S. HRG. 113–631 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and 

Related Agencies 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2015 

113th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

H.R. 5171 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2015 (H.R. 5171) 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–250 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–631 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, 

AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 5171 

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

YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of the Interior 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Nondepartmental Witnesses 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice 

Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

CHARLES E. KIEFFER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE III, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED

AGENCIES

JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

(ex officio) 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Ranking 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama (ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

RACHAEL TAYLOR

GINNY JAMES

RYAN HUNT

LEIF FONNESBECK (Minority) 

BRENT WILES (Minority) 

EMY LESOFSKI (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

TERI CURTIN
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 

Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary ............................................. 1 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 

Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................... 83 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014 

Department of Agriculture: United States Forest Service ................................... 127 

STATEMENTS AND LETTERS OF NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

Nondepartmental Witnesses ................................................................................... 189 

BACK MATTER

List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements .......................... (i)

Subject Index ............................................................................................................ (v) 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:19 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Leahy, Johnson, Tester, 

Udall, Merkley, Begich, Murkowski, Cochran, Alexander, Blunt, 

Hoeven, and Johanns. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

HON. MIKE CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY 

HON. RHEA SUH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT 

AND BUDGET 

PAMELA K. HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUDGET, FINANCE, PERFORMANCE AND ACQUISITION 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. Let me call the hearing to order. We will follow 

the early bird rule in recognizing my colleagues who are here, and 

we will have 6-minute rounds. And I want to welcome the Secretary and her colleagues. 

This is our first budget hearing of the year. It is a hearing to discuss the fiscal year 2015 budget of the Department of the Interior. 

I am very pleased to welcome Secretary Sally Jewell before the 

subcommittee this morning. 

Madam Secretary, we have a lot of ground to cover with your 

budget request, and we are looking forward to hearing you articulate your priorities for the Department. 

I would also like to recognize the Department’s new Deputy Secretary, Mike Connor, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on February 27. Mr. Connor is a former commissioner of the 

Bureau of Reclamation. He is also an alumnus of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This is his first time testifying before the Interior subcommittee of the United States Senate in his new role. 
2 

And welcome, Mr. Connor. 

Finally, I would like to recognize Ms. Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget; and Ms. Pam Haze, her 

deputy. 

We are happy to have you here before us, and we value the dayto-day work that we do with you and your terrific budget staff very 

much. 

Turning to the Department’s budget request, the discretionary 

total funded by the subcommittee increases by about 1 percent over 

fiscal year 2014, for a total of $10.6 billion. It is a relatively flat 

budget. 

Including the administration’s new disaster cap proposal for firefighting, however, the total budget increases by almost 4 percent 

for a total of $10.8 billion. 

I am hopeful that providing a new framework for firefighting 

funding will prevent the Department from running out of funds before the end of the fiscal year and having to borrow from other programs. I am also hopeful that it will prevent the subcommittee 

from being forced to make difficult cuts to other priorities to pay 

for emergency firefighting. 

It is worth noting that in fiscal year 2014, we provided $3.9 billion for firefighting, including $600 million to pay for fire expenses 

from the prior year. We acted similarly in the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, where we provided more than $400 million for 

the fire expenses from the previous year. 

Congress was forced to pay for these additional costs with our 

regular discretionary appropriations because we did not have access to disaster funding. This means that, in the last 2 years, we 

have had to reallocate resources from other discretionary programs 

to pay for emergency firefighting activities. 

Paying for firefighting has meant less for water and sewer 

projects, Land and Water Conservation Fund programs, resource 

conservation, improvements to energy permitting, and all the other 

activities we fund through this bill. 

I am very pleased to see that the President has focused on this 

issue and has included a new budget framework to alleviate some 

of the difficulties we face. 

I understand that this proposal would designate a portion of the 

fire funding to be disaster-related and, therefore, fall under the 

budgetary spending cap for disaster. 

I am looking forward to hearing your testimony on how we can 

expect this new funding stream to work, Madam Secretary. 

I am looking forward to discussion on the legislative strategy 

necessary to make disaster funding available to this subcommittee. 

The budget also contains modest increases to fund fixed costs 

that Interior bureaus invest in science and research programs and 

fund tribal priorities. I am pleased that it provides $40 million in 

discretionary funding to fund improvements in programs for national parks, as we gear up for the Park Service’s centennial in 

2016. 

This amount includes a $10 million request to reinvigorate the 

Centennial Challenge grant program and leverage non-Federal investments to improve park facilities and visitor services. 
3 

Finally, I am particularly pleased that your budget request con- tains a $51 million request to fund youth education and employment programs to fund efforts to, in your words, Madam Secretary, 

play, learn, serve, and work. I know this initiative is personally important to you, Madam Secretary, and I look forward to hearing 

more from you about it this morning. 

And before we get started, let me turn to my ranking member, 

Senator Murkowski, for her remarks. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Madam Secretary. 

Good morning, and I, too, echo the chairman’s comments in welcoming you to your new position, Mr. Connor. I know you have a 

lot of work to do there, and we appreciate that. 

Ms. Suh, Ms. Haze, also welcome to the committee. 

Fellow colleagues, I have asked the chairman for a bit of indulgence this morning in perhaps going a little bit longer in my opening statement than I otherwise would. 

I have had an opportunity to speak with the Secretary about an 

issue that is very close and very personal to me; to the people of 

King Cove, many of whom I know you have had a chance to visit 

with yesterday and who are here today; but truly, to the people of 

Alaska. 

And while I will direct most of my questions to the specifics within the budget, I wanted to take this opportunity as part of my 

opening statement to speak to an issue that has galvanized Alaskans, not just during this year with the recent decision made by 

the Secretary, but truly for the past several decades as the people 

of King Cove have sought an answer to their quest for a simple 

road to safety. 

Secretary, I will never forget the telephone conversation that you 

and I had on December 23 when I was sitting in the parking lot 

of the Fred Meyer store, waiting to go in and get gift wrap and 

other sundry things for the Christmas holidays. And you told me 

at that time that you were rejecting the lifesaving gravel access 

road to King Cove. 

I told you at that time and I have repeated, I cannot convey in 

words adequate to describe the frustration, the anger, the sadness 

with which I received that decision, how disheartened I knew the 

people of King Cove would be. 

And adding insult to injury, the fact that it was delivered the 

day before Christmas Eve, what should have been a joyous holiday 

time for the people of this small community, a break from the political rhetoric that goes on, it ruined the holidays for, certainly, the 

people of King Cove, certainly put a damper on all that I was 

doing, knowing how the people were going to bear the weight of 

this decision. 

I will never ever understand the timing of the decision, and I am 

still trying to reconcile the reasons behind your decision. 

I know, as I mentioned, the folks that are here from King Cove 

that have traveled over 4,000 miles to be here, to try to speak with 

you after many attempts and opportunities to discuss this issue. I 
4 

am not certain that they feel any more convinced today than they 

have been about the prospects that they have as a people fighting 

for a small road up against an administration and a decision that 

seemingly makes no sense whatsoever. 

For my colleagues here, and those in the audience that may be 

unfamiliar with the history of this issue, with the Omnibus Public 

Land bill of 2009, we authorized the Interior Department to transfer over 60,000 acres of State and private land to the Izembek Refuge. 

And we did this in exchange for just over 200 acres. It was 206 

acres of Federal land. This is a 300 to 1 exchange. A 300 to 1 exchange that had been negotiated with the folks from Fish and 

Wildlife, that had been negotiated with the native people of King 

Cove, with individuals from the State, with the delegation. 

It was a pretty remarkable exchange. And this was all done to 

provide the 965 residents of the King Cove community a safe and 

reliable access to the all-weather airport in Cold Bay, the second 

longest runway in the State of Alaska, built after World War II. 

And the exchange was not only extraordinarily lopsided, but what 

the people of King Cove agreed to was that they would not use this 

road for commercial purposes, because there were some who suggested that the processing facility there might want this road to 

make money. They agreed that it would be used for noncommercial 

use. 

So imagine, if you will, a 10-mile, one-lane, gravel, noncommercial-use road with barricades or cordons on either side, so that you 

cannot move off the road. Pretty specific road. That is it. It is not 

a major highway. We are not even going to pave it. 

King Cove is a community with a clinic, no hospital, no doctor. 

Residents have to fly from Cold Bay more than 600 miles to get to 

Anchorage where a hospital that can handle critical medical procedures exists. 

But the problem that we have in King Cove is that weather and 

very difficult geography doesn’t allow for reliable access from the 

community of King Cove to Cold Bay, so that these flights are often 

canceled, weathered out, just don’t happen. 

Since the decision was made December 23, there have been seven 

emergency medevacs out of King Cove, including four that have 

been performed by the Coast Guard. 

Just about a week and a half ago, there were two medevacs conducted in one day, a fisherman who had been crushed by a crab 

pot, crushed his pelvis and both legs. He was taken to the clinic 

there in King Cove, and while he was in the clinic, discovers that 

a 1-month-old infant who was there in respiratory distress and also 

needs to be medevaced out, that it is his son. 

So we have a father and a son in the clinic, waiting for evacuation. Through the grace of God and the bravery, the bravery, of 

the Coast Guard and the other responders, that dad and his baby 

are doing fine. 

The 63-year-old woman who was medevaced out by the Coast 

Guard on Valentine’s Day, who was suffering heart conditions, is 

also doing fine. 
5 

But as the Coast Guard will describe, and as the video describes, 

the conditions that the Coast Guard responded to were truly, truly 

life-threatening. 

Every Coast Guard flight risks the lives of at least four Coast 

Guard men and women, not to mention the patient that they are 

trying to evacuate. 

In the situation of the father and his young son, they had to wait 

hours. Sometimes folks have to wait days to receive these emergency medical evacuations. 

It is not without cost. It is not without risk. Each one of these 

Coast Guard evacuations costs a minimum of $210,000 to go from 

Cold Bay to King Cove. 

Those are taxpayer dollars. Those are Coast Guard men and 

women’s lives at risk. And they take on the humanitarian issue 

and mission because that is who they are. But it is not the mission 

of the Coast Guard to provide for evacuation services to an airport 

for the residents of King Cove. 

There is a safe and easy way to help our fellow citizens. And the 

only thing that is standing in the way is our own Federal Government’s decision to place a higher value on the birds than it does 

on the health and safety of my State’s citizens. And that is simply 

wrong. 

Madam Secretary, your Department claims to honor the trust responsibility, and to improve the lives of our Alaskan natives, including the majority Aleut residents in King Cove. But the decision 

that you made in December flies in the face of this responsibility. 

The notion from your Department that you must protect Alaska 

from Alaska natives, our first people, is insulting. And that is the 

way that Alaskans feel. We feel insulted that we cannot care for 

the land and the animals and the birds, and still provide for a safe, 

reliable access. 

The people of King Cove have been living in this area for thousands of years. They rely on the birds. They rely on the wildlife. 

They have been stewards long before there was ever a refuge, long 

before there was ever a wilderness. 

When you announced your decision in December, you recognized 

the need for reliable methods of emergency transport from King 

Cove. You reaffirmed the Department’s commitment to ‘‘assist in 

identifying and evaluating options that would improve access to affordable transportation and health care.’’ 

But, Madam Secretary, we have seen none of this. I did not hear 

any clear direction from you yesterday when we met. I asked Assistant Secretary Suh during your confirmation hearing last month 

whether you could name an action, any one single action, that you 

or anyone at Interior has taken to protect the health and safety of 

King Cove residents since the road was rejected in December. I 

have seen nothing. 

The passage of time on this issue has not lessened my passion 

to see justice for the people of King Cove. 

I will not get over this issue. I am also unwilling to allow your 

Department to do nothing to help the Alaskans that it has promised to assist who, at this point, I believe we are seeing only further imperiled. Seven medevacs since the first of January. 
6 

I think my colleagues need to know, I think the administration 

needs to know, I think, Secretary Jewell, you know very clearly, I 

will do everything, everything in my power for as long as I am 

here, to enable the people of King Cove to receive proper emergency access that the rest of us take for granted. 

If you are not going to reverse the decision that you announced 

on December 23, I believe that the least you can do is reopen the 

record of decision in order to reconsider the issue, because you need 

to know that I will not stand by and watch as more Alaskan lives 

are put at risk, put at risk, potentially, to die. I will not let this 

issue die. 

