additional funding for NLCS units 

in their districts. These requested increases could be funded in part with some of 

the $20 million in savings from the oil and gas program that we propose. To promote greater management transparency and accountability for the NLCS, we urge 

the committee to request expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the 

System’s Monuments and Conservation Areas for fiscal year 2006, and a projected 

cross cut budget for 2007 that includes expenditures by area and subactivity. 

Land Sales.—We urge the subcommittee to exclude from its bill and report any 

language that would amend existing law to provide for such asset sales. 

Artic North Slope Oil and Gas.—The budget should not assume that in 2006 Congress will pass legislation to authorize energy development in the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge. To date, all attempts to authorize leasing have failed. If any reference to a leasing program in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains, adopt report 

language prohibiting BLM from conducting the baseline studies and environmental 

impacts analysis that the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act mandates the Fish and Wildlife Service has the authority to complete. 

TABLE A: RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—TWS LWCF 

PRIORITY LIST FISCAL YEAR 2007 

State Project Request 

AL Alabama National Forests .......................................................................................................... $1,500,000 

AZ Coconino NF (Packard Ranch) .................................................................................................... 5,500,000 

CA Big Sur Ecosystem (Rancho Calera Phase I) ............................................................................. 2,000,000 

CA Carrizo Plain National Monument ............................................................................................... 500,000 
493 

TABLE A: RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—TWS LWCF 

PRIORITY LIST FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

State Project Request 

CO McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area ............................................................................ 1,100,000 

CO Arapaho NWR (Burr Ranch Phase I) .......................................................................................... 3,200,000 

CO Uncompahgre NF (Ophir Valley Phase I) .................................................................................... 2,500,000 

CO Canyons of the Ancients National Monument ............................................................................ 1,100,000 

CT Stewart McKinney NWR (Menunketsuc Saltmarsh Meadow) ...................................................... 1,000,000 

FL St. Marks NWR ............................................................................................................................ 1,700,000 

FL Suwannee Wildlife Corridor/Pinhook Swamp .............................................................................. 2,000,000 

FL Florida National Scenic Trail ...................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

GA Georgia Mountains ...................................................................................................................... 2,700,000 

KY Daniel Boone NF ......................................................................................................................... 4,615,000 

KY Cumberland Gap NHP (Fern Lake Watershed Phase II) ............................................................. 2,500,000 

LA Tensas River NWR (Chicago Mill Phase IV) ............................................................................... 1,750,000 

MA Cape Cod NS (North of Highland Campground) ........................................................................ 6,100,000 

ME Rachel Carson NWR .................................................................................................................... 650,000 

MN Superior NF (Long Island) ........................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

MS Lower Yazoo Basin, Delta NF ...................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

NC Croatan NF (Onslow Bight) ......................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

NC Uwharrie National Recreational Trail ......................................................................................... 1,600,000 

NH Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................... 1,000,000 

NH/VT/MA/CT Silvio O. Conte NFWR .................................................................................................................. 4,000,000 

OR Pacific Crest Trail, Sky King Cole Ranch ................................................................................... 1,500,000 

OR Pacific Crest Trail, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon .......................................... 1,500,000 

SC Francis Marion Sumter NF .......................................................................................................... 4,685,000 

TN Tenessee Mountains .................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

UT Colorado River SRMA (Westwater Ranch Phase II) .................................................................... 1,300,000 

UT Bear River Migratroy Bird Refuge (Rolfe Phase II, Christensen) ............................................... 726,000 

UT Bonneville Shoreline Trail (Draper Phase II, North Ogden) ........................................................ 3,000,000 

VA Jefferson NF (Black Lick Char-Lo Timberlands & Appalachian Trail) ....................................... 2,850,000 

VT Green Mountain NF (Broad Brook Watershed Phase II) ............................................................. 1,100,000 

WA Cascade Checkerboard (Stampede Pass, Dandy Pass) ............................................................. 1,700,000 

WI Chequamegon-Nicolet NF-Wisconsin Wild Waterways (Venison Creek and Indian Farms) ....... 2,500,000 

AL Cumberland Mountains Preserve ................................................................................................ 1,185,000 

AL Mobile Delta ................................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

AZ Cedar Springs ............................................................................................................................. 2,200,000 

ME Grafton Notch .............................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

ME Lower Penobscot Forest .............................................................................................................. 5,500,000 

MN Sugar Hills .................................................................................................................................. 750,000 

NC Whitehurst State Forest .............................................................................................................. 4,500,000 

NC Clarendon Plantation .................................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

NH Willard Pond/Robb Reservoir ...................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

NH Phillips Brook .............................................................................................................................. 3,500,000 

NJ Sparta Mountain South, phase II ............................................................................................... 2,100,000 

NY Tahawus ...................................................................................................................................... 5,000,000 

PA Birdsboro Waters ......................................................................................................................... 300,000 

SC Pee Dee River .............................................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

SC Savannah River ........................................................................................................................... 2,500,000 

VT Orange County Headwaters ........................................................................................................ 1,542,000 

VT Adams Pond ................................................................................................................................ 1,167,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

INTRODUCTION

The Wilderness Society (TWS) appreciates this opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on fiscal year 2007 budget appropriations for wildfire 

management in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations 

bill. There are three areas in which we would like to provide recommendations or 

convey concerns: (1) maintaining wildfire suppression funding, (2) insufficient funding for State and Local Assistance programs, particularly State Fire Assistance, and 

(3) the elimination the Forest Service’s Economic Action Program (EAP). 
494 

1Data source: National Fire Plan website www.fireplan.gov 

WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

Over the last five years over $14.24 billion has been appropriated to the National 

Fire Plan,1 in categories including preparedness, suppression, hazardous fuels reduction, and state and local assistance. Suppression funds are used to suppress 

wildland fires that occur or threaten public lands administered by the Department 

of the Interior and Forest Service or other lands covered by federal fire protection 

agreements. The cost of suppression has grown significantly in recent years because 

of prolonged drought, the build-up of hazardous fuels, and expansion of communities 

into wildlands. Suppression funds generally account for about 40 percent of the National Fire Plan budget request each year and are usually based on the average 

costs for the previous 10 years, adjusted for inflation. However, in the past appropriated dollars for suppression have fallen far short, and even with emergency appropriations, have failed on many occasions to meet the need. As a result, the agencies have had to borrow money from other programs to fund their suppression activities. Recognizing that past borrowing of funds from other agency programs for 

wildland fire suppression caused project cancellations, strained relationships with 

partners, and disruptions in management, Congress provided emergency funding intended to preclude this practice in August 2004 through a supplemental appropriation of $500 million ($100 million to the Department of the Interior and $400 million 

to the Forest Service). Congress also included a $500 million supplemental to provide additional wildland fire suppression funds in its fiscal year 2005 appropriations 

for the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior. 

The 2005 fire season was relatively less active than normal and, as a result, funds 

remained in this supplemental suppression account at the beginning of fiscal year 

2006. It was during this time that the Administration proposed to rescind a portion 

of this account, $500 million, to help make up for the cost of Hurricane Katrina. 

Firefighters, members of Congress, and environmental groups, including TWS, criticized this proposal. This rescission was not included in the final legislation passed 

to help off-set the costs of Hurricane Katrina. 

The Wilderness Society supports the maintenance of this supplemental suppression account and recommends that it remain intact, even when the nation is faced 

with future emergency funding needs. If funds from this supplemental suppression 

account are obligated elsewhere the agencies are forced to borrow funds from other 

programs, often those very programs—hazardous fuels reduction and community assistance—that represent the best hope of decreasing the damage and bringing down 

the costs associated with wildland fire. These potential benefits are lost when the 

funding these programs require is traded off for suppression efforts. In addition, this 

supplemental suppression account will aid the agencies in planning for more longterm needs, like restoration, because they will no longer face the annual cycle of 

program disruptions and emergency funding requirements precipitated by suppression underfunding. Severe drought conditions in many parts of the West, the expansion of the wildland urban interface, and build ups of hazardous fuels are likely to 

make for a severe wildfire season this year. If the agencies are forced to use these 

funds from this supplemental suppression account because costs exceed their original suppression appropriations, we encourage Congress to provide additional funding to make up for any funds used so the agencies are not forced to again borrow 

from other programs to fund future suppression needs. 

While this supplemental suppression account will help to reduce the negative impacts associated with transferring funds from other accounts, it is a short-term solution. Longer-term solutions for containing suppression costs are also needed. Congress recognized this when it required the Department of Agriculture to establish 

a cost-control review panel to examine and report on fire suppression costs for 

wildfires that exceed $10,000,000 and required that the Departments of Interior and 

Agriculture submit a joint report on cost-containment measures. The Wilderness Society supports these efforts to examine wildfire suppression costs and further recommends that other cost-containment measures be considered, including changing 

incentive structures to encourage Wildland Fire Use, when appropriate. 

STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE—STATE FIRE ASSISTANCE

Comprehensive fire management inherently transcends land ownership boundaries. 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. TWS research has shown that up to 85 percent of the land around communities that is at the highest risk for wildfires is state or private. These private lands 
495 

2Specifically those line items under The National Fire Plan associated with state and local 

assistance budget heading, including Forest Health Management (Coop Lands), State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance under Wildland Fire Management and Forest Health 

Management (Coop Lands), State Fire Assistance, Volunteer Fire Assistance, Forests Stewardship, Forest Legacy Program, Urban & Community Forestry, Economic Action Program, and 

Forest Research & Information Analysis under State and Private Forestry Appropriations. Data 

source: USFA Budget Justifications 2004, 2005, 2006. 

must be integrated into landscape-scale problem definition and fire management 

planning. As such, State and Local Assistance programs have been designed to help 

states and localities promote fire-adapted communities in fire-resilient landscapes, 

one of the most important of which is State Fire Assistance because it provides the 

most crucial benefit in balancing risk reduction efforts between federal and non-federal lands. The State Fire Assistance Program provides technical and financial assistance to states for grants and agreements with communities to implement fire 

risk reduction activities, including the removal of hazardous fuels, fire prevention 

campaigns, personnel training, equipment availability, Community Wildfire Protection Planning, and FIREWISE—a public education program to assist communities 

located near fire-prone lands. 

Unfortunately, the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2007 plans to reduce the 

State Fire Assistance program, sending the message that the goal of safer communities is not a top priority. Already woefully underfunded, State Fire Assistance is 

proposed for a 30 percent cut in the fiscal year 2007 budget, from $78.7 million to 

$56.1 million. Of the $14.24 billion appropriated to the National Fire Plan in the 

last five years, less than 11 percent, or approximately $1.56 billion, has been directed to fire management activities by non-federal partners.2 To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of national fire management, better parity simply must exist 

between appropriations allocated to federal and non-federal land and fire managers. 

Accordingly, The Wilderness Society recommends that no less than 20 percent of the 

five-year average National Fire Plan appropriations be allocated to the State and 

Local Assistance Program generally, and that 50 percent of those additional resources be targeted specifically to the State Fire Assistance line-item. Total federal 

appropriations to the National Fire Plan over the last five years equal approximately $14.24 billion, and $2.85 billion represents an approximate yearly average 

expenditure in those five years. As such, no less than $570 million, or 20 percent 

of that averaged total, should target State and Local Assistance programs. Because 

of the importance of State Fire Assistance, no less than 50 percent of additional resources afforded State and Local Assistance, or approximately $285 million, should 

target specifically the State Fire Assistance program. $285 million amounts to only 

10 percent of the average total NFP appropriations. 

To reach this goal, The Wilderness Society recommends a steady increase over 

three years (see Figure 1). The first year, should reflect a 75 percent increase of the 

$82 million historical average for State Fire Assistance, resulting in a $144 million 

appropriation. In the second year, a 50 percent increase to $216 million. In the last 

year, an approximately 30 percent increase would realize the $285 million target appropriation. 

STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE—ECONOMIC ACTION PROGRAM

The Forest Service’s Economic Action Program (EAP) was designed with the intent to strengthen and diversify the economic health of communities that are dependent on natural resources over the long-term. While we realize that this program 

is in transition and its structure is likely to change, one of the key functions of EAP 

is to provide one of, if not the only, source of funding that communities can use to 

add wildfire risk assessments and defensible space planning to their community action plans. Since 2002, EAP has experienced consistent funding reductions, from almost $50 million to approximately $10 million and is proposed for elimination in 

the fiscal year 2007 budget. In order for the Forest Service to achieve the goals they 

have set for the Economic Action Program, more funding is required. We suggest 

a total of $39.5 million for EAP in fiscal year 2007. We recommend that, in fiscal 

year 2007 and until such time as an alternative program that retains EAP’s critical 

elements is developed, the base EAP program receive at least the average funding 

level for the program over the past 5 years, $27 million. We also recommend that 

the National Fire Plan sub-program of EAP, which provided dedicated funding for 

communities to add wildfire risk assessments and defensible space planning to their 

action plans until 2003, be restored at a level of $12.5 million and that this dedicated funding for community fire planning be retained in any alternative program 

developed. 
496 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I appreciate the oppor- tunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million appropriation from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for the critical land protection in the Superior 

National Forest in Minnesota. 

The Wilderness Society seeks to deliver to future generations an unspoiled legacy 

of wilderness and all the precious values it holds. I write with the support of our 

membership of 250,000 voices for the critical land protection of Long Island, on 

Burntside Lake, near Ely, Minnesota and within the Superior National Forest. 

I grew up in Ely, where my parents owned and operated the area’s largest canoe 

trip outfitting business. My parents have owned property on Burntside Lake since 

1943 and I personally have owned property on Burntside Lake since 1969. I am familiar with the immense development pressure on this marvelous lake. Long Island 

is the largest undeveloped island in Burntside Lake and is an ecological and recreational asset to the area. At over 10,000 acres in size, Burntside Lake is an important recreational area with two entry points into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness ‘‘BWCAW’’, five campsites and six public canoe launching points. It is 

also one of the few lakes in Minnesota that support a natural cold water fishery 

and is renowned for its big lake trout and walleye while supporting one of the largest populations of loons in the state. 