When I spoke before the Alaska Legislature in February, I spoke 

with great passion about this issue. Alaskans are very passionate 

about this issue. And I said maybe I need to channel my inner Ted 

Stevens, and everybody laughed, because they knew what that 

meant. 

When Ted was really agitated, and really going to let nothing 

stand in his way, he would wear his Hulk tie. Today, I have a Hulk 

scarf on, and I don’t typically engage in much drama. I am not a 

message person. I am a person who wants to get something done. 

But I need you to carry the message to this administration that 

this road is nonnegotiable, that the health and safety of the people 

of King Cove is nonnegotiable. And that I will do everything, everything within my power, to make sure that the needs of these people 

are taken care of and put first, put first, because that is my charge, 

to take care of the people of the State of Alaska, for whom I work. 

Madam Secretary, as we discussed yesterday, it is important. It 

is important for you, it is important for me, and is important for 

my State, that we are able to work on issues together. 

I am not an unreasonable woman, and I believe you want to do 

right as well, and you have an opportunity to demonstrate that. 

And I would hope, again, that you would look at the facts, you 

would listen to the people of King Cove, you would listen to Alaskans, and you would listen to your heart in doing the right thing. 

I look forward to discussing some of the issues within your budget during our questions. But it was too important for the people 

that I represent that I take this time this morning to make very 

clear for the record, for my colleagues, for you, and for the administration, that we are not done with this issue. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Do any of my colleagues have very brief opening comments? Your 

statements will be made part of the record, by unanimous consent. 

If there are no opening statements, let me recognize Secretary 

Jewell. 

Madam Secretary. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate you being here, and willingness to talk through the 

budget of the Department of the Interior, and for the effective way 

in which you represent your constituents from your various States. 
7 

It has been a pleasure getting to know all of you in this almost 

1 year that I have been in this position. 

For Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich, I do appreciate the 

commitment that you have to the citizens of the State of Alaska, 

and I understand your advocacy. 

I appreciated our meeting yesterday morning, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Begich, our meeting yesterday afternoon with 

the residents of King Cove. I, certainly, through the 300 or so meetings and consultations that my Department has had on the King 

Cove issue continue to be a listener and look at the facts throughout this whole process. 

I appreciate the passion you have expressed, and I also appreciate the people who have traveled so many miles to be at this 

hearing today. 

I have with me, as you recognized, my newly minted Deputy Secretary. We appreciate your support for Mike in this position. 

One of the biggest issues that we face throughout the West is 

drought, severe drought. Mike is not only an expert in that, having 

been Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, but many other 

topics as well. 

Rhea Suh, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and 

Budget, the Department’s Chief Financial Officer, has done a terrific job these last 5 years in very complicated times for budgets, 

ably assisted by Deputy Assistant Secretary Pam Haze and the 

crew. 

I also want to recognize Rachael Taylor and Leif Fonnesbeck for 

your support of this committee and my team as we work together. 

It has been about a year since I met with you. It was an interesting year, 2013, with the sequestration and the shutdown. I want 

to express my sincere appreciation for a budget for 2014 that 

brings clarity and certainty to my teammates, even if the numbers 

are tight. 

Today, as we present our 2015 budget, I am going to share a few 

highlights and focus on areas of interest, I believe, to the subcommittee. 

First, from a big picture standpoint, it is a solid budget. It is responsible. It makes smart decisions in Interior’s missions. It is 

within the budget caps agreed to by the Bipartisan Budget Act. 

WILDLAND FIRE

In total, including this subcommittee’s oversight and some others, the budget is $11.9 billion. As Senator Reed mentioned, it is 

an increase of $275 million, or 2.4 percent, from 2014, but of that, 

$240 million is for emergency fire suppression. 

It is a new and prudent budget framework to ensure adequate 

funding to suppress severe catastrophic fires. I was just at the National Interagency Fire Center with Senator Merkley, Senator 

Wyden, Senators Crapo and Risch, to talk about this program. 

What we are doing is proposing to change how fire suppression 

costs are budgeted to treat extreme fire seasons in the same way 

as other natural disasters. We believe it is prudent and logical to 

do that. 

What is in the President’s budget is very similar to what has 

been proposed by Senators Wyden and Crapo and in companion 
8 

legislation in the House to balance post-fire remediation, fuels removal, like hazardous fuels, and suppression on a year-in, year-out 

basis, so we are not raiding these funds. It is modeled on the Federal Emergency Management Disaster Relief Program. 

There are no additions to the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) Disaster Relief program. It is all done within the 

disaster cap. We believe very strongly that it needs to go forward, 

and we will be working alongside you on the legislation to enable 

that. 

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Next I want to say that presentation of a robust program for 

American Indians and Alaskan natives has been a key goal for me. 

This budget includes full funding for estimated contract support 

costs, something the tribes have said is critical to them, and enables them to operate their federally funded programs. 

It also includes $11.6 million for a new Tiwahe, or family-based 

initiative, to address the interrelated problems of poverty, housing, 

violence, and substance abuse faced by Indian communities, as we 

have seen in a number of places across the country. 

This request is complemented by a proposal for education and 

economic development in Indian country as part of President 

Obama’s Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Next I want to turn to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

as the President seeks to fulfill a historic commitment to America’s 

natural and cultural heritage through full and permanent funding 

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as originally envisioned when this legislation was enacted 49 years ago. It was generated to take revenues from offshore oil and gas production and 

mitigate those impacts through supporting things in every county 

across the country, like access for hunting and fishing, creating ball 

fields and other places for kids to play and learn, to acquire land 

to reduce fragmentation and facilitate efficient land management, 

to protect Civil War battlefields, and to put conservation easements 

in place to take care of important habitat for species, while keeping 

farms and ranches working. 

NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

As Chairman Reed mentioned, in 2016, we celebrate the centennial of the National Park Service—obviously, a once in a lifetime 

event. This budget proposes a robust increase in multiple sources 

for the National Park system, $40 million in current appropriations 

in 2015. $10 million will be used to match private philanthropy, 

and there is a lot of private philanthropy interest in the parks. $30 

million to support the visitor experience and critical needs to repair 

assets in the parks. 

We are also proposing a $1.2 billion permanent investment over 

3 years at $400 million a year to support high-priority projects and 

further enhance the visitor experience, because we know a lot more 

traffic will be driven to the parks, both internationally and domestically, through the centennial. 
9 

OPPORTUNITY, GROWTH, AND SECURITY INITIATIVE

The President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative also 

adds additional money for the national parks to begin to address 

the issue of deferred maintenance on national parklands and other 

public lands. 

YOUTH

As Chairman Reed mentioned, for the health of our economy and 

our public lands, it is also critical we work now to establish meaningful and deep connections between young people from every background to nature and the great outdoors. The President’s budget 

proposes $51 million across our bureaus to support partnership 

programs, hiring, and educational opportunities aimed at youth 

and veterans between the ages of 18 and 30. 

It will also leverage private donations. I have been trying to raise 

private money to support this and support work with youth and 

veterans conservation corps, so we get young people connected to 

our public lands for the future. 

ENERGY

On the topic of energy, the budget proposes the President’s national energy initiatives continue to be an area of focus to generate 

jobs and help the Nation achieve greater energy self-reliance. We 

have made good progress. 

In total, including all sources, the 2015 budget for energy programs is $753.2 million, just under a $41 million increase from 

2014. It includes funding for both conventional and renewable energy development, basic science and applied research to understand 

the impacts of development on water, on habitat, on wildlife, and 

other natural resources. 

LANDSCAPE LEVEL APPROACH

Across the Department, we are taking a landscape level approach 

to development. We are modernizing programs and practices. We 

are streamlining permitting, strengthening inspection and enforcement, and ensuring a fair return for the American public. 

SCIENCE

Next, in the field of science, research and development, particularly conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and other bureaus, 

is vital to help us understand and address important scientific 

questions. There is a $60 million increase in the budget from 2014 

to improve our knowledge about issues such as climate change, hydraulic fracturing, Asian carp, white nose syndrome in bats, and 

other issues. 

As an example, Interior’s climate science centers are developing 

regional drought impact scenarios. We are evaluating coastal flooding. We are studying the impacts on the Nation’s wildlife and habitats, which will inform our land management decisions. 
10 

WATER

Last but certainly not least, and something that I am comforted 

having Mike Connor at my side over, is around water. We recognize the challenges of water supplies, especially during this time of 

extended drought in the West. I am very happy Mike was confirmed by you very recently as Deputy Secretary, because he has 

a very deep background on these issues. 

The 2015 budget will increase our WaterSMART programs 

around conservation, helping people conserve by $9.5 million. The 

Bureau of Reclamation, along with many partners, States, and 

stakeholders, is working on long-term solutions to address future 

water supply needs. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

The President also announced a $1 billion Climate Resilience 

Fund. The Fund would support research on the projected impacts 

of climate change, help communities become more resilient, and 

fund breakthrough technologies. 

These efforts are specifically designed to address the challenges 

of changing climate on water resources. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So in closing, I look forward to working with you this budget season on these issues. I would be delighted to answer your questions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SALLY JEWELL

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to present the 

2015 President’s budget for the Department of the Interior. 

This subcommittee remains an important partner in the accomplishment of Interior’s mission and I appreciate our excellent working relationship, which allows us 

to resolve challenges and take advantage of opportunities. I appreciate the efforts 

of the subcommittee in the development of 2014 appropriations that alleviated the 

need for indiscriminate sequester of discretionary funds and minimized legislative 

riders. 

This budget is balanced and responsible and supports Interior’s pivotal role as a 

driver of jobs and economic activity in communities across the country. It enables 

us to carry out core mission responsibilities and commitments. This budget allows 

Interior to uphold trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives, 

provides a new approach for responsibly budgeting for wildland fire suppression 

needs, invests in climate resilience, continues smart and balanced all-of-the-above 

energy development on and offshore, and bolsters our national parks and public 

lands in advance of the National Park Service’s 100th anniversary in 2016. 

Interior’s programs and activities serve as economic engines in communities 

across the Nation, contributing an estimated $371 billion to the economy in 2012 

and supporting an estimated 2.3 million American jobs. Of this total, energy and 

mineral development on Interior-managed lands and offshore areas generated more 

than $255 billion of this economic activity and supported 1.3 million jobs. Recreation 

and tourism on Interior lands contributed $45 billion to the economies of local communities and supported nearly 372,000 jobs. Water supply, forage and timber activities, primarily on public lands in the West, contributed more than $50 billion and 

supported 365,000 jobs. 

The President’s 2015 budget for the Department of the Interior totals $11.9 billion, an increase of 2.4 percent from 2014, which includes a cap exemption for fire 

emergencies. Without this exemption, Interior’s budget totals $11.7 billion, a 0.3 

percent increase, or nearly level with this year’s funding. 

This budget features three key legislative proposals: a new framework to fund 

wildland fire suppression requirements; additional investment in the infrastructure 
11 

and visitor experience at our National Parks and public lands; and full and permanent funding for the Land and Wildlife Conservation Fund (LWCF). Each of these 

proposals will significantly enhance our ability to conserve and manage the Nation’s 

public lands. 

The budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, to provide stable funding for fire suppression, while minimizing the 

adverse impacts of fire transfers on other Interior programs, and allowing Interior 

to reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more comprehensively, and increase the resiliency of public lands and the communities that border them. In this proposed new 

framework, $268.6 million, or 70 percent of the 10-year average for suppression response is funded within the discretionary spending limits and $240.4 million is 

available as an adjustment above those limits, if needed based on a challenging fire 

season. In addition, it does not increase overall discretionary spending, as it would 

reduce the ceiling for the existing disaster relief cap adjustment by an equivalent 

amount as is provided for wildfire suppression operations. 

In advance of the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016, the 

2015 budget proposes a comprehensive Centennial Initiative investment in the 

parks and public lands. The funding would provide targeted increases for a multiyear effort to recommit to the preservation of these special places, to invest wisely 

in the park system’s most important assets, to use parks to enhance informal learning, engage volunteers, provide training opportunities to youth, and enhance the National Park Service’s ability to leverage partnerships to accomplish its mission. 