I have worked to protect the BWCAW and the Superior National Forest my entire 

life. I believe that Long Island would be an outstanding addition to the Superior 

National Forest for its ecological and recreational qualities and its significant historical and cultural value. Long Island is the stunning view shed of writer and conservationist Sigurd Olson’s legendary Listening Point. Listening Point was a place 

of inspiration for Olson where he wrote his books and crafted aspects of the 1964 

Wilderness Act. I have spent time at Listening Point with Sigurd and Elizabeth 

Olson and know first-hand that it is a special place. 

While Listening Point is protected today, the view across the lake featuring Long 

Island is not. It is a place where many people go to appreciate Sigurd Olson and 

the land for which he so eloquently advocated in his writing. If offers the opportunity to look at and enjoy undisturbed landscapes that are a healthy remnant of 

the great forests that once covered Minnesota. Over 200,000 people visit the 

BWCAW annually, which is a testament to the appeal of this beautiful wilderness 

landscape and the need to continue to preserve this area. Generations of canoeists 

from YMCA Camp Widjiwagan and YMCA Family Camp DuNord, both located on 

Burntside Lake, have paddled by and continue to travel the waterways of the north 

country that Olson described. 

Public acquisition of the Long Island property will ensure that the attributes of 

the northwoods region so treasured by its many visitors will be protected in perpetuity. The Land and Water Conservation Fund has in recent years been underfunded for the protection of these special, undisturbed places, and an appropriation 

of $2 million for Minnesota’s forests would be a step in the right direction towards 

fulfilling the intent of this fund. 

An appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 

fiscal year 2007 for the Superior National Forest will secure the acquisition of Long 

Island, protect its critical natural resources for the public, and maintain the integrity of the great northwoods. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed fiscal year 2007 budget for the Department of Interior and Related Agencies. 

The Wildlife Society is the association of over 8,000 professional wildlife biologists 

and managers dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and 

education. The Society supports all aspects of federal programs that benefit wildlife 

and wildlife habitat. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Funding assistance for state wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority needs 

for wildlife at this time, providing essential resources to conserve wildlife, fish, and 

habitat, and to prevent further declines in at-risk wildlife populations in every state. 

We appreciate the Administration’s recognition of the importance of the State Wildlife Grants Program through the $74 million request, but we strongly encourage 

even greater funding to achieve species conservation. We recommend that $85 mil-
497 

lion be appropriated for State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2007. States have recently completed their comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies (Wildlife Action Plans) as mandated by Congress. These Wildlife Action Plans detail each state’s 

species of greatest concern, their related habitats, limitations, and related needed 

conservation actions. With the completion of all 56 state and territorial Wildlife Action Plans, it is critical this program receive increased funding to assist states with 

the actual implementation of on-the-ground actions associated with the wildlife action plans. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-regulatory, 

incentive based program that has shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations. We are pleased by the Administration’s support of this program through its $42 million request, but ask you 

to recognize that the authorized funding level for this program in fiscal year 2007 

is $75 million. Therefore, we recommend that you appropriate the full $75 million 

for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act provides a broad-spectrum approach to bird conservation. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress fund 

the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at its full authorization of $5 million in fiscal year 2007. The Administrations budget would include the Neotropical 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act funding in the Multinational Species Fund. A total 

of $8.217 million was requested for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, 

with only $3.96 million for Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation. Again, we urge 

full funding of $5 million in fiscal year 2007 for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

The Multinational Species Conservation Fund supports six often neglected species 

groups important to international wildlife conservation: African and Asian Elephants, Great Apes, Marine Turtles, Rhinoceroses, and Tigers. All of the fund species are threatened by loss of habitat, exploitation, poaching, or disease. Funds for 

these critical programs have been slashed by $2.1 million in the President’s proposed budget. We are concerned that the President’s proposal fails to adequately 

fund the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and recommend that $2.0 million be added to the Multinational Species Conservation Fund to be evenly applied 

across program elements. This will restore programs to the fiscal year 2006 level 

and add additional funds for pressing challenges such as increasing Hawksbill turtle 

programs in the Caribbean and dealing with serious disease challenges in the Great 

Ape Colonies of Africa. In the future, we recommend that Congress move toward appropriating $2 million for each species group (elephants, tigers, apes, rhinos, and 

marine turtles) each year. 

We are pleased by the $27.39 million request for Migratory Bird Management 

(Conservation and Monitoring) in fiscal year 2007, especially since public interest 

in migratory birds and the need for migratory bird management are increasing. 

However, we strongly recommend an additional $1 million for Migratory Bird Management to meet program objectives for migratory bird conservation in the future. 

The Wildlife Society is concerned by the proposed decrease in the Operations and 

Maintenance budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We do, however, support the increased funding requested for the Wildlife and Habitat Management and 

Refuge Operations. There is a tremendous backlog of funding needs that must be 

addressed in the future to successfully meet the Refuge System’s mission of conserving fish and wildlife. Several years ago, The Wildlife Society, along with 16 

other organizations, created the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE) specifically to address this growing backlog. The Wildlife Society continues 

to support the CARE recommendations to eliminate the backlog of Refuge operations and maintenance and also strongly urges these recommendations be used to 

guide future budget requests. 

The Wildlife Society supports maintaining the funding levels for all subactivities 

within the Endangered Species Program, and is especially concerned with the proposed reduction of $7.7 million for the Recovery Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting actions that result in significant benefits 

to species through State management efforts. This proposed decrease in funding 

would negatively impact the ability to form important partnerships with State fish 

and wildlife agencies. We recommend that Congress restore the $7.7 million to the 

Endangered Species Program’s base budget for use in recovery efforts. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget for BLM’s Wildlife Management program is $28.387 million, a $221,000 increase over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

This increase will allow the Bureau to address, with its Partners, the loss of sage-
498 

brush habitat and associated impacts to sage grouse and other sagebrush dependent 

wildlife. The Wildlife Society supports this effort provided it is carried out in a manner consistent with, and complimentary to, ongoing state sage grouse management 

efforts. The Wildlife Society strongly urges Congress to increase BLM’s fiscal year 

2007 Wildlife Management budget by an additional $3 million to meet ongoing wildlife issues. 

The President has requested an $181,000 increase in BLM’s Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program for fiscal year 2007. However, this request 

ignores the agency’s March 2001 Report to Congress which called for a doubling of 

the current Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff positions over 5 years. The fiscal year 2007 request is woefully inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to carry out its responsibilities 

under the ESA. In view of this gross inequity between resource needs versus funding levels, The Wildlife Society strongly encourages Congress to add an additional 

$5 million to the Threatened and Endangered Species fiscal year 2007 budget. 

BLM manages over 23 million acres of riparian or wetland areas, supporting some 

of the most ecologically diverse plant and animal communities on public lands. The 

Wildlife Society supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that 

the requested $21.598 million for this program, which is a $526,000 decrease, is insufficient to meet all of the identified needs. We request that Congress add $1.5 million to this program, and urge BLM to continue its coordination with State fish and 

wildlife agencies in order to achieve optimal program results. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION

As a member of the USGS Coalition, The Wildlife Society supports $1.2 billion 

for USGS in fiscal year 2007. This level of funding would enable the USGS to meet 

new challenges while continuing to provide data for land-use management, sustainable natural resource development, economic growth, and enhanced security from 

natural and manmade hazards. 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. 

We are discouraged to see that uncontrollables for the Biological Resources Division (BRD) are not fully funded in the budget request. We strongly recommend that 

the fiscal year 2007 BRD budget be increased by $1.07 million to fully fund 

uncontrollables. 

Fiscal year 2001 was the last time Congress fully funded the Cooperative Research Units, thereby allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since that 

was achieved—at a level of $14 million—there has been an erosion of available fiscal 

resources, resulting in a current staffing vacancy of 19 positions and a decrease in 

productivity, in order to make up for the budget shortfall. In addition, the expansion 

of the new unit at the University of Nebraska has been hindered by the inability 

to fully staff this new effort in spite of significant contributions by the cooperating 

partners. Applied research efforts and dissemination of research information to 

states and other cooperators has suffered due to the lack of funding for publication 

of results. In many states, the Cooperative Research Units are the research arm of 

the state fish and wildlife agency, and, as a result, excellent cooperative relationships have been established. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2007 budget for the Cooperative Research Units by $2.562 million to achieve full funding and full function. 

In 2003, the BRD embarked on a very limited program to provide partial funding 

to state wildlife agencies for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) research. This funding 

is critical to permit the states to address this expanding disease. During the past 

year, three new states were CWD positive for the first time in wild deer populations 

(New York, West Virginia, and Kansas). Without research into the epidemiology and 

impacts of CWD on cervid populations, it will be difficult to develop adequate management methods to address the disease. The Wildlife Society recommends Congress 

increase the fiscal year 2007 budget by $5 million for additional chronic wasting disease research, with $3 million designated for cooperative grants to state wildlife 

agencies. 

The advent of highly pathogenic Asian strain H5N1 avian influenza (H5N1) in 

Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East has demonstrated the speed with which 

a zoonotic disease can spread, either intentionally or unintentionally. The need to 

ensure that the United States is able to detect this virus if it appears in North 

America is very important to the health of wildlife populations, humans, and the 

poultry industry. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends that funding in the fiscal year 2007 budget for USGS–BRD for avian influenza research and monitoring 

be increased by $0.4 million to enable operation and supplies for new equipment, 
499 

$0.7 million for surveillance of migratory bird populations on their wintering 

grounds, and $0.130 million for development of a wildlife health monitoring network. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

We support the Administration’s request of $267 million for Forest and Rangelands Research. This support is conditioned on maintaining current activities in the 

Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Program. This line item continues important research 

initiatives such as invasive species and Sudden Oak Death disease. 

The Wildlife Society is deeply concerned that the President’s budget for this program proposes another 7 percent reduction from the 2006 enacted budget for the 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program. We urge Congress to restore 

$11.452 million, for a total of $135 million. The Wildlife Society requests that the 

USFS closely coordinate use of these funds with state fish and wildlife agencies to 

recognize and fully utilize the state’s authorities for fish and wildlife management. 

To maximize benefits from these funds, however, the USFS needs to facilitate cooperative design and conduct of programs and activities to reduce duplication with 

state programs and to increase acceptability of programs in achieving land and resource objectives. 

Thank you for considering the comments of wildlife professionals. We are available to work with you and your staff throughout the appropriations process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UTAH GUIDES AND OUTFITTERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: Utah Guides and Outfitters Association (UGO) strongly supports a $1.3 million appropriation from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund for continuing BLM’s program to protect important private lands along their Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area 

designation. 

UGO represents more than 40 major river- and land-based recreation companies 

in the state, many of them in Southeast Utah. Members specialize in offering guided 

tours on public lands and waterways. 

Southeastern Utah is particularly blessed with natural history and recreational 

opportunities that make rafting, mountain biking and backpacking trips very popular with clients of our member companies, which translates into very significant 

tourism dollars and economic benefits for Moab, Grand County and other communities throughout this part of the state. 

One very important natural resource that strongly deserves permanent protection 

is the Westwater Canyon stretch of the Colorado River, which offers an easily accessible day trip for white water rafters to enjoy both Class IV rapids and the inspiring 

canyons and scenery of the Colorado Plateau. A very important part of the 

Westwater Canyon rafting experience occurs at the starting point, BLM Weswater 

Ranger Station, which is the put—in point for the expedition. Through the Ranger 

Station, BLM offers camping and boating facilities, and is in need of additional area 

for expansion due to its high usage and popularity among tourists and residents of 

southeastern Utah and western Colorado. Immediately downstream of the Ranger 

Station—and before entering Westwater Canyon itself—rafters float by the privately-owned Westwater Ranch which contains three miles of frontage along the 

Colorado River and contains extensive riparian vegetation, including very large Cottonwoods, and excellent wildlife habitat. 

Westwater Ranch was acquired in late 2005 by a group of investors who plan to 

make significant investments to return it to a fully functional ranch, including removal of invasive species and enhancement of wildlife habitat along the river. We 

understand that this new ownership group is very supportive of selling development 

rights associated with the ranch to BLM, thereby offering permanent protection to 

this very important part of the Colorado River landscape near Westwater Canyon 

They are also interested in selling to BLM a small area that adjacent to the 

Westwater Ranger Station for expansion of BLM’s recreational facilities for the public. 

In fiscal year 2006, Land and Water Conservation Funds were secured to protect 

a first phase of the Westwater Ranch, and we understand that BLM and project 

partners are making good progress towards completing that work. Additional funds 

are requested in fiscal year 2007 federal budget to continue the program and complete the protection of the ranch. 

Given the importance of both Westwater Ranch and the Ranger Station to the recreational opportunities on the Colorado River, UGO strongly supports BLM’s program at the Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area. I espectfully re-
500 

quest that you include an LWCF appropriation of $1.3 million in the fiscal year 

2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to complete the acquisition 

of the remaining acreage of Westwater Ranch and other lands along the Colorado 

River SRMA. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 

to serve as a forum for coordinating the five states’ river-related programs and policies and for collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues. 

As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the water programs of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is particularly disappointed that 

the water programs are slated for a disproportionate cut. In particular, funding for 

programs within EPA’s ‘‘Clean and Safe Water’’ goal is proposed to be cut almost 

13 percent, from $3.1 billion to $2.7 billion. The percent decline for this budget area 

is much greater than that for the agency overall (a 4 percent reduction) and reflects 

a failure to adequately invest in the nation’s water quality. 

STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL GRANTS (SECTION 106)

The Administration has proposed a $5.5 million (2.5 percent) increase in funding 

for Section 106 State Water Pollution Control Grants for fiscal year 2007. This increase in Section 106 funds is intended to help states implement high priority Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) permitting and storm water permitting activities. 