Finally, the President’s budget continues to support full, permanent funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund, one of the Nation’s most effective tools for 

expanding access for hunting and fishing, creating ballfields and other places for 

children to play and learn, protecting traditional uses such as working ranches and 

farms, acquiring inholdings to manage contiguous landscapes, and protecting Civil 

War battlefields. The 2015 budget proposes total funding of $900 million for LWCF 

in Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. Within this total, $350 million is requested 

as current funding and $550 million as part of a permanent funding proposal. Starting in 2016, the proposal would provide $900 million annually in permanent funding. 

Complementing the 2015 budget request is $346 million identified for Interior programs as part of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to 

spur economic progress and promote opportunity. If approved, these investments 

will enable significant progress to address long-term needs in the areas of national 

parks and other public lands, research and development, infrastructure and permitting support, climate resiliency, and education and economic development in Indian 

Country. 

The drought in California and other Western States underscores the importance 

of improving the resilience of communities to the effects of climate change. The 

President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative includes a $1 billion government-wide Climate Resilience Fund to invest in developing more resilient communities, and finding solutions to climate challenges through technology development and applied research. This Fund includes about $240 million for Interior programs that invest in research and development, assist Tribes and local communities 

in planning and preparing for extreme weather conditions and events, and support 

public land managers in landscape and watershed planning to increase resiliency 

and reduce risks. 

2015 BUDGET

The 2015 budget request includes $10.6 billion in current funding for programs 

under the jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee. This is a $104.9 million, or 1 percent, increase compared to 2014. Total 

funding for the Department includes $1 billion requested for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Completion Act, which are under the jurisdiction of the 

Energy and Water Development subcommittee. 

In addition to the proposals already discussed, the 2015 request sustains support 

for essential requirements and allows for targeted increases above the 2014 enacted 

level. Within the overall increase for 2015, $54.4 million covers fixed cost increases 

for such things as Federal pay and rent. Reflecting the need to prioritize budget resources, this request includes $413.3 million in proposed program reductions to offset other programmatic requirements. 

Interior programs continue to generate more revenue for the American people 

than the Department’s annual current appropriation. In 2015, Interior will generate 

estimated receipts of nearly $14.9 billion, a portion of which is shared with State 

and local governments to meet a variety of needs, including school funding, infra-
12 

structure improvements, and water-conservation projects. Also included with this request are revenue and savings legislative proposals estimated to generate more than 

$2.6 billion over the next decade. 

Putting this budget in context, Interior’s complex mission affects the lives of all 

Americans. Nearly every American lives within an hour’s drive of lands or waters 

managed by the Interior Department. In 2012, there were 417 million visits to Interior-managed lands. The Department oversees the responsible development of over 

20 percent of U.S. energy supplies, is the largest supplier and manager of water in 

the 17 western States, maintains relationships with 566 federally recognized Tribes, 

and provides services to more than 2 million American Indian and Alaska Native 

peoples. 

CELEBRATING AND ENHANCING AMERICA’S GREAT OUTDOORS

Throughout American history, the great outdoors have shaped the Nation’s character and strengthened its economy. The 2015 budget requests the resources and 

authorities to care for our public lands and prepare for the future. The budget invests in efforts to upgrade and restore national parks and other public lands areas, 

while engaging thousands of Americans, including youth, and veterans. The budget 

strengthens the President’s commitment to the America’s Great Outdoors initiative 

with a request of $5.1 billion in current funding for programs, including the operation of public land management units in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

National Park Service (NPS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund; and grants and technical assistance to States and others. 

This is an increase of $127.1 million compared to the 2014 enacted level. 

Coupled with these efforts is a historic commitment to America’s natural and cultural heritage through Land and Water Conservation Fund programs. The budget 

includes a 2015 combined request of $672.3 million ($246 million discretionary and 

$426.3 million mandatory) for Interior’s LWCF programs that conserve lands and 

support outdoor recreation. In current funding, the request for land acquisition is 

$147.9 million, with $39.5 million identified for Collaborative Landscape Planning 

projects. A total of $98.1 million is requested in current funding for LWCF conservation grants, including $48.1 million for LWCF stateside grants. 

I could not highlight our stewardship efforts without discussing the upcoming centennial of the National Park Service in 2016. Overall, the Centennial Initiative— 

including mandatory, discretionary, and Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative resources—will allow NPS to ensure that 1,700 (or 20 percent) of the highest 

priority park assets are restored to good condition. The effort creates thousands of 

jobs over 3 years, provides over 10,000 work and training opportunities to young 

people, and engages more than 265,000 volunteers in support of public lands. 

The request for the Centennial Initiative proposes a $40 million increase in current appropriations in 2015, plus an additional $400 million in permanent funding 

each year for 3 years. That funding includes $100 million for a Centennial Challenge to match private philanthropy, $200 million for National Park Service facilities improvements, and $100 million for a Centennial Land Management Investment Fund to competitively allocate funds to meet land conservation and deferred 

maintenance needs among Interior’s land-management agencies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service. The President’s Opportunity, Growth, 

and Security Initiative identifies investments of $100 million for National Park 

Service deferred maintenance and an additional $100 million for the Centennial 

Land Management Investment Fund. 

STRENGTHENING TRIBAL NATIONS

Sustaining the President’s commitment to tribal sovereignty and self-determination and honoring Interior’s trust responsibilities to the 566 federally recognized 

American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and more than 2 million people served 

by these programs, the 2015 budget for Indian Affairs is $2.6 billion, an increase 

of $33.6 million above the 2014 enacted level. The budget invests in: advancing nation-to-nation relationships and tribal self-determination, supporting and protecting 

Indian families and communities, sustainable stewardship of energy and natural resources, and improving education in Indian Country. 

Recognizing this commitment to tribal self-governance and self-determination, the 

budget fully funds contract support costs Tribes incur as managers of the programs 

serving Native Americans. The budget requests $251 million, a $4 million increase 

over the 2014 enacted level, to fully fund estimated contract support needs in 2015. 

Supporting families and communities, the 2015 budget launches the Tiwahe Initiative, with an increase of $11.6 million in social services and job training programs 

to address the interrelated problems of child and family welfare, poverty, violence 
13 

and substance abuse in tribal communities. Tiwahe is the Lakota word for ‘‘family.’’ 

Through this initiative, social services and job training programs will be integrated 

and expanded to provide culturally appropriate programs to assist and empower 

families and individuals through economic opportunity, health promotion, family 

stability, and strengthened communities. 

Promoting public safety and tribal community resilience, the 2015 budget request 

includes resources to build on Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Law Enforcement’s recent successes in reducing violent crime. A pilot program will be implemented to 

lower repeat incarceration rates in tribally operated jails on three reservations—Red 

Lake in Minnesota, Ute Mountain in Colorado, and Duck Valley in Nevada—with 

a goal to materially lower repeat incarcerations. Through an Alternatives to Incarceration Strategy, this pilot will seek to address underlying causes of repeat offenses, such as substance abuse and lack of adequate access to social service support, through intergovernmental and inter-agency partnerships. 

The 2015 budget request is complemented by a proposal in the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to further invest in economic development 

and education to promote strong, resilient tribal economies and improve educational 

opportunities in Indian Country. 

POWERING OUR FUTURE

As part of the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy to expand safe and re- sponsible domestic energy production, the 2015 budget provides $753.2 million for 

conventional and renewable energy programs, an increase of $40.7 million above the 

2014 enacted level. The budget includes measures to encourage responsible, diligent 

development and a fair return for American taxpayers. Funding for conventional energy and compliance activities totals $658.4 million, an increase of $37.5 million over the 2014 level. Spending from fees and permanent 

funding related to onshore oil and gas activities increase $49.1 million from the 

2014 level, primarily reflecting a proposal to expand onshore oil and gas inspection 

activities and to offset the Bureau of Land Management’s inspection program costs 

to the taxpayer with fees from industry, similar to what the offshore industry now 

pays. The budget includes $169.8 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and $204.6 million for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to support domestic energy production, including new leasing, strong safety oversight of 

offshore operations, enhanced environmental enforcement functions, and expanded 

training and electronic inspection capabilities. The 2015 budget includes $94.8 million for renewable energy activities, a $3.2 million increase over the 2014 level. This funding maintains the Department’s emphasis on strategic investments to advance clean energy and meet the President’s goal 

to approve 20,000 megawatts of renewable energy on public lands by 2020 (relative 

to 2009 levels). 

ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION

The 2015 budget supports a vision to inspire millions of young people to play, 

learn, serve and work outdoors by expanding volunteer and work opportunities for 

youth and veterans. The budget proposes $50.6 million for Interior youth programs, 

a $13.6 million or 37 percent increase from 2014. 

A key component of the Department’s efforts will be partnering with youth organizations through the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps. The proposed funding 

includes an increase of $8 million to expand opportunities for youth education and 

employment across the National Park Service; an additional $2.5 million for the 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Urban Wildlife Refuges Partnership; and a total of $4.2 

million in Indian Affairs for youth programs including $2.5 million to engage youth 

in natural sciences. Support for the National Park Service Centennial will create 

thousands of jobs, and engage more than 10,000 youth in service and training opportunities and more than 265,000 volunteers. 

ENSURING HEALTHY WATERSHEDS AND SUSTAINABLE, SECURE WATER SUPPLIES

The 2015 budget addresses the Nation’s water challenges through investments in 

water conservation, sustainability, and infrastructure critical to the arid western 

United States and its fragile ecosystems. 

The budget includes $66.5 million for WaterSMART programs in Reclamation and 

the U.S. Geological Survey, nearly a 17 percent increase from 2014, to assist communities in stretching water supplies and improving water management. In addition to $1 billion requested for the Bureau of Reclamation within the jurisdiction 

of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, the budget also requests $210.4 million for 
14 

the U.S. Geological Survey’s water programs to provide scientific monitoring, research, and tools to support water management across the Nation. This funding 

supports the Department’s goal to increase by 840,000 acre-feet the available water 

supply for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental uses in the western United States through water conservation programs by the end of 2015. 

Interior extends this commitment to Indian Country, honoring Indian water set- tlements with investments totaling $171.9 million in Reclamation and Indian Affairs, for technical and legal support for water settlements. This includes $147.6 million for implementation of authorized settlements to bring reliable and potable 

water to Indian communities, more than a 9 percent increase from 2014. Among the 

investments is $81 million for the ongoing Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, 

which, when completed, will have the capacity to deliver clean running water to a 

potential future population of approximately 250,000 people. 

BUILDING A LANDSCAPE LEVEL UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RESOURCES

The 2015 budget fosters the sustainable stewardship of the Nation’s lands and resources on a landscape level. Funding includes increases for scientific monitoring, 

research and tools to advance our understanding and ability to manage natural resources more effectively, while balancing important conservation goals and development objectives. Reflecting the President’s ongoing commitment to scientific discovery and innovation to support decision making for critical societal needs and a 

robust economy, the budget proposes $888.7 million for research and development 

activities across the Department, an increase of $60.4 million over 2014. This funding will increase understanding of natural resources and the factors impacting 

water availability, ecosystem and species resiliency, sustainable energy and mineral 

development, climate resilience, and natural hazard mitigation, among others. 

Complementing this budget request are two components of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative: an investment of $140 million for Interior 

research and development as part of a Government-wide effort to jumpstart growth 

spurred by scientific discovery; and investments to address climate resilience to better prepare communities and infrastructure, and enable them to build greater resilience in the face of a changing climate. 

In ecosystems across the Nation, Interior will continue to work with local communities to leverage its efforts to improve resiliency and achieve improved environmental and economic outcomes. 

MAJOR CHANGES IN THE 2015 REQUEST

Bureau of Land Management.—The 2015 request is $1.1 billion, a decrease of $5.6 

million from the 2014 enacted level. The 2015 request assumes the use of $54.5 million in proposed offsetting fees, which when included provides an effective increase 

of $48.9 million above 2014. The 2015 request includes $954.1 million for the Management of Lands and Resources account, and $25 million in current appropriations 

for Land Acquisition, including $2 million to improve access to public lands for 

hunting, fishing, and other recreation. The budget proposes $104 million for Oregon 

and California Grant Lands, which includes a $4.2 million decrease in Western Oregon Resource Management Planning, reflecting expected completion of six revised 

plans in June 2015. 

To advance America’s Great Outdoors, the request includes $3.5 million in program increases for recreation, cultural resources, and the National Landscape Conservation System to address the needs of recently designated units, implement travel management plans, improve visitor services, and address a backlog in cultural resources inventory and stabilization needs. The budget request also includes $4.8 

million for Youth programs, an increase of $1.3 million from 2014, to put more 

young Americans to work protecting and restoring public lands and cultural and 

historical treasures. 

The BLM continues to support the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy on 

the public lands including an initiative to encourage smart renewable energy development. The 2015 budget includes $29.2 million, essentially level with 2014, for renewable energy to continue to aggressively support wind, solar, and geothermal energy development on BLM lands. Complementing this is a $5 million increase in the 

Cadastral, Lands and Realty Management program for identification and designation of energy corridors in low conflict areas to site high voltage transmission lines, 

substations, and related infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive manner. 

The 2015 request for Oil and Gas Management, including both direct and feefunded appropriations, totals $133.7 million, an increase of $20.3 million in available program funding from 2014. In 2015, the budget proposes to shift the cost of 

oil and gas inspection and enforcement activity from current appropriations to in-
15 

spection fees charged to industry. The proposed inspection fees will generate an estimated $48 million, providing for a $10 million increase in BLM’s inspection and enforcement capability and allowing for a net reduction of $38 million in requested 

BLM appropriations. The request for Oil and Gas programs includes increases of 

$5.2 million for ongoing rulemaking efforts and to strengthen operations at BLM 

units and $4.6 million for oversight and permitting to better keep pace with industry demand and fully implement leasing reforms. 

In 2015, BLM will release six rapid eco-regional assessments, in addition to four 

planned for 2014. The BLM will conduct training on the use of the data from these 

assessments and will work with a number of Landscape Conservation Cooperatives 

to begin development of regional conservation strategies. The budget includes an increase of $5 million for Resource Management Planning to implement BLM’s enterprise geographic information system and address high priority planning. The 2015 

budget maintains a $15 million increase to implement sage grouse conservation and 

restoration measures to help avoid the need for a future listing of the species for 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. Other program increases include $2.8 million in the Wild Horse and Burro program to implement recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences regarding 

population control; and $2.8 million in Abandoned Mine Lands to implement remediation plan efforts at Red Devil Mine in Alaska. The request includes $19 million 

for the Alaska Conveyance program. Although a decrease of $3.1 million from 2014, 

this funding coupled with efficiencies from an improved cadastral method, plots a 

course to complete all surveys and land transfers in 10 years. 

A proposed grazing administration fee will enhance BLM’s capacity for processing grazing permits. A fee of $1 per animal unit month, estimated to provide $6.5 million in 2015, is proposed on a pilot basis. This additional revenue more than offsets 

a decrease of $4.8 million in appropriated funds in Rangeland Management, equating to a $1.7 million program increase to help address the grazing permit backlog. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.—The 2015 operating request is $169.8 mil- lion, including $72.4 million in current appropriations and $97.3 million in offsetting 

collections. This is a net increase of $3.4 million in current appropriations above the 

2014 enacted level. 

The 2015 budget maintains a strong offshore renewable energy program at essen- tially the 2014 level of $23.1 million for the total program. In 2013, the Bureau of 

Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) held the first competitive Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) renewable energy lease sales, issued five other non-competitive commercial offshore wind energy leases, and approved the construction and operations plan 

for the Cape Wind project offshore Massachusetts. 

Offshore conventional energy programs also remain essentially level with 2014, with a total of $49.6 million in 2015. In 2013, BOEM held three sales generating 

over $1.4 billion in high bids, and three additional lease sales are scheduled during 

calendar year 2014. The request of $65.7 million for Environmental Programs includes an increase of $2.5 million for work on a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the next Five-Year Program (2017–2022) for oil and gas leasing 

on the OCS. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.—The 2015 budget request is 

$204.6 million, including $81 million in current appropriations and $123.6 million 

in offsetting collections, an increase of $2 million from 2014. The request for offsetting collections assumes $65 million from offshore oil and gas inspection fees. The 

2015 request allows Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to 

continue to strengthen regulatory and oversight capability on the OCS and maintain 

capacity in regulatory, safety management, structural and technical support, and oil 

spill response prevention. 

The budget includes $189.7 million for Offshore Safety and Environmental Enforcement, an increase of $2.4 million. The request includes a program increase of 

$0.9 million to evaluate and test new technologies and update regulations to reflect 

improved safety and oversight protocols. Funding for Oil Spill Research is maintained at the 2014 level of $14.9 million. 

Office of Surface Mining.—The 2015 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining is $144.8 million, a decrease of $5.3 million from the 2014 enacted level. This 

includes a decrease of $13.4 million in grants to States and Tribes to encourage 

these regulatory programs to recover a larger portion of their costs from fees 

charged to the coal industry, and an increase of $4 million to provide additional 

technical support to State and tribal regulatory programs. The budget also includes 

an increase of $1.9 million for applied science to advance reclamation technologies. 

This request proposes $116.1 million for Regulation and Technology funding, $28.7 

million for Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund activities, and an additional $1.9 

million in offsetting collections from recovered costs for services. 
16 

U.S. Geological Survey.—The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) budget request is 

$1.1 billion, $41.3 million above the 2014 enacted level. The President’s budget reflects the administration’s commitment to investing in research and development to 

support sound decision making and sustainable stewardship of natural resources. 

This includes science, monitoring, and assessment activities critical to understanding and managing the ecological, mineral, energy, and water resources which 

underlie the prosperity and well-being of the Nation. The budget includes increases 

for priorities in ecosystem restoration, climate adaptation, invasive species, environmental health, and earth observations. Funding provides increased support to enhance sustainable energy development, address water resource challenges, increase 

landscape level understanding of the Nation’s natural resources, and the Scientists 

for Tomorrow youth initiative. 

To support sustainable management of water resources, the USGS budget includes increases totaling $6.4 million for WaterSMART programs. This includes increases for State water grants, regional water availability models, and the integration and dissemination of data through online science platforms. The budget includes increases of $2.4 million to support implementation of the National Groundwater Monitoring Network and $1.2 million for the National Streamflow Information Program for streamgages to strengthen the Federal backbone at high priority 

sites sensitive to drought, flooding, and potential climate change effects. 

To better understand and adapt to the potential impacts of a changing climate, 

the USGS budget invests in research, monitoring, and tools to support improved resilience of natural systems. The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSC) are funded 

at $35.3 million, an increase of $11.6 million from 2014. This includes an increase 

of $3 million for grants focused on applied science and information needed by resource managers for decision making at regional levels. An increase of $2.3 million 

will enhance the leveraging of these investments with other Federal climate science 

activities and make the scientific information and products developed through these 

programs available to the public in a centralized, Web-accessed format. Program increases of $2.5 million will support applied science and capacity-building for tribal 

climate adaptation needs in the CSC regions, and $3 million will support additional 

research in drought impacts and adaptive management. 

The USGS budget invests in providing critical data and tools to promote understanding and managing resources on a landscape scale. Program increases in the 

National Geospatial Program include $5 million for the 3-Dimensional Elevation 

Program to collect Lidar data to enhance science and emergency response activities, 

resource and vulnerability assessments, ecosystem based management, and tools to 

inform policy and management. An increase of $1.9 million is requested for modernization of The National Map, which provides critical data about the Earth, its 

complex processes, and natural resources. The 2015 budget includes a $2 million increase for the Big Earth Data initiative to improve access to and use of data from 

satellite, airborne, terrestrial, and ocean-based Earth observing systems. These investments will provide benefits in natural resource management and hazard mitigation, by improving access to critical information. 

To support the sustainable development of energy resources, the USGS budget includes $40.7 million for conventional and renewable energy programs, $8.1 million 

above the 2014 enacted level. A program increase of $1.3 million will be used to 

study geothermal resources and build on ongoing work on wind energy impacts. The 

request includes $18.6 million, $8.3 million over 2014, to support research and development to better understand potential impacts of energy development involving 

hydraulic fracturing. Conducted through an interagency collaboration with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, this work addresses 

issues such as water quality and quantity, ecosystem, community, and human 

health impacts, and induced seismicity. Funding for other conventional energy programs, including oil, gas, and coal assessments, totals $15.6 million. 

Supporting the sustainable management and restoration of ecosystems, the 2015 

budget includes $162 million for ecosystems science activities, $9.2 million above the 

2014 enacted level. Program increases include $2 million for research on new methods to eradicate, control, and manage Asian carp in the Upper Mississippi River 

Basin and prevent entry into the Great Lakes. Increases of $2.5 million are provided 

for ecosystem restoration work in the Chesapeake Bay, California Bay-Delta, Columbia River, Everglades, and Puget Sound. Another $2 million will support the 

science and integration of ecosystems services frameworks into decision making and 

efforts to assess and sustain the Nation’s environmental capital. Program increases 

totaling $1.8 million will address native pollinators, brown treesnakes, and new and 

emerging invasive species of national concern. 
17 

Supporting understanding, preparedness, and mitigation of the impacts of natural hazards, the budget provides $128.3 million for Natural Hazards activities, which 

is essentially level with 2014. This activity provides scientific information and tools 

to reduce potential fatalities, injuries, and economic loss from volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and landslides, among others. The 2015 budget includes an increase of $700,000 in Earthquake Hazards for induced seismicity studies related to 

hydraulic fracturing. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.—The 2015 Fish and Wildlife Service budget includes $1.5 billion in current appropriations, an increase of $48.8 million above the 2014 

level. This includes America’s Great Outdoors related increases of $71.7 million in 

the Resource Management account. Among the increases proposed are: $6.6 million 

to address increased workload in planning and consultation for energy transmission 

and other projects, $7.7 million for cooperative efforts to recover imperiled species, 

$4 million to support conservation of the greater sage grouse across 11 western 

States, $2 million to investigate crimes and enforce laws that govern the Nation’s 

wildlife trade, and $2.5 million to establish an Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership 

program. This effort will encourage city dwellers to enjoy the outdoors by creating 

stepping stones of engagement to connect them to the outdoors on refuges and partner lands, through experiences which build on one another. 

Funding for FWS grant programs, with the exception of State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants, remain level with 2014. In 2015, funding for State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants totals $50 million. The request also includes $55 million for Land Acquisition and $15.7 million for Construction. In addition to direct appropriations, an estimated $1.3 billion will be available under permanent appropriations, most of which 

will be provided directly to States for fish and wildlife restoration and conservation. The budget proposes $16.7 million, an increase of $2.5 million, for activities asso- ciated with energy development. Of this increase, $1.4 million supports scientific research into the impacts of energy transmission and development infrastructure on 

wildlife and habitat. The research will identify potential impacts associated with the 

development of energy infrastructure and strategies to minimize the impacts on 

habitat and species. An increase of $1.1 million for the Ecological Services Planning 

and Consultation program supports assessments of renewable energy projects proposed for development. 

The budget request for the Resource Management account continues support for key programs with program increases of $65.8 million above 2014. The request provides $252.2 million in Ecological Services to conserve, protect, and enhance listed 

and at-risk species and their habitat, an increase of $30.3 million. Within this request are increases of $4 million to support conservation of the greater sage grouse 

across 11 western States and $10.5 million to implement other species recovery actions. 

The request includes funding within Law Enforcement and International Affairs 

to combat wildlife trafficking. The budget provides $66.7 million for the law enforcement program to investigate wildlife crimes, enforce the laws governing the Nation’s 

wildlife trade, and expand technical forensic expertise, with program increases of $2 

million over 2014. 

The budget includes $138.9 million for Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation, a program increase of $8.2 million. Within this request is $48.6 million for operation of the National Fish Hatchery system to address top priorities, an increase 

of $1.9 million for fish hatchery maintenance, and $4.4 million to prevent the spread 

of Asian carp in the Missouri, Ohio, upper Mississippi Rivers, and other high priority watersheds. 

Funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation activity is $17.7 million, an increase of $3.2 million, and funding for Science Support is $31.6 million, an increase 

of $14.4 million. The budget supports applied science directed at high impact questions to mitigate threats to fish and wildlife resources, including $2.5 million to address white nose syndrome in bats, and an increase of $1 million to study biological 

carbon sequestration. 