While the UMRBA supports the President’s proposed increase in Section 106 

funding, the UMRBA states remain concerned with the adequacy of funding in the 

baseline Section 106 program, which has remained largely static in recent years. 

Under Section 106, states combine their matching dollars with federal funds to support the core state water quality programs under the Clean Water Act, including 

water quality assessment and monitoring, water quality planning and standard setting, total maximum daily load (TMDL) development, point source permitting, training, and public information. Adequate funds are particularly critical to supporting 

the states’ development and implementation of TMDLs, which have the potential to 

overwhelm state agency resources that are already strained. 

In general, UMRBA states have experienced a small, but consistent, decline in 

Section 106 funding in recent years. In fiscal year 2006, when Section 106 funding 

was approximately $216.2 million nationally, the five states in the Upper Mississippi River Basin were allocated a total of $21.1 million, a slight decrease from 

their fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 allocations. Even this amount of funding 

may not be fully realized in fiscal year 2006, because up to 10 percent of the allocated funds are potentially subject to recision. UMRBA states are concerned that 

the modest overall increase proposed by the Administration in fiscal year 2007 for 

Section 106 funding will not be sufficient to effectively maintain core Clean Water 

Act programs and will not reverse the erosion of resources being provided to the 

Upper Mississippi River states. 

WATER QUALITY COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS/GRANTS (SECTION 104(B)(3))

Given the essentially static level of baseline funding under Section 106, the President’s failure to request fiscal year 2007 funding for Section 104(b)(3) water quality 

grants is particularly disappointing. These grants are competitively awarded, with 

recipients including state environmental agencies, municipalities, Indian tribes, and 

nonprofits. Many of the innovations achieved through Section 104 have helped improve the states’ core water quality programs under Section 106. 

Historically, the Section 104 grants have enabled EPA to support innovative demonstration and special projects on topics ranging from institutional coordination to 

NPDES permits to monitoring and assessment. Special projects and studies undertaken with Section 104 funds are often critical to the states’ ability to develop required TMDLs for impaired waters. Additionally, these funds have recently helped 

UMRBA states to address emerging management challenges on the Upper Mississippi River such as creation of more uniform approaches to fish consumption 

advisories and development of sediment-related water quality criteria. 

Nationally, Section 104 funding fell from $14.0 million in fiscal year 2004 to $11.4 

million in fiscal year 2005 and no funding was provided in fiscal year 2006. Over 

the same period, Section 104 funding for EPA Regions 5 and 7 combined fell from 
501 

$3.3 million to $2.7 million to zero. While it is too early to assess the full impact 

of the loss of Section 104 funding in fiscal year 2006, the continued failure to fund 

will stifle innovation and significantly limit the already overburdened state water 

quality programs’ ability to meet new challenges. The UMRBA urges Congress to 

restore funding for Section 104(b)(3) grants at a recommended minimum level of 

$11.4 million in fiscal year 2007. 

CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is widely acknowledged as having been pivotal in improving the nation’s water quality by addressing 

wastewater infrastructure needs. However, the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget 

includes a 22 percent reduction in funding for this critical program. The UMRBA 

is deeply concerned with the Administration’s continued lack of support for the 

CWSRF. 

In fiscal year 2006, CWSRF funding continued a downward trend, falling to $887 

million, down from $1.09 billion in fiscal year 2005. Overall, CWSAF funding has 

declined more than 33 percent from its historical level of $1.34 billion in fiscal year 

2004. The five UMRBA states have experienced a commensurate reduction in 

CWSRF funding, receiving a total of $79.7 million in fiscal year 2006, down from 

$176.6 million in fiscal year 2004 and $143.2 million in fiscal year 2005. The Administration’s budget again proposes to cut the CWSRF, this time to $688 million for 

fiscal year 2007, resulting in a nearly 50 percent reduction from pre-fiscal year 2005 

levels. 

EPA’s own estimates show multi-billion dollar annual funding gaps for clean 

water and drinking water infrastructure over the next 20 years. The UMRBA states 

acknowledge that federal financial assistance is not the sole solution to this problem, but the appropriate response to this daunting challenge is most certainly not 

to further reduce federal support for this program. In order to best address the identified and continuing needs for clean water infrastructure improvements, the 

UMRBA recommends that Congress increase annual federal CWSRF appropriations 

to a level of $3 billion. 

STATE NONPOINT SOURCE GRANTS (SECTION 319)

Nonpoint sources are one of the major causes of water pollution in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, which drains the nation’s agricultural heartland. The Administration has requested $194 million for the Section 319 state nonpoint source grant 

program, a 5 percent decrease from the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $204 million, and an 18 percent overall decrease since fiscal year 2004. 

The prospect of a continued decline in Section 319 funding is particularly troubling to the UMRBA. For each year from fiscal year 2001 to 2004, the five states 

in the Upper Mississippi River Basin were allocated a total of $34.0 million in 

nonpoint source grants. In fiscal year 2006, this allocation stood at $29.9 million, 

with this amount being subject to an up to 10 percent recision. 

Increased resources for the USDA’s agricultural conservation programs have been 

cited as justification for this decrease in Section 319 funding. However, the USDA 

programs do not have water quality improvement as their primary purpose and do 

not include a monitoring component to measure efficacy. Thus, while the UMRBA 

welcomes and supports the expansion of USDA conservation programs, it continues 

to be essential to fund the Section 319 program as well. Without adequate funding, 

Section 319-supported programs cannot work in tandem with the USDA’s conservation programs, as originally envisioned, and certainly cannot address other pressing 

nonpoint source needs unrelated to agriculture, such as urban runoff and degraded 

urban streams and lakes. 

At a minimum, UMRBA urges Congress to restore funding for state nonpoint 

source grants to the fiscal year 2004 level of $237.1 million, recognizing that continued progress in addressing nonpoint pollution will require significantly increased resources. 

HYPOXIA ACTION PLAN

The UMRBA is disappointed that the Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget 

proposal does not include the resources needed to address the recommendations in 

the Hypoxia Action Plan, submitted by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force in January 2001. The states in the Upper Mississippi 

River Basin have consistently said that reductions in nutrient inputs to the Gulf of 

Mexico and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts will only be possible if the federal government provides significant new budgetary resources. 
502 

While the states continue to support the goals and strategies set forth in the Action Plan, little progress will be made to reduce the Gulf hypoxic zone and improve 

water quality conditions throughout the basin without a major federal financial 

commitment. The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposal does include funding 

to support the Gulf Program Office (a total of $4.3 million), but even this amount 

has decreased from previous funding and it does not supply the major resources 

needed for Upper Mississippi River efforts. Additionally, Targeted Watershed 

Grants, which in past years have supported some hypoxia-related efforts, are subject 

to a proposed cut of 58 percent (from $16.6 million to $6.9 million). The states of 

the Midwest heartland are being left to work largely through their existing programs, with limited resources, to reduce nutrient loading to the Gulf of Mexico. This 

approach is simply not adequate to make progress on a problem with the complexity 

and spatial scope of Gulf hypoxia. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (EMAP)

Within EPA’s Human Health and Ecosystems Research program, the President has proposed a $5 million cut to the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 

Program (EMAP) in fiscal year 2007. Part of EMAP is devoted to ‘‘the Great Rivers 

of the Central Basin’’ (EMAP–GRE), including the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio 

Rivers. EMAP–GRE is working to develop improved science and practical tools that 

states can use to assess the ecological conditions of these Great River ecosystems. 

In addition to doing some baseline sampling in the Mississippi River, EMAP–GRE 

is conducting research on reference conditions and developing a ‘‘report card’’ on 

water quality, plants, sediments, insects, fish, and other aquatic life. A valid report 

card requires consistent, uniform grading standards such as those provided by 

EMAP–GRE. Additionally, EMAP–GRE is developing biological criteria universally 

applicable to these great rivers and is working to standardize the numerous assessment protocols used by states to allow for reliable comparison and interpretation of 

data across state lines. This is the type of scientific work that no one state would 

be able to undertake alone, yet is fundamentally important to the states’ ability to 

manage and protect the river. Thus, UMRBA urges Congress to reject the proposed 

cut to EMAP’s budget and, at a minimum, fund EMAP at its fiscal year 2006 level. 

WATER SECURITY MONITORING PILOT PROGRAM (WATERSENTINEL)

EPA’s proposed budget includes a $30.5 million increase in funding of the 

‘‘WaterSentinel’’ program. This increase will support additional pilot systems for 

water quality surveillance and emergency response. The UMRBA supports the Administration’s commitment to this program and its proposed allocation of additional 

funds. The Upper Mississippi River states and utilities using the Mississippi River 

have been working together to initiate the establishment of an early warning monitoring network on the river and welcome any efforts by EPA to further progress in 

this area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 

to serve as a forum for coordinating the five states’ river-related programs and policies and for collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues. 

As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has important responsibilities in the Upper 

Mississippi River Basin, including management of federal refuge lands and coordination with other federal, state, and local agencies on river-related ecological issues. 

The UMRBA strongly supports funding necessary to enable the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to fulfill its responsibilities in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers 

over 284,000 acres of land and water scattered along the Mississippi and Illinois 

Rivers from the most northerly unit near Wabasha, Minnesota to the most southerly 

unit near Gape Girardeau, Missouri. This includes the Upper Mississippi River, 

Mark Twain, and Illinois River Complexes. The existence of this extensive national 

refuge system is, in part, the reason that, in 1986, Congress designated the Upper 

Mississippi River System as a ‘‘nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.’’ 
503 

The UMRBA strongly supports increased funding for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. With the essentially level funding proposed by the Administration for fiscal 

year 2007, inflation will increasingly erode the Service’s capacity to manage the refuge system. As an example, in fiscal year 2006, spending for the refuges along the 

Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers will likely total $6.8 million. Considering the 

land base managed by the Service on the Upper Mississippi River, this equates to 

a very modest $24 per acre, and does not represent an increase from fiscal year 

2005. As a result, there continues to be a backlog in routine maintenance and a 

need for additional personnel to address law enforcement, biological needs, floodplain forest management, technical assistance to private landowners, environmental 

education, and other refuge management needs. In particular, the refuges along the 

Upper Mississippi River System have responsibility for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of projects that the Corps of Engineers constructs on those refuges, 

under the authority of the Environmental Management Program (EMP), one of six 

national priority construction programs in the President’s Corps of Engineers budget. Currently, the Service’s annual O&M costs for EMP projects are running between $300,000 and $500,000, and its O&M liability for these national priority 

projects will only increase in the future. Fully funding the O&M of EMP projects 

is vital to ensuring that these habitat restoration and enhancement projects are 

fully operational and provide lasting environmental and public use benefits. A $1.0 

million appropriation to the Upper Mississippi River Refuge Complex in the Service’s construction budget is needed for EMP project management. 

Land Acquisition.—The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget includes just $27.1 

million for land acquisition, a 3 percent decrease from fiscal year 2006 and almost 

27 percent below the fiscal year 2005 level. The three Upper Mississippi River System refuge complexes alone have acquisition opportunities from willing sellers totaling $4 million annually. These are priority acquisitions within the authorized refuge 

boundaries that would address significant ecological needs on the refuges and, in 

many instances, also reduce potential flood-related economic losses. But, with $4 

million representing 15 percent of the President’s annual request for the entire 

country, it will be difficult to make progress on these UMRS acquisition opportunities, many of which could be lost if delays force landowners to make other decisions 

regarding their property. The UMRBA encourages Congress to fund land acquisition 

at a level that permits the Service to address such acquisition priorities. 

Ecological Services.—Funding from the Ecological Services account supports field 

offices in Rock Island (IL), the Twin Cities (MN), and Marion (IL), which provide 

most of the ecological services work on the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries. This includes work on threatened and endangered species, environmental 

contaminants, habitat conservation, and Partners for Fish and Wildlife. In fiscal 

year 2006, work being done by these Ecological Services field offices related to the 

Upper Mississippi River is estimated to be $375,000. The UMRBA is concerned that 

the Administration is proposing an 8 percent decrease for the Ecological Services 

Habitat Conservation account in fiscal year 2007. The ability of the Ecological Services offices to fully participate in a wide variety of interagency restoration programs 

on the Upper Mississippi is critical to balanced management of this nationally significant river system and must be supported from within the Service’s own budgetary resources. Thus, the UMRBA asks that, at minimum, funding for Habitat Conservation be maintained at fiscal year 2006 levels. 

Fisheries.—Most of the Service’s fish management on the Upper Mississippi River 

is conducted out of the La Crosse (WI), Columbia (MO), and Carterville (IL) Fisheries Resource Offices (FROs). These offices assess interjurisdictional fish and 

threatened and endangered species (paddlefish, pallid and shovelnose sturgeon, and 

freshwater mussels), help combat aquatic nuisance species (e.g., Asian carp), and restore fish habitat. The UMRBA supports this important work and is thus concerned 

about the 7.4 percent cut proposed for Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance in 

the fiscal year 2007 Fisheries account. (This reduction figure excludes $1.4 million 

that the Administration is proposing to transfer to the hatchery operations account.) 

Portions of the $4.4 million cut will affect general program activities (¥$1.2 million) 

and efforts related to aquatic nuisance species control (¥$75,000). These reductions 

could delay the Upper Mississippi FROs’ work on a controversial and technically demanding Asian carp control plan. At a minimum, funding for these activities should 

be maintained at fiscal year 2006 levels. 

The UMRBA is particularly pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2007 budget 

proposes an increase of $2.5 million for Hatchery Operations and Maintenance funding. (This increase excludes $1.4 million that the Administration is proposing to 

transfer from Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance.) This account supports the 

work of the Genoa (WI) National Fish Hatchery and the La Crosse (WI) Fish Health 

Center. The Genoa Hatchery, established in 1932 on the banks of the Mississippi 
504 

River, has become a center of excellence in the recovery of endangered mussels. It 

cultures endangered Higgins eye pearly mussels and rears 20 species of fish, including lake sturgeon, that are stocked into the Mississippi River near Missouri. The 

Genoa facility has teamed with state partners on mussel restoration work that has 

helped avert significant controversies on the Upper Mississippi. The La Crosse Fish 

Health Center provides critical diagnostics for diseases such as largemouth bass 

virus and spring viremia of carp. The Health Center’s invaluable expertise is unique 

within the country. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget for the U.S. Geological Survey reflects an 

overall decrease of $20.5 million, with a $7.7 million decrease in water resources 

and a $5.9 million decrease for biological research. Funding levels for most of 

USGS’s Water Resources and Biological Research programs have declined or remained static in recent years. The states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin are 

concerned that the USGS’s ability to provide timely and unbiased scientific information about complex natural systems not be compromised. There are several specific 

research and monitoring programs in the Water Resources and Biological Research 

accounts that are of particular interest to the UMRBA. 

Water Resources Investigations.—The UMRBA strongly supports the President’s 

proposed 20 percent increase in fiscal year 2007 for the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). The streamgaging network is essential to protecting public 

health and safety by forecasting floods and droughts, managing the nation’s navigation system, and monitoring water quality. In 1998, Congressional concern about 

streamgaging led the USGS to create NSIP. Unlike the Cooperative Water Program 

(which is funded in large part by non-federal Cooperators), Congress determined 

that NSIP should be funded entirely with federal appropriations. In November 2004, 

the National Research Council’s Committee on Water Resources Research completed 

its assessment of the USGS plans for NSIP: ‘‘Overall, the Committee concludes that 

the National Streamflow Information Program is a sound, well-conceived program 

that meets the nation’s needs for streamflow measurement, interpretation, and information delivery.’’ 

Of the 4,424 gages proposed for inclusion in NSIP nationwide, 524 are in the five 

UMRBA states. However, only about 69 percent of the NSIP gages in the UMRBA 

states are currently in operation, most funded through the Cooperative Water Program rather than NSIP. Furthermore, of the 333 active NSIP gages operated by 

USGS, 30 are on the USGS’s list of ‘‘threatened streamgages,’’ which may be discontinued in 2006 unless new funding sources can be identified. Another 80 NSIP gages 

are already inactive, due to past funding shortfalls. This erosion in funding support 

has led to the elimination, disrepair, or obsolescence of many long term gages, reducing our forecasting and emergency warning capabilities. To reverse this trend 

and enhance the long term stability and security of the nation’s streamgaging network, UMRBA urges Congress to provide, at a minimum, the President’s request 

of $16.764 million for NSIP in fiscal year 2007. 

The UMRBA also strongly supports increased funding for the Cooperative Water 

Program (CWP). CWP is an essential tool in meeting state and local water science 

needs, including both interpretive studies and streamgaging. For most of its 110 

years, the CWP was a 50:50 cost-shared program between USGS and non-federal 

cooperators. More recently, increased requests by cooperators for USGS services, 

coupled with stagnant federal funding, have altered that proportion. USGS now 

pays only 33 percent of the program costs. USGS funding for the CWP would need 

to almost double in order for USGS to match current cooperator funding on a dollarfor-dollar basis. In 2004, there were 1,386 cooperators nationwide, of which 163 

were in the five UMR basin states. The President’s fiscal year 2007 request for the 

CWP ($62.17 million) represents a cut of $2 million and would exacerbate the continuing decline in CWP capability. Thus, UMRBA joins with water resource managers across the nation in asking that Congress provide $74 million for the CWP 

in order to restore real program purchasing power to its fiscal year 2003 level. 

The President’s fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $13.2 million for the Toxic Substances Hydrology program, a decrease of 8 percent. The Toxics Program, which conducts research on the behavior of toxic substances in the nation’s hydrologic environments, is particularly important to the states of the Upper Midwest. Under this 

program, USGS provides a range of scientific information to support management 

decisions related to excess nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin and hypoxia in 

the Gulf of Mexico. In particular, USGS assesses the sources and transport of nitrogen, models nutrient flux, and conducts research on nutrient transport in both the 

Mississippi River and smaller streams in the basin. Given the important work un-
505 

derway in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress 

to provide $14.5 million, at a minimum, commensurate with the fiscal year 2005 

level of funding. 

The UMRBA continues to support funding for the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), which is slated for $62.6 million under the President’s fiscal year 

2007 budget. NAWQA is designed to answer basic questions about the status and 

trends in the quality of our nation’s ground and surface waters, assessing 50 major 

river basins and aquifers across the nation on a rotating basis. The Upper Mississippi River Basin includes four NAWQA study units (Upper Mississippi, Eastern 

Iowa, Lower Illinois, and Upper Illinois). The first three of these are in the assessment cycle that began in fiscal year 2004. The Upper Illinois assessment cycle is 

scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2007. 

Biological Research.—The President’s budget request for USGS Biological Research is $172.6 million, $5.9 million below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and 

less than $900,000 above fiscal year 2005. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the overall 

Biological Research budget has been declining in recent years, impairing the USGS’s 

ability to meet critical science and information needs, both within the Interior Department and more broadly. Indeed, USGS’s Biological Research supports critical 

national needs, including maintenance of a vital data infrastructure, as well as several specific research efforts of great regional importance. For example, through its 

Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, USGS is studying bird migration, 

native mussels, amphibian decline, invasive species, and vegetation response to 

water level management on the Upper Mississippi River. All of these research questions have direct relevance to the real world challenges associated with managing 

the river for both navigation and ecosystem health. Of particular concern to the 

UMRBA states is the Administration’s proposal again this year to cut funding for 

pallid sturgeon research. Understanding the movements and habitat needs of this 

ancient, but endangered, species is critical to its recovery on the Mississippi and 

Missouri Rivers. State and federal resource managers need answers to these questions. Unfortunately, USGS’s capacity to contribute sound science to river management is increasingly constrained by its fiscal limitations. Given these needs, the 

UMRBA recommends that, at a minimum, Biological Research be funded at the fiscal year 2006 level of $178.5 million. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE USGS COALITION

SUMMARY

The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the U.S. Geological 

Survey to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007. 

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

From 1996 to 2006, total federal spending for research and development has risen 

by 55 percent from $87 billion to $134 billion in constant dollars. By contrast, real 

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. 
506 

The need for USGS science in support of decisionmaking has never been greater. 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the USGS was praised for quickly arriving on 

the scene and providing specialized geospatial maps to locate victims trapped in 

flooded neighborhoods and support rescue efforts. The USGS provided water level 

and flow measurements from stream gages for the dewatering of New Orleans and 

performed health-based water quality and sediment analyses throughout the Gulf 

Coast. 

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. Research on ecosystem structure and function assists forest and 

rangeland managers with forecasting fire risk and managing natural systems following fires. 

After a series of devastating natural disasters during the past two years, 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. 

Equally as important as natural hazards, natural resources—from energy to 

freshwater supplies—captured the public’s attention in 2005. The USGS conducts 

essential assessments of water levels, flow rates and quality, and of mineral, coal, 

oil and natural gas resources. USGS biologists assess wildlife populations, such as 

through the bird-banding program, that provide land managers with data needed 

to effectively manage fishing and hunting, as well as public lands for healthy wildlife populations. These comprehensive assessments are among the most reliable 

source of data for natural resource management at a national level. 

The potential for an avian flu pandemic remains a global concern. The USGS is 

conducting targeted surveillance of aquatic birds for avian flu in North America. 

Other biological programs assess the health, distribution, and diversity of wildlife 

and provide information necessary to track and respond to infectious diseases that 

can be transmitted from wildlife to people. Still other programs help sustain land 

and water resources and monitor the spread of invasive species that can pose significant economic threats. 

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 
507 

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 said: ‘‘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’’ (S. Rpt. 108–341). 

USGS BUDGET REQUEST

The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the U.S. Geological 

Survey to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2007, which is necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to the public and to decisionmakers at all levels 

of government. The recommended budget increase would enable the USGS to restore the science cuts proposed in the budget request, accelerate the timetable for 

deployment of critical projects (such as the National Streamflow Information Program), 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 President’s fiscal year 2007 budget request would cut funding for the USGS 

by $20.6 million or 2.1 percent to $944.8 million. The budget request would add 

$40.1 million in new programs and fixed costs, which would be offset by redirecting 

$50.7 million from lower priority activities and eliminating $10.0 million in earmarked funds, according to USGS budget documents. 

The USGS budget request would provide funding for several initiatives, including 

a multi-hazards pilot initiative, development of Landsat 8, increased energy research, and testing for avian influenza in wild birds as part of an expanding detection effort. These initiatives deserve the support of Congress. 

The USGS budget request would cut $22.0 million from the Mineral Resources 

program, a 41.7 percent decrease in funding that would decimate the program. The 

budget request would also eliminate the entire $6.4 million budget for the Water 

Resources Research Institutes, which are located in all 50 states. These and other 

proposed budget cuts would adversely affect the ability of the USGS to achieve its 

mission. We encourage Congress to restore the cuts, but this funding should not 

come at the expense of other high priority programs elsewhere in the USGS budget. 

The USGS Mineral Resources program is an essential source of unbiased research 

on our mineral resources. This guidance is important to reduce the environmental 

impacts of mining and to maintain the growing value of processed materials from 

mineral resources that accounted for $478 billion in the U.S. economy in 2005, an 

increase of 8 percent over the previous year. The proposed cuts would terminate 

multidisciplinary research that has important implications for public health (such 

as studies on mercury, arsenic and other inorganic toxins), environmental protection, infrastructure, economic development, and national security. 

The Water Resources Research Institutes have been highly successful in developing cooperative programs that leverage federal investments with funds from other 

sources. The proposal to eliminate all funding for this partnership is inconsistent 

with guidance from the House Appropriations Committee: ‘‘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’’ (H.Rpt. 108–542). 

The USGS budget request includes an increase of $20.7 million for non-discretionary ‘‘fixed cost’’ increases (such as salaries and rent), of which $15.2 million are 

budgeted and $5.5 million are ‘‘absorbed.’’ The cumulative effect of absorbing fixed 

cost increases over many years 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 could increase our vulnerability to natural disasters and 

increase the costs of recovery. 

In addition to restoring 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, implement important bioinformatics programs, produce high-quality digital geospatial data and de-
508 

liver 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. If you require additional information or to learn more about the USGS Coalition, please contact cochairs Robert Gropp of the American Institute of Biological Sciences 

(rgropp@aibs.org) or Craig Schiffries of the National Council for Science and the Environment (schiffries@NCSEonline.org). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ARCHERY TRADE ASSOCIATION, BOONE AND CROCKETT

CLUB, BOWHUNTING PRESERVATION ALLIANCE, CAMPFIRE CLUB OF AMERICA, CONSERVATION FORCE, DALLAS SAFARI CLUB, DUCKS UNLIMITED, FOUNDATION FOR

NORTH AMERICAN WILD SHEEP, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES, IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, NATIONAL TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, NORTH AMERICAN BEAR FOUNDATION, NORTH AMERICAN GROUSE PARTNERSHIP, QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK

FOUNDATION, RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY, SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL, TEXAS

WILDLIFE ASSOCIATION, THEODORE ROOSEVELT CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP, THE

WILDLIFE SOCIETY, WHITETAILS UNLIMITED, INC., AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

We write to ask for your support in providing $17.5 million in fiscal year 2007 

to fill the many vacant scientist positions in the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). We greatly appreciate 

your past efforts in behalf of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units, especially given difficult budgetary constraints. 

As you know, the 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units across the 

country provide very important and cost-effective products and services to state and 

federal agencies, universities and private landowners in the form of managementoriented research, graduate level education, and technical assistance. 

Full funding and scientist staffing for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Units, which was achieved through your support in fiscal year 2001, resulted in unparalleled cooperation, productivity, and service in the management of our natural 

resources. Unfortunately, The $14.938 million requested by the Administration for 

fiscal year 2007 is $2.6 million less than the amount needed to fill the vacant Unit 

scientist positions and meet congressionally mandated increases in federal salaries 

and benefits, and is only $861,000 more than the amount appropriated 6 years earlier. During that same time the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units will 

have been required to absorb $3.0 million in uncontrollable salary and benefit costs, 

while being directed to establish and staff a new Unit. The result is that a record 

number of Unit scientist positions (22) will need to be vacant by the end of fiscal 

year 2007 in order to meet the funding level in the current budget request. Lack 

of funding to fill these vacancies has caused the number of Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit scientists to be reduced by 25 percent to 67 percent within 

a given state. 

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units have been a remarkably successful investment. Unit scientists leverage the USGS base funding provided by 

Congress more than 3:1 with funds from other sources. Unit scientists also play a 

vital role in practical, real-world training of the next generation of natural resource 

managers, who will be needed soon to replace a significant professional workforce 

component that is nearing retirement. Scientist vacancies hamper the ability of the 

program to leverage funding from state, federal, and private sources for addressing 

key natural resource problems and training tomorrow’s managers. 

We urge you, therefore, to support providing $17.5 million for the Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program in fiscal year 2007. This action will fill 

vacant scientist positions at the Units and ensure that the Units can continue to 

support the needs of state, university, and private cooperators in your states and 

elsewhere across the country. 

We thank you for consideration of our request. 

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 
509 

needs, concerns and issues of the tribal membership arising from the President’s fiscal year 2007 Budget. 

INDIAN EDUCATION

Johnson O’Malley.—We urge the Subcommittee to restore $16.8 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 elimination of JOM funding. 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. 

NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

Circle of Flight.—We strongly urge the Subcommittee to restore $600,000 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 funding for the Lac du Flambeau Tribal Management and 

Development Program to be restored to the fiscal year 2005 level, which was 

$178,500. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.—The Band requests that $10.4 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 fis- cal year 2001, there were 27 THPOs with an average award of $154,000; in fiscal 

year 2005, there were 54 THPOs, and the Band received only $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. 

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 $4,174,000 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 2007 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 
510 

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 $11.4 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 Committee 

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 2007, the Administration reduced this to $150,000. Continued operation of the program requires restoration of this $21,000 cut. 