The 2015 budget proposes to eliminate the current funding contribution to the National Wildlife Refuge fund, a reduction of $13.2 million below 2014. An estimated 

$8 million in permanent receipts collected and allocated under the program would 

remain available to counties. The budget also proposes cancellation of $1.4 million 

in prior year balances from the Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship 

Grant programs, which have not received new budget authority in several years. 

National Park Service.—The 2015 budget request for NPS of $2.6 billion is $55.1 

million above the 2014 enacted level. 

In 2015, a total of $2.5 billion is requested for NPS as part of America’s Great 

Outdoors. This includes $2.3 billion for park operations, an increase of $47.1 million 

over 2014. Within this increase is $30 million to support the NPS Centennial Initia-
18 

tive. The Centennial increase includes $16 million for repair and rehabilitation 

projects to improve high priority projects throughout the parks, $8 million in competitively managed funds to support enhanced visitor services in the areas of interpretation and education, law enforcement and protection, and facility operations, $4 

million for 21 CSC youth work opportunities to engage youth in service and conservation projects, and $2 million to support expanded volunteer opportunities at 

the parks. Across these Centennial increases, the budget provides an $8 million increase for youth engagement and employment opportunities, and continues the NPS’ 

efforts to attract qualified veteran candidates to fill Federal positions. The request 

for Park Operations also includes increases of $15.7 million for increased fixed costs 

and $2 million to support new park units. 

Also in preparation for the Centennial anniversary of the parks, the 2015 request includes $10 million in a separate account for Centennial Challenge projects. This 

funding will provide a Federal match to leverage partner donations for signature 

projects and programs at the parks. This program will be instrumental in garnering 

partner support to prepare park sites across the country for the centennial and 

through the second century of the NPS. The 2015 request for the Historic Preservation Fund is $56.4 million, level with 2014. Of this total, $46.9 million is requested for grants-in-aid to States and Territories, $9 million for grants-in-aid to Tribes, and $500,000 to be awarded competitively to address communities currently underrepresented on the National Register 

of Historic Places. 

The budget includes $52 million within the National Recreation and Preservation account, which includes $10 million for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program, essentially level with 2014, and $1.2 million for American Battlefield 

Protection Program assistance grants, also level with 2014. The request includes a 

program reduction of $9.1 million from Heritage Partnership programs to encourage 

self-sufficiency for these non-Federal organizations. 

Programs funded out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund are a key compo- nent of America’s Great Outdoors. The budget requests $104 million for the Land 

Acquisition and State Assistance account, an increase of $5.9 million. This includes 

$48.1 million for the State Conservation Grants program, level with 2014, and $55.9 

million for NPS Federal land acquisition, a programmatic increase of $5.8 million. 

Of this amount, $13.2 million supports Collaborative Landscape projects in the California Southwest Desert and areas within the National Trails System. Funding for Construction totals $138.3 million, essentially level with 2014. Of this amount, the budget includes $61.7 million for line-item construction projects, a $1.1 

million program increase compared to 2014. The request includes $6.7 million to reconstruct the historic cave tour trails in Mammoth Cave National Park and $3.9 

million to stabilize and repair exterior walls of the historic Alcatraz prison cell 

house at Golden Gate National Recreation Area. 

Indian Affairs.—The 2015 budget includes $2.6 billion for Indian Affairs programs, an increase of $33.6 million from the 2014 enacted level. This includes an 

increase of $33.8 million for Operation of Indian Programs; and level funding of 

$35.7 million for Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements, $109.9 million for Construction, and $6.7 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan program. 

Within the Operation of Indian Programs, the budget includes full funding of $251 

million for Contract Support Costs and the Indian Self-Determination Fund, an increase of $4 million from 2014. Consistent with the 2014 Operating Plan, the 2015 

request provides full funding based on the most current estimated need. The availability of contract support cost funding is a key factor in tribal decisions to assume 

responsibility for operating Federal programs important to the furtherance of selfgovernance and self-determination. To further facilitate Tribal 638 Contracting, the 

budget includes an additional $1.2 million to increase services from the Department’s Office of Indirect Cost Negotiations which negotiates indirect cost rates with 

non-Federal entities, including tribal governments. Consistent with subcommittee 

direction and in collaboration with the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Department 

held its first formal consultation on March 11, 2014 with tribes to discuss long-term 

solutions to Contract Support Cost issues. The Department remains committed to 

working with IHS, tribes, and Congress to develop a long-term strategy for addressing this important issue. 

The 2015 budget for Indian Affairs includes an increase of $11.6 million for the 

Tiwahe or ‘‘family’’ Initiative. The initiative takes a comprehensive and integrated 

approach to address the interrelated problems of poverty, violence, and substance 

abuse in Indian communities. The initiative builds on and expands social service, 

Indian child and family welfare, and job training programs. In recognition that adequate housing is essential to building stronger families, the budget maintains the 

2014 level for the Housing Improvement Program. The goal of the Tiwahe Initiative 
19 

is to empower American Indian individuals and families in health promotion and 

family stability, and to strengthen tribal communities as a whole. To better target 

funding and evaluate outcomes in meeting social service needs in Indian Country, 

the budget includes $1 million as part of the initiative. 

The budget provides strong support for the sustainable stewardship of land and 

resources in Indian Country, sustaining funding for trust land management and 

real estate services at 2014 levels and proposing program increases of $3.6 million 

for the stewardship of natural resources. Funding supports the development of natural resource science, information, and tools for application in the development and 

management of energy and minerals, water, forestry, oceans, climate resilience, and 

endangered and invasive species. Demonstrating the administration’s commitment 

to resolving tribal water rights and ensuring that tribes have access to meet their 

water needs, $171.9 million is provided across the Department for implementation 

of, and technical and legal support for, Indian water rights settlements, an increase 

of $13.8 million over 2014. A program increase of $1 million is also provided in Indian Affairs for deferred maintenance on Indian irrigation projects to help address 

drought issues in Indian Country. 

The budget supports improving educational outcomes in Indian Country, pro- viding $794.4 million for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), an increase of $5.6 

million from 2014. The request includes an increase of $500,000 for Johnson 

O’Malley Education Assistance Grants to support a new student count in 2015 and 

funding to address the projected increase in the number of eligible students. The 

budget includes $1 million to support ongoing evaluation of the BIE school system 

to improve educational outcomes. Within education construction, an increase of $2.3 

million supports site development at the Beatrice Rafferty School for which design 

funding was provided in 2014. The budget also includes $2.3 million in increases 

for BIE funded post-secondary programs including $1.7 million for post-graduate opportunities in science fields, and $250,000 for summer pre-law preparatory scholarships. 

Departmental Offices and Department-Wide Programs.—The 2015 request for the Office of the Secretary is $265.3 million, an increase of $1.3 million from the 2014 

enacted level. Of this, $122.9 million is for the Office of Natural Resources Revenue 

programs, an increase of $3.5 million, reflecting increases to strengthen production 

verification and meter inspections activities, including implementing an onshore 

production verification pilot and funding related data integration. Other changes include the proposed transfer of the Indian Arts and Crafts Board from the Office of 

the Secretary to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of $1.3 million, a decrease of $865,000 

reflecting a shift from direct appropriations to fee for service for Indirect Cost Negotiations, and a program decrease of $266,000 in Valuation Services. The budget request for the Office of Insular Affairs is $92.2 million, a decrease of $10.2 million from the 2014 enacted level. The budget includes an increase of $3 

million to address urgent, immediate needs in the insular areas, and $1.8 million 

to improve safety conditions in insular school facilities. A decrease of $500,000 reflects completion of an aerial bait system for brown treesnake control. Compact Impact is funded at $1.3 million, a decrease of $1.7 million from 2014, and is supplemented by $30 million annually in permanent Compact Impact funding. Funding of 

$13.1 million for the Palau Compact Extension is not requested for 2015 as it is expected the Compact will be authorized and funded from permanent appropriations 

in 2014. 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) request is $50 million, a decrease of 

$784,000 from 2014. The budget includes a decrease of $2 million reflecting completion of an effort to reduce OIG’s physical footprint. Increases of $423,000 and 

$355,000 are included to support the council of the Inspectors General on Integrity 

and Efficiency and provide additional full-time equivalents (FTEs) for information 

security audits, respectively. The Office of the Solicitor request is $65.8 million, 

equal to the 2014 enacted level. 

The Office of the Special Trustee request is $139 million, $648,000 below the 2014 

enacted level. The 2015 budget decreases Business Management funding by $1.6 

million reflecting $922,000 in efficiencies from the transfer of some mailing and 

printing services to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, a reduction of $500,000 

in litigation support, and a decrease of $200,000 in funding for the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 

The 2015 request for the Department-Wide Wildland Fire Management program 

is $794 million without the proposed fire cap adjustment, and $1 billion including 

the adjustment. The request includes $268.6 million for Suppression within the current budget cap, which is 70 percent of the 10-year suppression average spending. 

This base level funding ensures the cap adjustment of $240.4 million would only be 

used for the most severe fires, since it is 1 percent of the fires that cause 30 percent 
20 

of the costs. The new budget framework for Wildland Fire Management eliminates 

the need for additional funds through the FLAME Act. The 2015 budget includes 

a program increase of $34.1 million for Preparedness activities to enhance readiness 

capabilities. The budget includes $146.3 million for Fuels Management activities, 

formerly known as Hazardous Fuels Management. This is equal to the 2014 enacted 

level with an increase of $1.3 million for fixed costs. Complementing this request 

is $30 million for Resilient Landscapes, a new component of the Wildland Fire Management program, to support treatments that improve the integrity and resilience 

of forests and rangelands. Resilient landscape projects will be leveraged with bureau 

efforts to reduce fire risk and improve overall resiliency. The budget request also 

includes a $2 million increase for the Burned Area Rehabilitation program to address greater post-fire rehabilitation needs caused by the 2012 and 2013 fire seasons. 

The 2015 request for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Fund is $7.8 million, a program increase of $1.5 million. The increase includes $1 

million for a Department-wide onshore Oil Spill Preparedness Program, and additional resources for Restoration support. The budget includes $10 million for the 

Central Hazardous Materials Fund, an increase of $412,000 from 2014 to support 

additional cleanup work. 

The Department’s 2015 request for the Working Capital Fund appropriation is 

$64.3 million, an increase of $7.3 million from the 2014 enacted level. Within this 

request is $53.9 million for the operation and maintenance of the Financial and 

Business Management System, an increase of $1 million to continue support of the 

Department’s Cultural and Scientific Collections Management initiative, a decrease 

of $1 million from the Department’s Service First initiative, and an increase of $8.4 

million to support Interior’s Office Consolidation strategy in the DC metropolitan 

area. 

MANDATORY PROPOSALS

The 2015 budget includes 15 legislative proposals affecting spending, revenue and 

available budget authority, which require action by the congressional authorizing 

committees. Revenue and savings proposals will generate more than $2.6 billion 

over the next decade. The 2015 budget includes four spending proposals with an estimated $9.9 billion in outlays over the next decade. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—The 2015 budget proposes $900 million in 

current and permanent funding in 2015, and proposes permanent authorization of 

$900 million in mandatory funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture beginning in 2016. During a transition to permanent funding in 2015, the budget proposes $900 million in total LWCF programs funding, 

comprised of $550 million permanent and $350 million current funding, shared by 

Interior and Agriculture. 

Centennial Initiative.—The Centennial Initiative includes a legislative proposal to 

authorize $1.2 billion in permanent funding over 3 years beginning in 2015 in the 

following areas: $300 million ($100 million a year for 3 years) for a National Park 

Service Centennial Challenge fund to leverage private donations; $600 million ($200 

million a year for 3 years) for NPS deferred maintenance; and $300 million ($100 

million a year for 3 years) for a multiagency Centennial Land Management Investment Fund to competitively award grants to Interior land management agencies and 

the U.S. Forest Service for deferred maintenance and conservation projects. 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes.—The Agricultural Act of 2014 included a 1-year extension of permanent Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funding through 2014. The 

2015 budget proposes to extend authorization of the program an additional year 

through 2015, while a sustainable long-term funding solution is developed for the 

PILT Program. The PILT payments help local governments carry out vital services, 

such as firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, 

and search and rescue operations. The cost of a 1-year extension is estimated to be 

$442 million in 2015. The 2015 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Forest Service includes a proposal to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools 

Program for a 5-year period, covering lands managed by the BLM. 