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 2007 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. 

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. In light of this significant need 

for construction dollars at the Lac du Flambeau, we are disappointed in the President’s proposed IHS Construction budget, which proposes significant cuts in this 

program. 

If we can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our 

counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick 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; arolnick@sonosky.com. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE VILLAGE OF WELLINGTON, FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Village of Wellington, I am pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our request for funding in the amount of $2.7 million in the fiscal year 2007 Appropriation 

Bill for Interior & Related Agencies to support the Village’s efforts to comply with 

the mandates of the Everglades Forever Program. 

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 
511 

phosphorus standard by December 31, 2006 for its stormwater discharges into the 

Arthur Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (conservation Area No. 1). 

To meet these mandates, the Village created the Village of Wellington Water Clean 

Up/Phosphorus Removal Project. 

The Acme Basin B drainage has been one of the biggest issues and challenges the 

Village has faced. Wellington has spent the last several years working toward compliance with the EFA. In March 2005, the Village of Wellington began constructing 

its improvement per the approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to redirect Basin B waters to 

the C–51 canal and then to STA 1–E. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Acme Basin B Discharge project is one of 55 projects that comprise the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). The Basin B drainage area is part 

of the Acme Improvement District, which was created by the state of Florida in 

1953 to provide drainage for agricultural land in central Palm Beach County. During the 50 years since its inception, land uses within the improvement district have 

changed dramatically. The Acme Improvement District now serves the Village of 

Wellington with over 55,000 residents, and impacts the West Palm Beach metropolitan area with a population of approximately 1.3 million. 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. 

Wellington was the first Everglades community to develop and implement a comprehensive Everglades strategy with the South Florida Water Management District, 

which included: 

—Removing phosphorus at the source to reduce the need for costly infrastructure; 

Best Management Practices have lowered the phosphorus levels and helped reduce clean up costs; 

—Use of partnership opportunities to make environmental water cleaner and 

available when and where the Everglades need it; 

—Wise use of resources to ensure the most cost effective solution, taking the least 

land out of productive use and giving the most up front clean-up; 

—Complete redesign of the Wellington drainage system to divert unclean water 

from direct discharge to Loxahatchee Wildlife Preserve; 

—This non-traditional, Best Management Practices focus will allow the Basin B 

Project to use a large portion of a section of land for recreation and environmental education in addition to flood attenuation rather than building another 

clean-up marsh. 

As part of its Basin B Water Clean Up Initiative, the Village of Wellington assembled a ‘‘Surface Water Action Team’’ (SWAT) comprised of key personnel and expert 

consultants. This Initiative is presently working on a Phase II 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 phosphorus concentration discharged to the Loxahatchee Refuge was 189 

parts per billion (ppb). In 2004, the average concentration had dropped to 67 ppb, 

which is a large decrease in phosphorus levels. Although inconclusive, it is likely 

that the implementation of the BMP Ordinance played a part in this decrease in 

phosphorus concentrations. 

In March 2005, the Village of Wellington began constructing its improvement per 

the approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with SFWMD to redirect 

Basin B Waters to the C–51 Canal and then to STA 1–E. The Village projects all 

its improvements to be completed well ahead of schedule. 

One of the final components to this project is the successful implementation of 

Section 24 Recreational Wetland Acquisition, Planning and Development Study. 

This project was established to examine land that is presently owned by the South 

Florida Water Management District for potential development by the Village as a 

wetlands park for the purpose of preserving the wetlands and for potential environmental and/or recreational uses. The main use of the property is flood attenuation. 

Other potential uses include recreational use, consisting of elevated nature board-
512 

walks, trails, horse trails, storm water retention and a recharge area. The Village 

is seeking assistance with this project through matching grant opportunities as part 

of the Basin B solution. 

Wellington is currently refining its agreements with the South Florida Water 

Management District to ensure that structured parts of the project are built on time 

and within budget, and that the unique recreational aspects fit into the Wellington 

Community and enhance citizen opportunities to understand the Everglades. To do 

this, Wellington and the SFWMD continue to work together to complete the project 

and review operational progress to determine the optimal and practical operations 

of the redesigned system. 

Carol Wehle, Executive Director of South Florida Water Management District has 

stated the cooperative mission very well: ‘‘Restoring the Everglades is one of the 

most significant restoration efforts world-wide not only because of the significance 

of its natural communities, but also because of the urban communities that live 

within its watershed. Science and engineering can only go so far. Residents and 

communities also have a critical role, and we are especially proud of the working 

relationship we have developed with Wellington. The commitments from communities like Wellington are proving that it is possible to work cooperatively toward 

solutions that create benefits for everyone involved, including the environment.’’ 

FUNDING NEEDS

Since 1999, the Village has invested over $5 million (not including $5.4 million 

for Pump Station renovations currently scheduled in conjunction with this project) 

of its own funds toward the preservation and, in some cases, restoration of environmentally sensitive land. We are committed to continuing our investment and our 

progress, and we anticipate additional costs to the Village of $3.25 million. The 

project under the recently approved Basin B agreement has a total estimated cost 

of approximately $22 million (which will be shared with South Florida Water Management District and the Federal Government). 

For fiscal year 2007, the Village of Wellington is seeking $2.7 from the Environmental Protection Agency through your Appropriations Subcommittee. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE VENTANA WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Ventana Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the first phase of the Rancho Calera conservation project in the Los 

Padres National Forest as part of the Big Sur Ecosystem program. 

My organization is the only non-profit group to release condors in California and 

have done so since 1997. We have the most robust database of condor locations anywhere in the state. The Rancho Calera property is strategically located for many 

species of wildlife, including California Condors. Condors are fairly commonly found 

at this property as it is an important flyway and is in close proximity to naturally 

occurring food supplies along the Big Sur Coastline. 

This year, the 800-acre Rancho Calera property is available for protection. This 

critical property is adjacent to Forest Service and local park lands and would link 

upland forests to the rugged Pacific coastline via trails and habitat corridors. The 

property contains over 200 acres of redwoods, some of which have been used by condors for overnight roosting. The recent sighting of a condor nest in a hollow redwood 

tree in Big Sur, for the first time in 100 years, as reported March 29, 2006 in the 

Monterey Herald, makes clear the importance of protecting Rancho Calera and its 

redwood forests as condors are re-introduced into the wild. 

Big Sur is one of the most stunning landscapes in California. Protection of this 

property would secure an important connection between existing public lands, so 

that visitors may enjoy its grandeur for generations to come. An appropriation of 

$2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2007 is needed to start this property’s acquisition and to ensure that acres of prime wildlife 

habitat and recreation lands within the Big Sur Ecosystem are forever preserved. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Rancho Calera project in California. 
513 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WHIRLING DISEASE FOUNDATION

Whirling disease is a parasitic infection of trout and salmon that is present in 23 

states and has caused trout population declines in many of the West’s finest trout 

streams. The discovery of rainbow trout strains with resistance to Myxobolous 

cerebralis infection (whirling disease) has provided a unique and potentially powerful approach to control whirling disease in selected wild trout populations. The 

Hofer rainbow trout strain was the first among several recently discovered ‘‘resistant’’ trout strains, and therefore research on this strain is the most advanced. Considerable data has now been obtained on the response of both pure strain and 

crosses between the Hofer strain and natural rainbow trout to infections with the 

parasite. Evaluation of other potentially naturally resistant strains of rainbow trout 

from areas endemic for whirling disease in North America is ongoing, and at least 

two additional strains have been identified as having some degree of resistance to 

the parasite. Research on these ‘‘resistant’’ rainbow trout strains is considered a 

very important part of the fisheries management programs to control whirling disease. Research is currently in progress in Colorado, Montana, Utah, California, and 

Idaho. 

The research on resistant strains has proceeded using a strategic plan developed 

by the Whirling Disease Foundation and funded with private and federal funds 

(FWS), with each phase addressing particular concerns that might arise: 

Phase I provided confirmation of resistance of the fish. 

Phase II provided assurance that the strain identified poses no pathogenic threat 

to existing native fishes. For the Hofer trout, this has meant extensive testing for 

presence of exotic pathogens, repeated health examinations for any pathogens, and 

testing for susceptibility to common pathogens they might encounter in the wild. Results of these tests showed this strain was not a carrier of any exotic pathogens and 

their susceptibility to other pathogens was similar to other rainbow trout. In other 

words, it had neither gained nor lost resistance to other pathogens as a result of 

selection for resistance to whirling disease. 

Phase III, currently in progress, provides information necessary for resource managers to decide if resistant rainbow trout strains have a role in their program. This 

has involved extensive testing of crosses between resistant and other rainbow trout 

strains (for example, Colorado River and Harrison Lake strains) for resistance to 

whirling disease, growth characteristics, survival in river and reservoir habitats and 

behavioral characteristics (such as vulnerability to angling). The studies are most 

advanced with the Hofer strain but work on both the Harrison Lake and Madison 

River strains is underway. In coordination with more applied studies on resistant 

trout the WDF also sponsors basic research that explores the cellular and molecular 

mechanisms that are providing the resistance observed in these resistant trout 

strains. This combination of applied and basic research is viewed as a balanced approach to understanding disease resistance in both general and more specific terms 

but also to provide potential applications that solve current problems created by 

whirling disease in wild trout populations. 

As the research on these resistant trout progresses the potential application of selectively bred rainbow trout for fisheries management will increase. Decisions on 

just how resistant trout will be utilized to control whirling disease will be dependent 

on the approval by agencies responsible for the aquatic resources. One potential application of selectively bred rainbow trout in the intermountain west where they are 

not native will be the restoration of prized fisheries decimated by whirling disease. 

However, this application must be tied closely to the protection of native fish including other salmonid species, which is the responsibility of resource managers. The 

WDF’s contribution to such decisions will not be in making or supporting policy but 

in sponsoring research that will assist resource managers in making informed decisions when they are making policies. The WDF does this by funding a variety of 

research projects on whirling disease and by organizing venues for the exchange of 

information among scientists, resource managers, and other constituents (12th annual Whirling Disease Symposium, Denver, February, 2006). 

Lastly, the WDF believes and state fisheries managers acknowledge that resistant 

trout will be one of the most important solutions to reduce the effects of whirling 

disease in states where its effects have devastated trout populations but other important considerations and other approaches are warranted. These include: 

1. Naturally reproducing wild rainbow and cutthroat trout in their native range 

must be protected from genetic or biological intrusions of hatchery rainbow trout of 

any strain. And that dollars spent to benefit these populations are best spent for 

habitat restoration that is the long-term key to their success. 

2. In areas where rainbow trout fisheries outside of their native range have been 

established and then have declined or face elimination due to WD, introduction of 
514 

WD resistant rainbow trout may serve a useful role in restoration. However, programs to rebuild or restore these nonnative fisheries should not occur at the expense 

of re-establishing native fish assemblages, particularly those fish species that might 

hybridize with rainbow trout (e.g. cutthroat trout). 

3. The most cautious approaches to re-introducing/re-establishing rainbow trout 

populations outside of their native ranges is done by using progeny from crosses between WD resistant rainbow trout and naturalized rainbow trout. 

Presently, resistant strains of rainbow trout are being used in a research program 

in Colorado, where Hofer trout and progeny between Hofer and other strains are 

being evaluated for some of the applications above. Progeny of these crosses have 

also been shared with the states of Utah and California, where they are being 

reared in state hatcheries and private aquaculture for the purpose of evaluating 

their performance under different culture conditions, and in Idaho, the Hofer rainbow will be utilized in an attempt to re-establish an important recreational rainbow 

fishery in the Big Lost River. Another resistant trout strain discovered in Montana 

is being reared and evaluated in cooperation with a federal research facility. The 

progress in research and the expansion of the WD resistant trout research program 

indicate that $400,000 in federal support would required in fiscal year 2007. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WEBER PATHWAYS

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: On behalf of Weber 

Pathways, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $3 

million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for critical land 

protection efforts along the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Utah. 

Weber Pathways in a non-profit organization that is particularly committed to 

creating a network of trails in Weber County. We are committed to the idea that 

non-motorized network of public pathways significantly contribute to our community’s economic vitality and quality of life. 

Weber Pathways believes that the proven benefits of trails include: 

—Encouraging outdoor recreation, fitness and good health; 

—Enabling residents, especially children, to travel safely to their destinations on 

foot, bicycle, horseback, skis or even wheelchair; 

—Fostering sustainable economic activity by providing amenities that attract 

business development and tourism; 

—Protecting access to trailheads, mountains, rivers, open spaces, and public 

lands; 

—Revitalizing people as they engage with their landscape, and 

—Creating community pride as neighbors interact and come to appreciate their 

environment. 

Weber Pathways, with the strong support of counties and cities in the area, envisions a comprehensive network of greenways joining urban and rural pathways that 

respect private landowners while linking communities throughout Weber County. 

In 2005, Weber Pathways successfully negotiated a trail easement over a five-mile 

stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail along the northeastern side of North Ogden 

City in Weber County. The easement is along a utility corridor that is owned by 

the utility company Pacificorp. This stretch of the trail offers spectacular views in 

several directions; south overlooking the Salt Lake Valley and north towards existing National Forest and Ben Lomond Peak, an iconic natural feature of Weber 

County. We anticipate that the trail will be completed and opened for public use 

by the fall of 2006. 

North Ogden is a rapidly growing city, with housing development growing towards the northeastern foothills of the Wasatch Mountains towards the National 

Forest and the newly acquired stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. The Forest 

Service and project partners have proposed a program whereby private lands between the existing National Forest and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail could be acquired to protect the views and protect this vital public recreation trail, and further 

to facilitate spur trails off BST that would enable hikers, bikers and horse-riders 

to access canyons within the Forest. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is also intended 

to serve as a firebreak between the National Forest and urban areas and as a physical demarcation of the boundary of Forest Service property. Both of these functions 

are dependent on the acquisition of the private lands in question. I understand that 

the program area is already within the authorized boundaries of the Wasatch Cache 

National Forest. 

In fiscal year 2007, a total of $3 million is needed to acquire BST properties, and 

which would provide funding for the Forest Service for a land protection program 

along this new section of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in Weber County. 
515 

I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $3 million for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail in the fiscal year 2007 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN COALITION OF ARID STATES

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2007 budget request for the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on water quality and water 

quantity issues in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our mission is to work with Federal, State and Regional 

water quality and quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound law, regulations, 

appropriations and policies that protect public health in the environment of the arid 

West. 

WESTCAS supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission of working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. The budget of the FWS is designed 

to support this mission. WESTCAS welcomes opportunities to partner with FWS in 

the promotion of this mission and in that we support several programs outlined 

within the fiscal year 2007 budget. 

Protecting the environment requires the development of best management practices and policies that can be implemented, validated and measured. In administering the Endangered Species Act the FWS is developing partnerships with agencies and scientific standards for its implementation. WESTCAS supports the fiscal 

year 2007 budget for this critical program and requests an evaluation of additional 

funding opportunities for the Endangered Species. Specifically WESTCAS would like 

to ensure the Colorado River Flow study is fully funded. This Colorado river and 

its basin is the major water source for millions of people in Colorado, Nevada, California and Arizona. 

Thank you for considering our request. 

State and tribal wildlife grants provide funding to ensure research and development continues within the FWS program. The FWS program has changed dramatically over time, many changes due to research performed. Therefore, it is critical 

to continue to evaluate the environment and the effects of discharges and encroachment on wildlife. This evaluation provides the foundation for future research into 

minimizing those effects and the development of practices, regulations and standards that allow for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

The Private Stewardship program has enhanced the management of non-native 

species, restoration of habitat and assisted in reforming habitats which support imperiled species. WESTCAS supports these programs and the appropriation for the 

continuation of the Private Stewardship program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN COALITION OF ARID STATES

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2007 budget request for the United States Geological Survey. 

WESTCAS is a coalition of Western towns and municipalities, water and wastewater agencies, irrigation districts, Native American nations, companies with water 

and wastewater concerns and professionals in the fields of engineering, the environmental sciences, and natural resources law and policy. WESTCAS was formed in 

1992 by Western water and wastewater agencies concerned with the quality and 

management of water resources in the Arid West. A grass roots organization, 

WESTCAS is dedicated to encouraging the development of water programs and regulations which assure adequate supplies of high quality water for those living in the 

arid regions while protecting the environment. 

MISSION AND SERVICES

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the nations primary provider of 

earth and biological information related to natural hazards; certain aspects of the 

environment; and mineral, energy, water, and biological resources. It is the Federal 

Government’s principal civilian mapping agency and primary source of data on the 

quantity and quality of the nation’s water resources by maintaining a network 
516 

water measuring stations. The USGS is the sole science agency for the Department 

of the Interior and provides impartial science information that is used by many 

other Federal, State and local agencies. Its motto of ‘‘science for a changing world’’ 

says it all. A major value of the USGS to the Nation is its ability to carry on studies 

on a national and regional scale and to sustain long-term monitoring and assessment of natural resources. 

The scientific focus of the USGS and its non-regulatory role, enable the USGS to 

provide information and interpretation that are policy relevant and policy neutral. 

The agency also forms collaborative partnerships with State and local governments, 

which is used to leverage matching funds for topographic and water resources investigations, and directly contracts for reimbursable work. 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET ANALYSIS

The following is a comparison of the President’s proposed budget (in millions of 

dollars) to the 2005 and 2006 budgets in the major categories: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Program 2005 

actual 

12006 

enacted 

2007 

request Change 

National Mapping Program .......................................................... 118,751 129,273 76,614 ¥52,659 

Geologic Haz, Res, & Proc. ........................................................... 237,346 235,286 217,418 ¥17,868 

Water Resources Invest. ............................................................... 211,200 211,764 204,047 ¥7,717 

Biological Research ...................................................................... 171,699 178,544 172,597 ¥5,947 

Enterprise Information .................................................................. 44,373 46,394 111,230 ∂64,838 

Science Support ............................................................................ 65,584 69,302 67,382 ¥1,920 

Facilities ....................................................................................... 94,611 94,782 95,472 ∂690 

Total ................................................................................ 943,564 965,345 944,760 ¥20,585 

WESTCAS INTEREST IN USGS BUDGET

As the premier, grassroots organization dedicated to scientifically proven methods 

for environmentally sound long-term water supply planning in the arid West, 

WESTCAS member agencies rely on USGS water resources and biological data in 

assessing programs and regulations. Federal and State regulators rely on USGS 

data for the same purpose. 

1. The overall reduction in the total USGS budget by 2 percent is of great concern 

to WESTCAS in light of major changes in the ecosystems of the Arid West due to 

global warming, and a variety of natural disasters, which to evaluate comprehensively, requires significantly more scientific data and analyses, not less. 

2. WESTCAS initiatives are most affected by the USGC budgets for Water Resources Investigations. These include the Ground-water Resources Program, the National Water-Quality Assessment, the Toxic Substances Hydrology, Hydrologic Research & Development, National Streamflow Information Program, the Hydrologic 

Networks and Analysis, the Cooperative Water Program, and the Water Resources 

Research Act Programs. Except for the National Streamflow Information Program 

and a small increase in the National Water-Quality Assessment, all other 2007 

budgets are proposed to be reduced with funding for the Water Resources Research 

Institutes eliminated. We are concerned that some of the Water Resources Research 

Institutes will not be able to support themselves and be forced to close. The overall 

decrease of 3.6 percent in Water Resource Investigations is significant, when more 

funding in all areas is required to the reasons mentioned in item 1. 

3. It is noted that the funding to the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) is proposed to be increased by $2.3 million for streamgaging activities. This 

will allow 30 additional streamgages and continued operations at high priority sites. 

This is good start in reversing the trend and bring back some of the 1,790 

streamgages that were lost due to lack of funding from 1980 to 2000. However, 

WESTCAS supports additional funding for several years for the NSIP to further stabilize, modernize, and expand the streamgage program to meet the USGS goal of 

4,700 backbone streamgages from the current 3,100 currently active. We support the 

sharing of these additional costs with funding partners. 

4. WESTCAS is concerned about the decrease in the Biological Research funding 

by 3.5 percent, because of the increased need for this data in establishing regulations based on good science. Most of our arid western water projects impact and are 

impacted by issues with flora and fauna. WESTCAS supports the Arid West Project, 

which is providing biological data and analyses of arid west ecosystems, so that better decision making can occur. 
517 

5. The USGS should be complimented on its publication of their Scientific Investigations Report—Water Availability for the Western United States—Key Scientific 

Challenges. WESTCAS agrees with its analysis of the complex issues and scientific 

challenges associated with sustainability of water supplies in the arid west. Funding 

should be provided to implement additional research in areas identified by the Report. 

Thank you for considering our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN COALITION OF ARID STATES

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2007 budget request for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on water quality and water 

quantity issues in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our mission is to work with Federal, State and Regional 

water quality and quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound law, regulations, 

appropriations and policies that protect public health in the environment of the arid 

West. 

Most citizens of the United States consider the public safety departments to be 

police and fire. Yet when these people come into their lives it is usually do to a personal catastrophe or problem. Yet water service providers are their every day. It is 

a service that is taken for granted until it is not available. People providing water 

services truly are a part of public safety and the Environmental Protection Agency 

provides the rules, regulations, tools and often funding to ensure that this public 

safety item is one which the residents of the United States can trust. 

Providing clean, safe water services to citizens is not just a function of the members of WESTCAS it is the mission of each and passion of each of its members. The 

proposed decrease of greater than twenty percent in Water Protection funding could 

greatly impair the ability of State, Local and Regional representatives to support 

EPA’s goal of increasing drinking water standards to 89–95 percent of the population and increasing shellfish growing areas from 77 to 91 percent. 

EPA’s decision to move forward on the Total Coliform Rule, developing ways of 

comprehensive contamination warning systems, and requiring the reduction of vessel discharges and invasive species will assist organizations in providing services to 

residents. WESTCAS supports these budget initiatives. Databases provide critical 

information to all users. The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SIDWIS) is 

used by Federal, State, Local agencies and public interest groups. Ensuring this 

data is accurate is crucial. As this database is expanded to allow the regulated community to directly input and update their information the EPA will have data with 

fewer inconsistencies. 

State Revolving Funding programs provide low cost loans and grants to ensure 

drinking water and wastewater regulations are met. The needs surveys indicate 

that funding needs are increasing not decreasing. The proposed reductions to the 

State Revolving Fund program will cause a dramatic reduction in infrastructure 

programs. The current Clean Water Needs Survey provided to Congress identifies 

billions in need that directly affect water safety. WESTCAS supports increasing the 

SRF program funding to its original level. 

Ensuring the aquifer is protected provides security to all residents. Leaking underground storage facilities, illegal dumping and mismanagement of land application products can lead to contamination of this vial resource. WESTCAS therefore 

supports EPA’s superfund program and the pursuance of cost recoveries. 

The border of Mexico is great interest to WESTCAS as many of its members are 

a border state. EPA’s ‘‘build a partnership work group for Mexico’’ is an area that 

WESTCAS would like to offer as a partnership opportunity. WESTCAS members 

are familiar with the terrain, complications in sighting wells, and wastewater challenges. At this time WESTCAS supports this initiative and welcomes the opportunity to assist in this process and would appreciate consideration to be part of the 

work group. 

EPA has recognized the need to cultivate its own employees. American Water 

Works Association and Water Environment Federation have identified the need for 

additional utility workers in the future. Operators are retiring at an alarming rate 

and due to the need to be competitive, training opportunities for grade 1 and 2 operators are limited. This is causing a regional and national decrease in available 

workers with the required skill sets to run water and wastewater facilities. EPA’s 

decision to eliminate funding for operator training will increase this problem. There-
518 

fore, WESTCAS is requesting that EPA evaluate this decision and its long term effects on future operations of facilities. 

Budget development and allotment of funding is a challenge and one which requires a great deal of introspection within the organization. WESTCAS appreciates 

the opportunity to provide testimony on this complex task. 

Thank you for considering our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (Commission or WSSC), established in 1918, is a public, bi-county agency providing water and wastewater services to Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in the Washington Capital region. 

WSSC is governed by six Commissioners with equal representation from each county and has developed its systems to the point where it is a national leader in the 

water and sewerage industry. The Commission is the among the ten largest water 

and wastewater utilities in the country, serving approximately 1.6 million people in 

a 1,000 square mile service area. In addition, the Commission provides services to 

26 key federal installations and facilities in the Washington area, including such important military facilities as Andrews Air Force Base; the National Imagery and 

Mapping Agency; the National Naval Medical Center; the Naval Surface Warfare 

Center; the U.S. Army Research Center. Numerous other state and local securityrelated installations and offices also receive service from the Commission. 

Water treatment and distribution facilities operated by the Commission include 

three water supply reservoirs; two water filtration plants; fourteen water pumping 

stations; 5,100 miles of water mains; and 54 treated-water storage facilities. Water 

production at Commission facilities is 166 million gallons per day. In terms of 

wastewater facilities, the Commission operates six wastewater treatment plants; 41 

wastewater pumping stations; and approximately 4,900 miles of sewer mains. 

WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES AND IMPROVEMENTS, ANACOSTIA RIVER

Under the EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program, WSSC 

seeks $1,000,000 for wastewater infrastructure upgrades and improvements along 

the Anacostia River. 

In order to address sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) issues for wastewater pipes 

along the Anacostia River, capital funding is needed to allow for the necessary inspections and monitoring to identify critical areas and then repair and upgrade 

pipes as needed. This work is expected to be consistent with requirements that are 

being negotiated as part of the current consent decree between EPA and WSSC. 

Upgrading key pipes along the Anacostia River will provide many environmental 

benefits to this critical ecosystem and riparian habitat. Furthermore, by helping to 

clean the Anacostia River, the water quality of the Potomac River—a key source of 

drinking water for the WSSC service area—will also be improved, as the Anacostia 

flows into the Potomac. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILKESON TOWN COUNCIL, WILKESON, WASHINGTON

On behalf of the Town of Wilkeson I appreciate the opportunity to present this 

testimony regarding the appropriation of $5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire 800 acres at Mount Rainier National Park in Washington. 

The Town of Wilkeson is a gateway community to Mount Rainier National Park 

on its northwestern side. For 80 years, entry to the Town has been highlighted by 

a prominent sign stating ‘‘Wilkeson, Gateway to the Carbon Glacier’’. Following a 

road up the Carbon River Valley from Wilkeson, visitors are able to access the Park 

including Ipsut Campground and picnic area and numerous trails. The northwestern 

entrance to the national park through Wilkeson is the closest by distance to the 

nearby metropolitan areas of Seattle and Tacoma. 

Mount Rainier is one of the oldest National Parks in the country and is certainly 

considered a treasure not only by the people of the Pacific Northwest but by people 

from around the world. The Park receives nearly 2 million visitors a year many of 

whom pass through Wilkeson on their way to the ‘‘Mountain’’ . 

Ensuring access for the Park’s many visitors has been a particular concern at the 

northwest entrance. The Carbon River road within the Park has occasionally 

washed out, preventing visitors from reaching the Ipsut Creek campground and picnic area, as well as day-use parking for access to the Carbon Glacier and other area 
519 

trails. In 2004 Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation adding land 

along three miles of the Carbon River to the Park. 

In part the stated intent of the boundary expansion is to improve access to the 

Park with new roads, campgrounds, trails and other facilities. However, I understand through information from the ‘‘Trust for Public Lands’’ that the existing Carbon River Road from the Park entrance to Ipsut Campground and the Carbon Glacier trail is to be converted to a hiking and biking trail. Also the National Park has 

no plan to replace the existing Carbon River road. The loss of this road to vehicle 

or general public access will significantly, negatively impact the use of this very 

popular destination. 