Palau Compact.—On September 3, 2010, the United States and the Republic of 

Palau successfully concluded the review of the Compact of Free Association and 

signed a 15-year agreement that includes a package of assistance through 2024. The 

2015 budget assumes authorization of permanent funding for the Compact occurs 

in 2014. The cost for this proposal is estimated at $178.3 million for 2015 through 

2024. 

Federal Oil and Gas Reforms.—The budget includes a package of legislative reforms to bolster and backstop administrative actions being taken to reform the man-
21 

agement of Interior’s onshore and offshore oil and gas programs, with a key focus 

on improving the return to taxpayers from the sale of these Federal resources. Proposed statutory and administrative changes fall into three general categories: advancing royalty reforms, encouraging diligent development of oil and gas leases, and 

improving revenue collection processes. Collectively, these reforms will generate 

roughly $2.5 billion in net revenue to the Treasury over 10 years, of which about 

$1.7 billion would result from statutory changes. Many States will also benefit from 

higher Federal revenue sharing payments. 

Return Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fees to Historic Levels.—The 

budget proposes legislation to modify the 2006 amendments to the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act, which lowered the per-ton coal fee companies pay into 

the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Fund. The proposal would return the fee to 35 

cents a ton, the same level companies paid prior to the 2006 fee reduction. The additional revenue, estimated at $362 million over 10 years, will be used to reclaim high 

priority abandoned coal mines and reduce a portion of the estimated $3.9 billion 

needed to address remaining dangerous coal AML sites nationwide. 

Discontinue AML Payments to Certified States.—The budget proposes to discontinue unrestricted payments to States and Tribes certified for completing their 

coal reclamation work. This proposal terminates all such payments, with estimated 

savings of approximately $295 million over the next 10 years. 

Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines.—To address the legacy of abandoned 

hardrock mines across the United States and hold the hardrock mining industry accountable for past mining practices, the Department will propose legislation to create a parallel Abandoned Mine Lands Program for abandoned hardrock sites. A new 

AML fee on hardrock production on both public and private lands would generate 

an estimated $1.8 billion to reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned sites 

on Federal, State, tribal, and private lands. 

Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.—Interior will submit a legislative 

proposal to provide a fair return to the taxpayer from hardrock production on Federal lands. The legislative proposal will institute a leasing program under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain hardrock minerals including gold, silver, lead, 

zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum, currently covered by the General Mining 

Law of 1872. The proposal is projected to generate net revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $80 million over 10 years, with larger revenues estimated in following years. 

Geothermal Energy Receipts.—The Department proposes to repeal section 224(b) 

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The repeal of section 224(b) will permanently discontinue payments to counties and restore the disposition of Federal geothermal 

leasing revenues to the historical formula of 50 percent to the States and 50 percent 

to the Treasury. This results in estimated savings of $4 million in 2015 and $42 

million over 10 years. 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.—The Department proposes to reauthorize this act to allow Federal lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent 

land use plans to be sold using this authority. The sales revenues would continue 

to fund the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and administrative costs 

associated with conducting the sales. 

Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.—Federal Migratory 

Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, or Duck Stamps, are the annual Federal 

license required for hunting migratory waterfowl. The receipts generated from the 

sale of these $15 stamps are used to acquire important migratory bird areas for migration, breeding, and wintering. The Department proposes legislation to increase 

these fees which have not increased since 1991, to $25 per stamp per year beginning 

in 2015. This increase will add an estimated $14 million for migratory bird conservation annually. 

Bureau of Land Management Foundation.—The budget proposes legislation to establish a congressionally-chartered National BLM Foundation. This Foundation will 

provide an opportunity to leverage private funding to support public lands, achieve 

shared outcomes, and focus public support on the BLM mission. 

Recreation Fee Program.—The Department of the Interior proposes to permanently authorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which will expire 

in December 2015. The Department currently collects over $200 million in recreation fees annually under this authority and uses them to enhance the visitor experience at Interior facilities. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION AND THE DISCRETIONARY BUDGET CAP

The 2015 budget proposes to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985, as amended, to establish a new framework for funding Fire 

Suppression Operations to provide stable funding for fire suppression while mini-
22 

mizing the adverse impacts of fire transfers on the budgets of other programs, as 

well as reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more comprehensively, and increase the 

resiliency of public lands and the communities that border them. Under this new 

framework, the 2015 budget request covers 70 percent of the 10-year suppression 

average within the domestic discretionary caps and a portion is funded in a budget 

cap adjustment. Extreme fires requiring emergency response, fires threatening 

urban areas, or requirements of an abnormally high fire season, would be permitted 

to be funded through the adjustment to discretionary spending limits. The cap adjustment does not increase overall current spending, as it reduces the ceiling for the 

existing disaster relief cap adjustment. 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS AND FEES

The budget includes the following proposals to collect or increase various fees, so 

industry shares some of the cost of Federal permitting and regulatory oversight. 

New Fee for Onshore Oil and Gas Inspections.—Through appropriations language, 

the Department proposes to implement an inspection fee in 2015 for onshore oil and 

gas activities subject to inspection by BLM. The proposed fee is expected to generate 

$48 million in 2015, $10 million more than the corresponding $38 million reduction 

in requested appropriations, thereby expanding the capacity of BLM’s oil and gas 

inspection program. The fee is similar to one already in place for offshore operations 

and will support Federal efforts to increase production accountability, human safety, 

and environmental protection. 

Grazing Administrative Fee.—The 2015 budget proposes a new grazing administrative fee of $1 per animal unit month. The BLM proposes to implement this fee 

through appropriations language on a 3-year pilot basis. The provision will generate 

an estimated $6.5 million in 2015 to assist BLM in processing grazing permits. 

National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery.—The budget proposes appropriations language to authorize the Fish and Wildlife Service to pursue and retain recoveries from responsible parties, to be used to restore or replace damaged National 

Wildlife Refuge resources. 

Cost Recovery for Nontoxic Shot Approvals.—The budget proposes appropriations 

language to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain and use fees collected for 

the review of nontoxic shot products. Nontoxic shot is a substitute for lead shot, 

banned for waterfowl hunting since 1991. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President’s 2015 budget request 

for the Department of the Interior. This budget is responsible, and proposes to 

maintain core capabilities with targeted investments to advance the stewardship of 

lands and resources, renewable energy, oil and gas development and reforms, water 

conservation, youth employment and engagement, and improvements in the quality 

of life in Indian communities. I thank you again for your continued support of the 

Department’s mission. I look forward to answering questions about this budget. This 

concludes my written statement. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. 

We will do 6-minute rounds. We have votes at 11 o’clock. I assume we can get through one round, and if necessary, we will have 

a second round. I think we do have that time. 

WILDLAND FIRE CAP ADJUSTMENT

Madam Secretary, can you walk us through the fire disaster proposal, how it will work? The reality is, that is a huge issue we confront every year in this bill. We have to pay for the emergency 

fires. Can you walk us through that? How much will you provide 

for fire suppression? How did you arrive at the funding level? And 

are you confident that it will be enough? 

Secretary JEWELL. I will give a high-level overview, and I am 

going to turn to my colleague, Rhea Suh, who really worked very, 

very closely with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

craft this proposal in the President’s budget alongside the companion legislation. 
23 

In a nutshell, 1 percent of the most catastrophic fires consume 

30 percent of our fire suppression budget. The proposal for fire suppression in the budget is 70 percent, which are the year-in, yearout regular fires. That is in the budget. The worst 1 percent of fires 

beyond that 70 percent number is what we are proposing to take 

off-budget into the emergency disaster relief. The 70 percent number is based on a 10-year suppression average of fires. 

What that enables us to do is consistently put money into hazardous fuels reduction and post-fire remediation so we don’t end up 

in this negative spiral of robbing our accounts for hazardous fuel 

removal and post-fire remediation causing invasive species to come 

in, that causes worse fires in the future, so we have a downward 

spiral. 

I am going to turn it to Rhea to provide any additional details. 

Ms. SUH. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I will just 

add a few more comments here. 

As you know, in the President’s request, 70 percent of the 10- 

year average for fire is included in the discretionary part of the 

budget. The remaining 30 percent is included in the cap adjustment, which we are requesting. 

The cap adjustment was based on the same type of analytical 

forecast that the Federal Land Assistance Management and Enhancement Act (FLAME) scientists prepare for this committee on 

an annual basis. That includes data about weather, climate, 

drought, and historical expenditures. 

All combined, that is the amount of money we have put into the 

cap. 

Again, just to echo the Secretary’s comments, this is really only 

to treat those fires that are truly disasters as disasters, and to 

allow both Interior and the Forest Service to be able to access those 

emergency funds. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, in order to implement this program, you have 

to get changes in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act from the Budget Committee, I have been told, and also the 

FLAME Act from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

And I just want your acknowledgment that you are aware of that 

and you are working on it; is that correct? 

Secretary JEWELL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We very much 

modeled the President’s request off of the bipartisan legislation 

that has been introduced in both houses. In the Senate, it is sponsored by Senator Wyden and Senator Crapo. That particular legislation specifically does amend the Budget Control Act. 

We are having conversations with staff around amendments to 

FLAME that would potentially be able to more clearly articulate 

the triggers involved in accessing those emergency funds. 

On both of those streams of work, we are very much aware and 

actively engaged with members in this house. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

NATIONAL PARK CENTENNIAL

As we have all noted, this is the hundredth year centennial just 

almost upon us, 2016, for the national parks. But we also have the 
24 

National Heritage areas, and I note with some chagrin that the 

budget in this area has been decreased. 

In order to make this a truly national celebration, I think every 

State should have a sort of vested interest in this. 

HERITAGE AREAS

Can you comment on the role of these heritage areas as they connect to the parks and allow people to be outdoors? I think we 

shared the Blackstone Valley National Heritage together in 

kayaking, although I apologize the equipment did not come from 

REI, but forgive me. 

Secretary JEWELL. Well, Senator, I did enjoy the kayaking, and 

the Blackstone River corridor as such a historic place is a great illustration of the potential of National Heritage areas. It is one that 

I have been working on personally for over 20 years. 

The great thing about heritage areas is they engage the community in identifying areas of cultural, historic, and natural significance. In many cases, the local communities are who provide support for those initiatives. 

Yes, the budget was cut. Part of that is in recognition of the need 

for us to work closely with the communities on getting local support for National Heritage areas. The budget is tighter than we 

would like it to be as it relates to national parks overall, and we 

had to make some tough choices. 

We continue to work with you on heritage areas, and a path forward that engages private philanthropy and local community involvement to support these places, to earn the arrowhead logo but 

also the heritage status we believe is important to them. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

KING COVE ROAD

Secretary Jewell, just a question, one question on the King Cove 

road issue, when you issued your release in December, you stated 

that the Department’s commitment to assist in identifying and 

evaluating options would improve access to affordable transportation and health care for the citizens of this remote Alaska community. 

As I mentioned in my opening comments, I have not seen anything specific from you or from the Department in terms of what 

progress has been made in either identifying or evaluating options 

that would improve access. 

Can you outline for me the specific areas that you would propose 

in terms of alternatives, alternatives that would be as reliable and 

safe as a road, and affordable? And if you can identify any specific 

funding proposals that are included in the President’s budget that 

would allow for improvement of the situation in King Cove? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

As we discussed yesterday, I very much appreciated the opportunity to meet with you, and to also meet with the residents of 

King Cove. 

We need suggestions from the people who live in the area on 

what alternatives would be potentially viable to them, if a road 
25 

does not go through. It is very clear from my conversation in King 

Cove, as you and I made our visit there, and to Cold Bay, that the 

community feels very strongly that they want a road, as do you. 

I continue to be open to all conversations about alternatives. 

My team has had conversations with the Coast Guard about the 

10 months of the year where they typically have a helicopter stationed in Cold Bay. I know they are very brave men and women 

that do this work, whether it is rescuing people on the high seas 

or facilitating humanitarian missions that you described earlier on 

land. 