The Carbon Glacier trail is a very popular and relatively easy 3.5 mile hike that 

many people use throughout the year. The closure of the Carbon River road will 

mean the hike will become an 8.5 mile trip, one way. The hike is currently very 

popular with families, school classes in the spring and people of all ages. 

As a gateway community the Town of Wilkeson supports this critical appropriation only if it will truly improve the present degree of public access to the Park by 

maintaining existing roads, campgrounds and picnic areas and not closing or restricting their use. Continuing the current level of access is critical to the people 

and businesses of Wilkeson and surrounding communities. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for your consideration of the request and for this oppor- tunity to present testimony regarding the appropriation of $5 million for the acquisition of 800 acres of land for Mount Rainier National Park. 

LETTER FROM THE WYOMING WATER ASSOCIATION

WYOMING WATER ASSOCIATION, 

Cheyenne, WY, March 6, 2006. 

Hon. CONRAD BURNS, Chairman, 

Hon. BYRON DORGAN, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BURNS AND RANKING MEMBER DORGAN: On behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, this letter is sent to request 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. 

Founded in 1933, the Wyoming Water Association (WWA) is a Wyoming non-profit corporation and voluntary organization of private citizens, elected officials, and 

representatives of business, government agencies, industry and water user groups 

and districts. The Association’s objective is to promote the development, conservation, and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of Wyoming 

people. The WWA provides the only statewide uniform voice representing all types 

of water users within the State of Wyoming and encourages citizen participation in 

decisions relating to multi-purpose water development, management and use. 

The Wyoming Water Association is a participant in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That program, and its sister program within the 

San Juan River Basin, are ongoing partnerships among the States of Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian tribes, federal agencies and water, power and 

environmental interests. The programs’ objectives are to recover endangered fish 

species while water use and development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Consistent with the requests made by our other Upper Colorado 

and San Juan Recovery Programs’ partners, the WWA respectfully requests support 

and action by the Subcommittee that will provide the following: 1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds (Ecological Services Activity; En- dangered Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $5,631,000 

item entitled ‘‘General Program Activities’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) for fiscal year 2007 to allow FWS to continue its necessary participation in 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same 

level of funding appropriated to the FWS in fiscal years 2004, 2005 and 2006. 

2. 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 2007. 

3. Allocation of $211,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2007 to meet FWS’s Region 

2 expenses managing and implementing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery 

actions. 
520 

These recovery programs have become national models for collaboratively working 

to recover endangered species while addressing water needs to support growing 

western communities in the Upper Colorado River Basin region of the Intermountain West. Since 1988, these programs have facilitated ESA Section 7 consultation (without litigation) for over 1,000 federal, tribal, state and privately managed 

water projects depleting approximately 2.9 million acre-feet of water per year. The 

requested federal appropriations are critically important to these efforts moving forward. 

The past support and assistance of your Subcommittee has greatly facilitated the 

success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. On behalf of the members of 

the Wyoming Water Association, I thank you for that support and request the Subcommittee’s assistance for fiscal year 2007 funding to ensure the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs. 

Sincerely yours, 

JOHN W. SHIELDS, 

Executive Secretary. 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Air Pollution Control District, prepared statement .............................................. 231 

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., prepared statement ......................... 231 

Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado: 

Prepared statements............................................................................... 24, 59, 187 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 44, 161 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 58 

Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement ....................................................... 243 

American: 

Bird Conservancy, prepared statement .......................................................... 211 

Canoe Association, prepared statement .......................................................... 255 

Fisheries Society, prepared statement ............................................................ 214 

Geological Institute, prepared statement ....................................................... 218 

Hiking Society, prepared statements ................................................ 221, 223, 412 

Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement ......................... 227 

Institute of: 

Biological Sciences, prepared statements ........................................... 226, 224 

Hydrology, prepared statements.......................................................... 225, 255 

Public Power Association, prepared statement .............................................. 233 

Rivers, prepared statements ..................................................... 225, 255, 412, 448 

Society: 

For Microbiology, prepared statement ..................................................... 246 

Of: 

Agronomy, prepared statement ......................................................... 225 

Civil Engineers, prepared statements.......................................... 238, 255 

Symphony Orchestra League, prepared statement ....................................... 248 

Water Works Association, prepared statement .............................................. 225 

Whitewater, prepared statement .................................................................... 255 

Americans for: 

Responsible Recreational Access, prepared statement .................................. 237 

The Arts, prepared statement ......................................................................... 209 

Appalachian Trail Conservancy, prepared statement .......................................... 251 

Archery Trade Association, prepared statement ................................................... 508 

Arizona Wilderness Coalition, prepared statements ........................................ 255, 412 

Arkansas: 

Basin Development Association, prepared statement ................................... 212 

Game & Fish Commission, prepared statement ............................................ 217 

River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statements................ 235, 432, 456 

Association of: 

American State Geologists, prepared statements...................................... 225, 255 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statements ..................................... 216, 211 

Local Air Pollution Control Officials, prepared statement ............................ 478 

Metropolitan Water Agencies, prepared statement ....................................... 225 

Research Libraries, prepared statement ........................................................ 236 

State and Interstate Water, prepared statement .......................................... 225 

State: 

And Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO), prepared statement ..................................................................................... 250 

Dam Safety Officials, prepared statement .............................................. 255 

Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), prepared statement .......... 240 

Flood Plain Managers, prepared statement ............................................ 255 

Association to Preserve Cape Cod, prepared statement ....................................... 231 

Audubon: 

Connecticut, prepared statements .............................................................. 253, 254 
Page

ii 

Audubon—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 211 

Society of Greater Denver, prepared statement ............................................. 412 

Society, prepared statement ............................................................................ 403 

Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF), prepared statement .............................. 257 

Bardin, David J., prepared statement ................................................................... 298 

Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters, prepared statement .................................... 412 

Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce, Bethel, Maine, prepared statement .......... 258 

Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statement ............................... 259 

Black Bear Conservation Committee, prepared statement .................................. 258 

Bloom, David A., Director, Office of Budget, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................................... 177 

BlueRibbon Coalition, prepared statement ........................................................... 262 

Board of Selectmen, Newry Owner, Sunday River Inn, Bethel, Maine, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 476 

Bodine, Susan, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................... 177 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail Coalition, prepared statement ................................... 262 

Boone and Crockett Club, prepared statement ..................................................... 508 

Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ..................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 6 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 4 

Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, prepared statement ...................................... 508 

Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana: 

Opening statements .................................................................................. 1, 55, 177 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 36, 139 

California: 

Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement .............................................................................. 267 

State Coastal Conservancy, prepared statement ........................................... 287 

Campaign for Environmental Literacy, prepared statement ............................... 390 

Campfire Club of America, prepared statement ................................................... 508 

Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, prepared statement ................... 265 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District, prepared statement ......................... 297 

Cherokee Investment Partners, LLC, prepared statement .................................. 370 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, prepared statement ................................................ 285 

Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement ......................... 283 

City of: 

Draper, prepared statement ............................................................................ 275 

North Adams, Massachusetts, prepared statement ....................................... 274 

Clean Water Action, prepared statement .............................................................. 225 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi: 

Prepared statements............................................................................. 28, 139, 289 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 28 

Coconino County, Arizona, prepared statement .................................................... 289 

Colorado River: 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement ...................................... 278 

Board of California, prepared statement ........................................................ 276 

Commission of Nevada, prepared statement .................................................. 280 

Water Conservation District, prepared statement ......................................... 287 

Colorado: 

Springs Utilities, prepared statement ............................................................ 292 

Water Congress, prepared statement ............................................................. 298 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, prepared statement .................. 280 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 290 

Confederated Tribes: 

And Bands of the Yakama Nation, prepared statement ............................... 293 

Of the Colville Reservation, prepared statement ........................................... 296 

Conservation: 

Commission, Westbrook, CT, prepared statement ......................................... 268 

Force, prepared statement ............................................................................... 508 

Continental Divide Trail Alliance, prepared statements ................................. 269, 412 

Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, prepared statement .................. 264 

Council on Library and Information Resources, prepared statement ................. 236 

County of: 

Riverside, prepared statement ........................................................................ 276 
Page

iii 

County of—Continued 

San Diego, prepared statement ....................................................................... 289 

Ventura, prepared statement .......................................................................... 276 

Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho: 

Prepared statements...................................................................................... 33, 191 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 44 

Crop Science Society of America, prepared statement ......................................... 225 

Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), prepared statement .......................... 272 

Dallas Safari Club, prepared statement ................................................................ 508 

Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement ............................................................ 300 

Denver Water, prepared statement ........................................................................ 303 

Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico, questions submitted by ............................................................................................................... 162 

Dorgan, Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 48, 162 

Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, prepared statement .................. 298 

Ducks Unlimited, prepared statements............................................................. 211, 508 

Eastern Forest Partnership, prepared statement ................................................. 304 

Environmental Defense, prepared statement ........................................................ 255 

Fabiani, Carl and Dinni, prepared statement ....................................................... 357 

Federation of Flyfishers, prepared statement ....................................................... 255 

Florida: 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, prepared statement .............. 312 

State University, prepared statement ............................................................ 321 

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement ................. 310 

Fort River Partnership, prepared statement ......................................................... 318 

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, prepared statement ...................... 508 

Friends of: 

Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ........ 306 

Congaree Swamp, prepared statement ........................................................... 309 

Indian Health, prepared statement ................................................................ 313 

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ..................... 318 

Sloan Canyon, prepared statement ................................................................. 412 

The: 

Agua Fria National Monument, prepared statement ............................. 412 

Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement ................................ 307 

Columbia River Gorge, prepared statement ............................................ 308 

Health Resources and Services Administration, prepared statement .. 334 

Missouri Breaks Monument, prepared statement .................................. 412 

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ........................................................................................................ 319 

Westwater Canyon, prepared statement ........................................................ 322 

Gallatin Valley Land Trust, prepared statement ................................................. 328 

Garden Club of Litchfield, prepared statement .................................................... 485 

Gathering Waterways Conservancy, prepared statement .................................... 330 

Glacier Park, Inc., prepared statement ................................................................. 328 

Grand: 

Canyon: 

Trust, prepared statement ........................................................................ 412 

Wildlands Council, prepared statement .................................................. 412 

County, Utah, prepared statement ................................................................. 323 

Valley Water Users’ Association, prepared statement .................................. 329 

Gray, George, Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development, 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 177 

Gray, Lyons, Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency ........... 177 

Great Lakes: 

Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), prepared statement .......... 324 

Task Force, prepared statement ...................................................................... 327 

Grumbles, Benjamin, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 177 

Haze, Pam, Co-Director, Budget Office, Office of the Secretary, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 55 

Hazen, Susan, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency .................... 177 
Page

iv 

Highlands Coalition, prepared statements........................................................ 330, 485 

Hoosic River Watershed Association, prepared statement ................................... 338 

Hospital for Special Surgery, prepared statement ................................................ 338 

Housatonic Valley Association, prepared statement ............................................. 343 

Hualapai Indian Tribe, prepared statement ......................................................... 332 

Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement ................................. 340 

Idaho: 

Conservation League, prepared statement ..................................................... 412 

Rivers United, prepared statement ................................................................. 412 

Independent Petroleum Association of America, prepared statement ................ 348 

Industrial Minerals Association—North America, prepared statement .............. 345 

International: 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statements ................. 255, 

344, 465, 508 

City Managers Association, prepared statement ........................................... 370 

Council of Shopping Centers, prepared statement ........................................ 370 

Interstate: 

Council on Water Policy, prepared statement ................................................ 255 

Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement ....................................... 345 

InterTribal Bison Cooperative, prepared statement ............................................. 349 

Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement ........................................ 508 

Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 181 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 177 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 179 

Kansas Arkansas River Basin Interstate Committee, prepared statement ........ 355 

Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, prepared statement ................................... 356 

Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources, prepared statement ......... 356 

Klee, Ann R., General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 177 

Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, questions submitted by ...... 51 

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 508 

Lago, Lenise, Acting Budget Director, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 1 

Litchfield: 

County League of Women Voters, prepared statement ................................. 485 

Hills Greenprint Program, prepared statement ............................................. 358 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, prepared statement ................................ 370 

Luna, Luis, Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources 

Management, Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 177 

Mack Taylor, Geologist, prepared statement ........................................................ 364 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared statement ......... 365 

Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 424 

Mississippi Department of: 

Marine Resources, prepared statement .......................................................... 359 

Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, prepared statement ....................................... 360 

Missoula County Commissioners, prepared statement ........................................ 359 

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, prepared statement ......................................... 362 

Mountain Group Sierra Club, prepared statement ............................................... 363 

Mountaineers, prepared statement ........................................................................ 486 

Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust, prepared statement ................................. 364 

Nakayama, Granta, Assistant Administrator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency ...................................... 177 

National: 

Alternative Fuels Training Consortium, prepared statement ...................... 367 

Association of: 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement ......................... 366 

Clean Water Agencies, prepared statement ............................................ 225 

Convenience Stores (NAGS), prepared statement .................................. 250 

Counties, prepared statement .................................................................. 370 

Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, prepared statement .... 255 
Page

v 

National—Continued 

Association of—Continued 

Industrial & Office Properties, prepared statement ............................... 370 

Local Government Environmental Professionals, prepared statement ........................................................................................................ 370 

Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC), prepared statement ........... 373 

State: 

Departments of Agriculture, prepared statement ........................... 464 

Energy Officials, prepared statement ............................................... 375 

Foresters, prepared statement .......................................................... 378 

Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), prepared 

statement ........................................................................................ 381 

Truck Stop Operators (NATSO), prepared statement ............................ 250 

Coast Trail Association, prepared statement ................................................. 412 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared statement .... 387 

Cooperators’ Coalition, prepared statement ................................................... 383 

Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement ................... 385 

Environmental Services Center, prepared statement ................................... 393 

Federation of Federal Employees Local 1957, prepared statement ............. 399 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement ....................................... 401 

Ground Water Association (NGWA), prepared statement ............................ 250 

Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement ..................................... 407 

Mining Association (NMA), prepared statement ........................................... 415 

Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement ................................... 417 

Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement ................................. 420 

Trappers Association, prepared statement ..................................................... 508 

Trust for Historic Preservation, prepared statement .................................... 412 

Water Resources Association, prepared statement ........................................ 255 

Wildlife: 

Federation, prepared statements......................................................... 352, 412 

Refuge Association, prepared statement ................................................. 427 

Natural: 

Lands Trust, Inc., prepared statement ........................................................... 415 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), prepared statements.............. 225, 250, 412 

New: 

Hampshire Audubon, prepared statement ..................................................... 406 

Jersey: 

Audubon Society, prepared statement ..................................................... 409 

Conservation Foundation, prepared statement ...................................... 410 

Mexico: 

Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement ............................. 316 

Wildlife Federation, prepared statement ................................................ 412 

River Land Trust, prepared statement ........................................................... 420 

York State Energy Research and Development Authority, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 375 

Nisqually Tribe of Indians, prepared statement ................................................... 423 

North American: 

Bear Foundation, prepared statement ............................................................ 508 

Grouse Partnership, prepared statement ....................................................... 508 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, prepared statement ................ 392 

Northeast: 

Waste Management Officials’ Association, prepared statement ................... 395 

Midwest Institute, prepared statement .......................................................... 370 

Northern: 

Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement ......................... 392 

Forest Alliance, prepared statement ............................................................... 396 

Lights Nordic Ski Club, prepared statement ................................................. 414 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, prepared statement ............................. 430 

Oregon: 

Natural Desert Association, prepared statement .......................................... 412 

Water Resources Congress, prepared statement ........................................... 435 

Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement .............................................. 430 

Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement ....................... 439 

Peacock, Marcus, Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency .... 177 

Pechanga Indian Reservation, prepared statement .............................................. 438 

Penobscot Nation of the State of Maine, prepared statement ............................. 482 
Page

vi 

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI), prepared statement ................................ 250 

Pollution Control Administrators, prepared statement ........................................ 225 

Potapaug Audubon, prepared statement ............................................................... 437 

Public Service Company of New Mexico, prepared statement ............................. 451 

Pueblo: 

Board of Water Works, prepared statement .................................................. 263 

Of: 

Laguna Department of Education, prepared statement ........................ 439 

Tesuque, prepared statement ................................................................... 448 

Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement .................................................... 451 

Quabbin to Cardigan Conservation Collaborative, prepared statement ............. 454 

Quality Deer Management Association, prepared statement .............................. 508 

Ramah Navajo: 

Chapter, Ramah Band of Navajos, prepared statement ............................... 458 

School Board, Inc., prepared statements ........................................................ 460 

Real Estate Roundtable, prepared statement ....................................................... 370 

Republicans for Environmental Protection, prepared statement ........................ 412 

Research Group, prepared statement .................................................................... 412 

Rey, Hon. Mark E., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, 

Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ........................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 12 

Richardson, Governor Bill, letter from .................................................................. 473 

Rivers & Trails Coalition, prepared statement ..................................................... 463 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, prepared statements .................................. 457, 508 

Roderick, Bill, Acting Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 177 

Ruffed Grouse Society, prepared statement .......................................................... 508 

Ryan, Michael W. S., Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 177 

Safari Club International, prepared statement .................................................... 508 

Salt Lake City Corporation, prepared statement .................................................. 472 

San: 

Diego County Water Authority, prepared statement .................................... 468 

Juan: 

Citizens Alliance, prepared statement .................................................... 412 

Water Commission, prepared statement ................................................. 472 

Scarlett, Hon. Lynn, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 59 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, prepared statement ....................................................... 475 

Sierra Club, prepared statements............................................................. 225, 250, 412 

Soil Science Society of America, prepared statement ........................................... 225 

Skokomish Tribe, prepared statement ................................................................... 480 

Sky Island Alliance, prepared statement .............................................................. 412 

Skyline Sportsmen’s Association, prepared statement ......................................... 477 

Society of: 

American Foresters, prepared statements ................................................... 33, 464 

Independent Gasoline Marketers of America (SIGMA), prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 250 

South Yuba River Citizens League, prepared statement ..................................... 481 

Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement ....................... 481 

State: 

And Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 478 

Of: 

Colorado: 

Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, prepared statement ............ 467 

Prepared statement ............................................................................ 473 

Utah: 

Office of the Governor, prepared statement ..................................... 474 

Prepared statement ............................................................................ 474 

Wyoming, Office of the Governor, prepared statement .......................... 475 

Sterling Forest Partnership, prepared statement ................................................. 469 

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska, questions submitted 

by......................................................................................................................... 43, 173 
Page

vii 

Stoddard Conservation Commission, prepared statement ................................... 466 

STRONGER, Inc., prepared statement .................................................................. 470 

Swan Ecosystem Center, prepared statement ....................................................... 468 

Tamarisk Coalition, prepared statement ............................................................... 412 

Texas Wildlife Association, prepared statement ................................................... 508 

The: 

Groundwater Foundation, prepared statement ............................................. 225 

H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economic and the Environment, 

prepared statement ....................................................................................... 225 

National Ground Water Association, prepared statement ............................ 225 

Nature Conservancy, prepared statements................................................ 464, 487 

Trust for Public Land, prepared statement .................................................... 370 

Wilderness Society, prepared statements ....................... 412, 490, 493, 496, 508 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, prepared statement .................. 508 

Town of Ophir, Colorado, prepared statement ...................................................... 489 

Travers, Linda, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Protection Agency .................................................... 177 

Tri-County Water Conservancy District, prepared statement ............................. 484 

Trout Unlimited, prepared statement .................................................................... 255 

U.S.: 

Conference of Mayors, prepared statement .................................................... 370 

Public Interest, prepared statement ............................................................... 412 

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statements.................. 500, 502 

Utah Guides and Outfitters Association, prepared statement ............................. 499 

Ventana Wildlife Society, prepared statement ...................................................... 512 

Village of Wellington, Florida, prepared statement .............................................. 510 

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, prepared statement .................... 518 

Water Environment Federation, prepared statements .................................... 225, 255 

Weber Pathways, prepared statement ................................................................... 514 

Wehrum, William, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................... 177 

Weimer, Thomas, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior .............................................. 55 

Western: 

Coalition of Arid States, prepared statements .......................................... 515, 517 

States Water Council, prepared statement .................................................... 255 

Whirling Disease Foundation, prepared statement .............................................. 513 

Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., prepared statement ................................................... 508 

Wilderness Watch, prepared statement ................................................................. 412 

Wildlife: 

Management Institute, prepared statement .................................................. 508 

Society, prepared statement ............................................................................ 496 

Wilkeson Town Council, Wilkeson, Washington, prepared statement ................ 518 

Wyoming Water Association, letter from ............................................................... 519 

(ix) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

Page 

A Strategic Approach to Restoring Forest Health ................................................ 7 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 35 

Bark Beetles ............................................................................................................. 25 

Damage in Montana ......................................................................................... 31 

Budget: 

Increases ............................................................................................................ 2 

Reductions ......................................................................................................... 1 

Continuing Transitional Support to Rural Communities Through the Secure 

Rural Schools Act ................................................................................................. 15 

Cost of Travel Management Planning ................................................................... 32 

Earth Island Institute Lawsuit .............................................................................. 30 

Family Forestland Management ............................................................................ 34 

Fiscal: 

Policy ................................................................................................................. 3 

Year 2007 Priorities ......................................................................................... 5 

Forest: 

Health ................................................................................................................ 34 

Research and Inventory ................................................................................... 33 

Service: 

Accomplishments ....................................................................................... 4 

Priorities for Fiscal Year 2007 ................................................................. 7 

Successes .................................................................................................... 6 

Planning ............................................................................................................ 29 

Grazing: 

And Noxious Weeds .......................................................................................... 22 

Permit Backlog ................................................................................................. 21 

Permits .............................................................................................................. 23 

Hazardous Fuels ...................................................................................................... 26 

Improving Organizational and Financial Management ....................................... 11 

Increase the Efficiency of Forest Service Programs .............................................. 9 

Increased: 

Collaborative Efforts ........................................................................................ 9 

Funding of the Northwest Forest Plan ........................................................... 16 

National: 

Recreation Reservation System ....................................................................... 20 

Wildland Fire Outlook, National Interagency Fire Center, Predictive 

Services Group, Issued: April 12, 2006 ....................................................... 40 

New Grazing Proposal ............................................................................................. 17 

Northwest Forest Plan ............................................................................................ 25 

Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................... 21 

Overview ................................................................................................................... 6, 15 

Reauthorization of Secure Rural Schools Act ........................................................ 12 

Recreation Funding ................................................................................................. 26 

Secure Rural Schools Act ........................................................................................ 2 

Secure Rural Schools Land Sales Proposal ........................................................... 23 

Theodore Roosevelt/Ebert Ranch ............................................................................ 18 

Travel Management ................................................................................................ 29, 32 

Wildland Fire: 

Outlook—April Through August, 2006 ........................................................... 40 

Program ............................................................................................................. 31 
Page

x 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Abandoned Mine Lands ........................................................................................... 82 

Fee Extension ................................................................................................... 145 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 139 

Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.......................................................................... 167, 78 

American White Pelicans ........................................................................................ 166 

Applications for Permits to Drill ............................................................................ 80 

Approval of APDs .................................................................................................... 167 

Budget Overview ...................................................................................................... 63 

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

Johnson-O’Malley Education Grants .............................................................. 163 

Replacement School Construction ................................................................... 162 

Tribal College & University Operating Grants .............................................. 163 

United Tribes Technical College ..................................................................... 164 

Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................. 174 

Cooperative Conservation ....................................................................................... 60 

Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 69 

Deferred Maintenance ............................................................................................. 75 

Delays in Tribal Recognition .................................................................................. 145 

Easements ................................................................................................................ 138 

Endangered Species: Wolves ................................................................................... 156 

Energy ...................................................................................................................... 60

Development ..................................................................................................... 64 

Production ......................................................................................................... 142 

Federal Recognition ................................................................................................. 79 

Financial: 

And Business Management System ................................................................ 72 

Systems—Cost Overruns ................................................................................. 140 

Fish and Wildlife Service.................................................................................... 146, 173 

Construction ...................................................................................................... 158 

Land Acquisition: Rocky Mountain Front ...................................................... 156 

Hazardous Fuels ...................................................................................................... 82 

Hazards .................................................................................................................... 61 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita .................................................................................. 168 

Indian: 

Education .......................................................................................................... 73 

Health Service .................................................................................................. 78 

Land Consolidation ........................................................................................... 143 

Programs ........................................................................................................... 67 

Trust Management ........................................................................................... 61 

Johnson O’Malley ..................................................................................................... 74 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 170 

Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants ....................................... 165 

Landsat 8 .................................................................................................................. 62 

Maintaining Core Programs ................................................................................... 63 

Management ............................................................................................................. 62 

Museum of the Plains Indian ................................................................................. 79 

National: 

Park Service.................................................................................................. 153, 173 

Historic Preservation ................................................................................ 160 

Maintenance .............................................................................................. 83 

And Construction ............................................................................... 159 

Streamflow Information Program ................................................................... 162 

Wildlife Refuges: Hurricane Debris ................................................................ 157 

Oil and Gas Exploration on Public Lands ............................................................. 166 

Operations Funding for Federal Lands and Properties ........................................ 164 

Partnerships in Conservation ................................................................................. 66 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes ...................................................................................... 72 

Reductions ......................................................................................................... 139 

Plains Indian Museum ............................................................................................ 142 

Programmatic Highlights ........................................................................................ 64 

Request for $3 Million in Historic Preservation Fund Grants for Gulf Coast 

State Historic Preservation Officers ................................................................... 138 

Resource Use ............................................................................................................ 70 

Road Rights-of-Way (R.S. 2477) ............................................................................. 140 
Page

xi 

RS 2477 .................................................................................................................... 82 

Rural Fire Assistance .............................................................................................. 170 

Science Priorities ..................................................................................................... 71 

Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grants ......................... 172 

2005 Hurricanes ...................................................................................................... 63, 83 

USGS North Dakota Energy Report ...................................................................... 171 

Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................... 70 

Fuels Reduction ................................................................................................ 143 

Management ..................................................................................................... 169 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Arsenic Standards ...................................................................................... 192, 203, 205 

Bilateral Compliance Agreements .......................................................................... 193 

Budget Request ........................................................................................................ 178 

Principles ........................................................................................................... 180 

Center for Air Toxic Metals .................................................................................... 197 

Clean: 

Automotive Technology—Innovation That Works ......................................... 201 

Water: 

Infrastructure Funding ............................................................................. 185 

State Revolving Fund ........................................................................... 195, 199 

Colorado Commitments ........................................................................................... 188 

Combined Animal Feeding Operation .................................................................... 194 

Agreements ....................................................................................................... 195 

Compliance and Environmental Stewardship ....................................................... 184 

Diesel: 

Emissions Reduction Program ......................................................................... 200 

Hybrid Technology ............................................................................................ 202 

EPA: 

And BorgWarner to Develop Fuel Efficient Technology ................................ 201 

Colorado Commitments .................................................................................... 188 

Good Samaritan Project .......................................................................................... 189 

Healthy Communities and Ecosystems .................................................................. 184 

Homeland Security.............................................................................................. 182, 186 

Integrated Risk Information System ...................................................................... 205 

Land Preservation and Restoration ....................................................................... 183 

Libby Site Record of Decision ................................................................................. 200 

Partnership Geared Toward New Technologies to Reduce Fuel Consumption .. 202 

Pesticide Harmonization..................................................................................... 197, 198 

Red River .................................................................................................................. 198

Summitville Mine Site ............................................................................................ 187 

Alternative Treatments .................................................................................... 190 

Settlement Funds Status ................................................................................. 189 

Technology ................................................................................................................ 186 

Use of Turbochargers on Diesel Engines ............................................................... 201 

Æ