I also know there are many villages in Alaska that are a long 

way away from medical care, and this clearly is an example of that, 

being 600 miles from Anchorage. 

We have had conversations with the Coast Guard. We will continue to do that. We have a conversation scheduled with the Corps 

of Engineers later on this week to better understand the alternatives they believe may be possible in that area, and I remain 

open to suggestions from the community, as we discussed yesterday 

afternoon, on areas they would like us to pursue that they believe 

would be viable for us to consider beyond the road, which clearly 

is your preferred alternative and that of the residents. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, as I mentioned yesterday, your search 

for viable alternatives is one that has been reviewed for decades 

now. And we are at this point where you have such unanimity in 

the community about the preferred alternative being the road because all other solutions have been tried and failed, or have been 

analyzed and determined too costly or not feasible given the situation. 

And I appreciate that you are new to the issue of King Cove, but 

I hope you would also appreciate that to them, this has been almost a lifetime of struggling to get this short connector road, a reliable, safe and secure, and affordable alternative in order to gain 

access. 

I would ask that you do more digging into the Coast Guard as 

a solution. I have talked not only to the admiral in the 17th District, Admiral Ostebo, but also to Admiral Zukunft, who will be 

taking over as commandant. And I think it is very, very clear that 

the Coast Guard not only does not view this as a mission, it is not 

a mission that they wish to take on. 

In order to accommodate the people of King Cove on a somewhat 

reliable basis, they would require two additional helicopters at 

$26.1 million apiece. You would have to have an additional 20 personnel in order to allow for a level of safety for the pilots and the 

maintenance crew. Just the per diem alone to house them in Cold 

Bay would be a half million dollars on annual basis. That is just 

for the per diem. 

So, Madam Secretary, I encourage you to do your due diligence. 

But I will note that there has been nothing included in the President’s budget for even the slightest alternative. 

ARCTIC STRATEGY

Let me turn very quickly here, this is a question that I am asking all Cabinet members. The national strategy for the Arctic region came out. We have the implementation plan for the national 
26 

strategy, and within the implementation plan, the Department of 

the Interior has been designated as the lead agency in five different areas. 

Can you tell me what funding is included in the President’s 

budget for the five areas that the Department of the Interior is 

tapped to be the lead agency for? You are also the supporting agency for numerous other projects. So I am trying to divine how much 

attention the administration is actually placing on the Arctic implementation plan. 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, and I know we are out of time, so I 

will make the answer very brief. I do not have a crosscut on all of 

the Arctic programs. I will be happy to get that to you very quickly. 

It wasn’t one of the numbers that I prepared in advance for this 

gathering. 

But I will say the Arctic is very important to the United States 

of America, clearly very important to Alaska. We are very pleased 

to be involved with you and others in our Arctic strategy. 

From a scientific research standpoint, from a defense standpoint, 

from an oil and gas development standpoint, and the geopolitical 

standpoint, we think it is very important that we be at the table. 

I know that the Arctic Council will be meeting in Canada this year, 

that the United States will be hosting the following year, and we 

intend to fully engage in Arctic strategy issues, and we will get 

back to you with specifics. 

[The information follows:] 

ARCTIC PROGRAMS

The Department of the Interior is committed to full participation in the implementation of the National Strategy for the Arctic. This commitment involves the 

breadth of Interior’s bureaus and offices with equities in the Arctic region with support from a myriad of programs and activities. The Department does not have a 

dedicated budget for Arctic activities but instead is supporting implementation of 

the Strategy by leveraging a diverse set of programs with multiple authorities and 

funding sources. Thus, there is not crosscut that identifies discrete funding for the 

Arctic Strategy, instead the Department is tracking actions and outcomes that are 

supported by Interior in total. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. If you can get me those, I would appreciate 

it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for your presence and helping us understand 

this budget. 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA GRANT LANDS

One of the things that I wanted to address was the budget for 

the O&C lands that are in Oregon. We have millions of acres of 

second growth forest that needs to be thinned, needs to have hazardous fuel reduction work, restoration work, needs to be prepared 

for the work done for the various sales that would come out of it. 

But the budget has been cut by $10.5 million. So if we are going 

to go forward on resource management plans, which require significant additional resources, and if the budget is cut, and if the current projects in the forest are greatly underfunded as it is, doesn’t 
27 

this mean just further lack of management and more problems for 

the O&C lands? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

There are a number of things that are mixed in with the Oregon 

and California Railroad Revested Lands (O&C) budget. One of the 

things is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) completed 

a resource management plan in prior years, so that will not be repeated, and part of the budget cut has to do with that. 

I know we are working with your team in Oregon on a sustained 

yield level, and we have a plan in place to cut about 200 million 

board feet a year. Is that the right number? I think it is, 200 million board feet a year. 

In this year it is going to be a little bit higher, because of some 

salvage logging that is going to be supported. 

We know it is a very important program to Oregon. We know it 

is an important source of funding for schools in Oregon, as is the 

Secure Rural Schools. We will continue to support what we believe 

in the BLM to be a sustainable forest yield level of 200 million 

board feet. 

With the resource management plan completion, we don’t think 

we will need as much money as we had last year to do an equivalent job, and that is the basis of the budget. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, I will just leave that as a concern I have 

for that particular area and the challenges that are faced in managing it appropriately, because it is suffering from many decades 

of underinvestment as it is currently. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

I want to turn to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 

specifically, there have been projects from all over the country that 

involve particularly sensitive pieces of land for acquisition. And 

now largely the funds go to what are referred to as collaborative 

landscape projects. There seems to be a lot of mystery as to how 

these are created and designated, kind of a black box. 

Oregon doesn’t have one. We keep inquiring how it could come 

to have one. 

But what it means, essentially, is only a couple States really benefit from the mass majority of these funds. And yet, these funds 

were meant to enable sensitive projects to be acquired all over the 

Nation. 

So could you just give us a little background on this collaborative 

landscape strategy, and why it makes sense to ignore most of the 

U.S. for just a couple projects? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, for specifics, I will turn to Rhea, in 

terms of how the money is spent. Let me give you a high-level overview, because there are two places these landscape cooperative 

areas that you reference, that I have personally been to, one very 

recently is in Montana, the Crown of the Continent region around 

Glacier National Park. 

This is one of the largest intact landscapes in the United States. 

Much of the land is managed by ranchers and they would like to 

keep those lands in working ranches. But they are highly developable otherwise, which would very much impact the ability of many 

migratory species, such as elk, grizzly bears, and others. 
28 

We work cooperatively with Canada, which has set a lot of land 

aside and taken some out of mining development, for example, and 

our private landowners in that region to really work collaboratively 

on putting those landscapes in conservation while maintaining 

them in ranching. 

Similarly, in the headwaters in Everglades, it is another major 

area where we have done that. We have prioritized part of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money, but by no 

means all of the LWCF money in those projects, because we know 

they are critical. If we don’t focus, it is sort of a peanut butter 

spread, but we are not able to take care of some very, very threatened ecosystems throughout the country. 

Longleaf pine in the Southeast is another area, but by no means 

does this limit our willingness or ability to invest in individual 

projects, which does continue. 

Rhea, do you have any quick things, because I know time is 

short? 

Ms. SUH. Sure. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 

The collaborative projects, and the process we created several 

years ago now, are really designed to enable the Federal land management agencies to look across their jurisdictional boundaries and 

to identify national priorities that deserve the opportunity to work 

across those jurisdictions. 

Every year we have a competitive process that is vetted at a very 

technical level by each of the real estate functions of the land management agencies, elevated to the bureau director level of the four 

land management agencies, and collectively adjudicated in a process that outlines priorities. 

The priorities that show up in the budget are not necessarily all 

of the priorities we had, and the priority lists are much longer than 

the budgets we can actually afford. 

I would like to say I think part of what the administration is 

asking for in the Land and Water Conservation Fund full funding 

proposal is an ability to get more landscapes, both collaborative 

and core, onto the list in any given year. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. I will be following up 

about that process. I do feel like there are a lot of very sensitive 

landscapes that have fallen off the list in recent years. 

WILDLAND FIRE CAP ADJUSTMENT

I am out of time, but just compliments on the fire suppression 

strategy of putting the big fires, essentially, into the emergency 

side. The Forest Service has been decimated by this continuous 

raiding of often fire prevention funds in order to fight fires, and 

thank you very much. 

Senator REED. Senator Alexander. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, for the hearing. 

Welcome, Madam Secretary, to you and your team. 

I listened carefully to Senator Murkowski’s passionate comments. 

I have known her a long time. I don’t think I have ever heard her 

quite so strong in her comments. And I saw the Senator from California come in. It reminded me of an episode we had in our subcommittee, of which she is the chairman, where the general of the 
29 

Army Corps of Engineers was trying to do the right thing, he 

thought, which was to close fishing below the dams on the Cumberland River. I thought that made no sense at all, because the 

dams aren’t dangerous when the water is not coming through 

them, and the tracks aren’t dangerous when the train is not coming. And he stuck to his guns, and we literally changed the law. 

But what Senator Feinstein said to him at that time was: Senator Alexander is a reasonable member; I would suggest you work 

something out. 

My thought is this, I have said in Tennessee, and I have said 

here, that I think you are one of the President’s most able appointees. I think you will do a tremendous job as Interior Secretary. I know that Senator Murkowski is one of the most able and 

respected members of the United States Senate. And, except for 

this issue, the two of you would likely be close allies on a great 

many issues, so I hope you can work something out. 

JOINT CURATORIAL FACILITY AT GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL

PARK

I want to ask you in my time three or four pretty quick questions. One, I want to thank you for your visit to the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, and to you and your team for improving 

the joint curatorial collections that is half Federal dollars and half 

private funding. And I heard many good things about your visit. I 

thank you for that. 

LAKE CUMBERLAND

Also, I know that Senator McConnell, Senator Paul, Chairman 

Rogers, and Senator Corker, and I, appreciate the work that Dan 

Ashe of Fish and Wildlife and you did in putting a priority on getting Lake Cumberland back up to its proper level of water in time 

for the houseboat season. That may not seem like an important 

issue to many people, but it is to Chairman Rogers and the people 

in that part of Kentucky, because the water has been down for a 

long time. And you got done in what looks like 35 or 45 days what 

could have taken 135, I think, something like that. And that is appreciated. 

FISH HATCHERIES

Now a couple of other issues, we are working together, the States 

of Tennessee and Georgia, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 

and Fish and Wildlife, again, Mr. Ashe, to try to come up with a 

plan for saving the fish hatcheries in Tennessee, the two of them. 

And TVA stepped in to do what it could, and that kept the fish 

hatcheries open. And that same group is now meeting to find a way 

for a permanent solution. 

This is important to the fishermen of Tennessee. It is important 

to the outdoors recreation of Tennessee, and to our tourism and 

jobs. 

So my question for you is, will you agree not to close down the 

two fish hatcheries in Tennessee during fiscal year 2015 until you 

give this working group, including the two States, the TVA, and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, a chance to come up with a solution 
30 

that would have Congress pay for through the appropriate agencies 

the fish that were for sports fishing. In other words, we would separate the mitigation fish and the sports fishing. 

I would like to get a commitment not to close that down while 

we are trying to get a result. 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, thanks. I appreciate the importance 

of fish hatcheries on the sport fishery and on recreational fishing. 

And you know the challenges we have overall in the budget and 

the difficult decisions we have to make. 

We will not be closing any fish hatcheries in 2014. I do appreciate the TVA and the Army Corps stepping up to support their obligations, in terms of mitigation from their activities in terms of 

support for some of these hatcheries, which are for the downstream 

cold water sport fishing, as opposed to hatcheries that are necessary to maintain the integrity of species. 

Where we have people working together, cooperating on a longterm solution, is the kind of program we are very committed to 

supporting. 

I don’t want to commit on any specific hatchery. It is my team 

that is working on that list, and they are working very cooperatively in Tennessee with other players. I think that is going to bode 

well for the hatcheries where there is cooperation. We are encouraging people in other States that have high-priority hatcheries for 

them to work with local and State partners to find long-term funding solutions. 

It feels a little like the base closure act when we talk about fish 

hatcheries. 

Senator ALEXANDER. I am about out of time. 

Secretary JEWELL. Oh, OK. Sorry. Go ahead. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, that is all right. But we understand 

what the Department’s parameters are, and Mr. Ashe is working 

toward that, and we just want time to complete that. And the 

working group is pretty good because it has already had one success. 

REIMBURSING STATES DURING SHUTDOWN

The other one, Senator Flake has a bill to reimburse the States, 

which in our case were the counties, for the money lost that they 

spent reimbursing during the Government shutdown. 

My question is, will you support that legislation as it moves 

through Congress, to reimburse the State of Tennessee and the 

counties of Blount and Sevier for what they spent as a result of the 

Federal Government shutdown? 

Secretary JEWELL. It is very clear the economic value of the national parks to local communities was evident during the shutdown. I will say I worked pretty much around the clock with very 

limited staff to facilitate the States’ requests. We did some economic analysis, and it looks like close to a 10 to 1 return that the 

States got for that investment. 

All unobligated funds were returned to the States. I did say at 

the time of these agreements that I couldn’t obligate the Federal 

Treasury, and that it had to be congressional action, so I am supportive of the congressional action going forward. The decision will 

rest in your hands in terms of whether or not that happens. 
31 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I will submit in writing, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a question 

about white nose syndrome in bats, which you referred to in your 

statement. 

Thank you. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Madam Secretary, thank you very much. 

CALIFORNIA DROUGHT

My statement and questions are going to be on drought and 

water in California. 

As you know, the Governor has called a state of emergency with 

respect to the drought. The snowpack is at 24 percent as of March 

23. Shasta, Lake Oroville, San Luis Reservoir are all below 50 percent capacity. 

The California Farm Bureau estimates that a half-million acres 

are in the process of being fallowed, and that we will lose more 

than 100,000 head of cattle. 

It looks like 10 or more communities are going to run out of 

drinking water in the next few months. 

Now, a storm is approaching California right now, and this is the 

surge storm of the season. It is very important. 

I have asked my staff to bring down a copy of a letter that you 

have received from water contractors, so that you might look at it, 

as of yesterday. And they would like you and Secretary Pritzker to 

be on a conference call at 4 p.m. this afternoon. 

What is being asked, essentially—well, let me just give you a few 

data points. Salvage data from your agencies as of March 19 show 

no Delta smelt taken, 276 out of an allowed 24,237 winter run 

salmon taken, and 148 out of an allowed 3,000 steelhead taken. 

WATER PUMPING

So I think this data supports the notion that more water pumping can occur without jeopardizing fish species. 

And what I am essentially asking you to do is immediately consider emergency measures, which can increase pumping sufficiently 

to take advantage of this storm right now approaching our coast. 

It is really very important. This may be the one chance we have 

to pick up some additional acre-feet of water. So I would like to ask 

that now, of both you and your distinguished Commissioner of Reclamation. 

Secretary JEWELL. Who has become my distinguished Deputy 

Secretary. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Excuse me, distinguished Deputy Secretary. 

Secretary JEWELL. I will take a very high level. I was shown the 

letter by Mike in the car on the way here, so I haven’t had time 

to fully digest it. 

[The letter follows:] 
32 

LETTER FROM THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER WATER AUTHORITY

SAN JOAQUIN

RIVER WATER AUTHORITY, 

Los Banos, CA, March 25, 2014. 

Re Request for Emergency Relief Due to Impending Storm Events. 

Hon. SALLY JEWELL, Secretary, 

Department of the Interior, 

C Street NW, Washington, DC. 

Hon. PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary, 

Department of Commerce, 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY JEWELL AND SECRETARY PRITZKER: We are writing to you under 

the most urgent circumstances. As you are well aware, California is plagued by one 

of the worst droughts in its history. Water year 2013–14 thus far has proven to be 

the second worst water year since recordkeeping began in 1850. While not quite as 

bad as 1977 standing alone, it comes on the heels of 2 prior years of extremely dry 

conditions. Yet, while the opportunities existed over the past 6 weeks to get more 

water to people and into storage south of the Delta, inaction has resulted in the loss 

of 225,000–450,000 acre-feet (af) of water supplies. Meanwhile, over 700,000 af 

flowed to the ocean. The situation for many in California is desperate. 

Now is the time that action is needed. The State cannot afford to lose another 

round of water supplies due to less than full implementation of proactive measures 

that are available to the State and Federal agencies. 

The Departments of Commerce and the Interior are in the unique position of having many of your stakeholders being those directly and profoundly impacted by this 

drought while at the same time having the ability to implement emergency measures that will provide a modicum of relief. The situation is as follows. 

Regulations imposed on the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project 

(CVP) (together ‘‘Projects’’) through biological opinions issued by your Departments 

are having a real-time adverse impact on California’s water supply. With storms 

about to hit California, the Projects are collectively in the position of being able to 

capture significant amounts of water without adversely impacting listed fisheries. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been working with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and their State counterparts to examine opportunities to provide flexibility to meet crucial water supply needs in the urban and 

agricultural sectors. Despite efforts to date, the Silicon Valley, which Secretary 

Pritzker recently visited and pledged to partner with to promote greater benefits for 

our economy and our citizens, is only receiving 75,000 acre-feet of the over 200,000 

acre-feet which it would be entitled under from State and Federal water sources. 

As a result, the local water district has requested its retail customers to reduce 

usage by 25 percent. Economic impacts of water rationing are severe. Similarly, in 

the agricultural sector, much of which is served by the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys are being devastated. Over 3 million acres of 

the Nation’s most productive farm lands are receiving a zero surface water allocation this year. Permanent crops such as trees and vines are literally being ripped 

out due to lack of water. Hundreds of thousands of acres of permanent and annual 

crops will go fallow. The loss of permanent crops takes 5–10 years to restore. Annual crops fill irreplaceable supply chains that provide about 50 percent of the Nation’s fruits and vegetables. Unemployment in the valleys will soar. Banks loans and 

insurance will become more expensive if the integrity of the water system is not 

maintained. 

The Endangered Species Act provides NMFS and USFWS with the tools necessary 

to support the emergency response actions necessary to provide much-needed relief 

that California needs and avoid the imminent loss of hundreds of thousands of acrefeet of irreplaceable water. 

Weather predictions indicate that another storm is heading to California today or 

Wednesday. We request that you allow for the maximum pumping of the flow that 

is going to develop from this storm based on the following conditions. 

Currently, protected fisheries in the Delta have experienced historically low take 

at the State and Federal water pumps. The nominal take is consistent with the 

monitoring data that has consistently and clearly demonstrated a lack of presence 

of protected fish in the central and south Delta in 2014. Because of this, we believe 

that maximizing pumping for the limited time that uncontrolled Sacramento River 

flows are elevated due to the storm is unlikely to jeopardize listed species. However, 

to ensure adequate levels of protection, we propose that if take reaches the levels 
33 

of concern identified in the species specific incidental take statement, implementation of this emergency action be reassessed. 

As we explain on the attached pages, a temporary adjustment to the Delta smelt 

and Chinook salmon biological opinions (BiOps) would allow pumping—subject to 

take of fisheries—up to the full 11,280 cubic feet per second (cfs). 

Time is short. The storm is approaching and, practically speaking, we need a decision by close of business on Thursday, before Sacramento River flows arrive at the 

Delta. We therefore request that conference calls be set up for Wednesday and 

Thursday so that the situation may be addressed in real time with the most senior 

resource managers from both the State and Federal sectors as well as the water 

user and environmental communities. 

Once this storm series passes, and thinking ahead to the rest of this water season, 

the State is installing salinity barriers in the Delta. Further, State and Federal 

water managers are confident that they can control salinity in the Delta with fairly 

minimal flow amounts this summer, generally around 2,500 cfs. Water managers 

are proposing a longer term action plan that is being finalized. Continued real-time 

management will allow for improvements of water supply and protection of the upstream and Delta ecosystems. 

This letter is also being delivered to a number of other State and Federal officials 

that have a key role in California water decisions. We request that each of them 

become engaged in this rapid decisionmaking process and participate directly or 

through their delegates in these conference calls. However, we believe your direct 

leadership is necessary at this time and hope that you will participate personally. 

We have taken the liberty of setting up a conference line for the first call on 

Wednesday at 1 pm PDT (4 pm EDT). For convenience, we propose the same time 

be used for Thursday. 

The opportunity presented by this storm is upon us. We cannot afford inaction 

by either State or Federal regulators or water managers. We need your authority 

to impress upon your Departments and others that this is truly an emergency situation that requires immediate action. Failure to take action becomes a decision in 

and of itself and we are not likely to have another opportunity this year to help relieve this dire situation. 

Urgently and gratefully yours, 

STEVE CHEDESTER, Executive Director, 

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority. 

DANIEL G. NELSON, Executive Director, 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 

Authority. 

RONALD JACOBSMA, General Manager, 

Friant Water Authority. 

CHASE HURLEY, General Manager, 

San Luis Canal Company. 

RANDY HOUK, General Manager, 

Columbia Canal Company. 

CHRISTOPHER L. WHITE, General 

Manager, 

Central California Irrigation District. 

JEFF BRYANT, General Manager, 

Firebaugh Canal Water District. 

Enclosures. 

FOREGONE PUMPING

Upcoming storms commencing March 23, 2014 

Currently the Projects are operating to a combined 2,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) export level resulting in about 5,500 cfs Delta Outflow and an Old and Middle 

River reverse flow limitation (OMR) of about ¥1,600 cfs. The export/inflow (E/I) 

ratio is about 25 percent, and San Joaquin River stream flow is about 700 cfs. 

Storms to Northern California are forecast to begin Tuesday evening and will bring 

precipitation throughout the week and into the weekend. It is anticipated that these 

storms will result in unregulated runoff within the Sacramento Valley similar in response to the storms experienced earlier in the month, resulting in excess flow in 

the Delta which potentially is available for delivery and storage south of the Delta. 

Although there are uncertainties in the timing and magnitude of the storm events, 

the following provides an explanation of the constraints upon exports that will result in foregone pumping in the near future. 
34 

Without immediate relaxation of several pumping and outflow constraints the 

capture of a significant amount of the excess flow will be foregone, up to 125,000 

acre-feet, similar to what has occurred during each of the storms of the last 2 

months. The graphic below illustrates projected operations beginning today, through 

April 9. Of immediate issue are the OMR and E/I constraints. As inflow to the Delta 

increases due to the storms, pumping will increase. However, almost immediately 

pumping will be constrained by a maximum OMR flow of ¥5,000 cfs and a maximum E/I ratio of 35 percent. While available pumping capacity is about 11,280 cfs, 

the pumps will be running at only about 6,600 cfs, foregoing over 9,000 acre-feet 

of excess flow per day for several days. This effect is compounded by an outflow requirement of 7,100 cfs for X2 which limits the amount of excess outflow that can 

be pumped, but which however, under the dire drought circumstances has been reduced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) this year with the concurrence of State and Federal fishery agencies. Notwithstanding the SWRCB order, 

separate, but of significant impact on water supplies, will be the effect of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) condition in the Biological Opinions regarding the San Joaquin River Inflow to Export Ratio that would be exercised beginning 

April 1 and continuing through May. This action requires exports to be no greater 

than the inflow entering the Delta from the San Joaquin River (1:1), currently about 

700 cfs. This action would constrain exports even lower than the actions already 

constraining the exports to 6,600 cfs, resulting in an additional 11,000 acre-feet per 

day of foregone pumping. 

Secretary JEWELL. I will say that the National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have exercised great 

flexibility so far this year in interpretation of their biological opinions to pump additional water, significantly more than last year. 

I also know the balance with the State needs and the salinity 

needs of the Delta, it is not just Delta smelt and the salmonids that 

are impacted. 

I am going to turn it to Mike to get into the specifics of this request and where we are with this incoming storm. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Secretary Jewell. 

Senator Feinstein, I can confirm that David Murillo, our regional 

director, will be participating in the call. We are still confirming 

availability of the key folks with Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries 

in the discussion today. 

I would just note the discussion is really an ongoing discussion 

that has been going on over the last couple months. The precipita-
35 

tion event we have now happening in California is the third, as you 

referenced. 

We have taken significant measures and improved measures, 

quite frankly, improved our interpretation in our application of 

those biological opinions. As you remember in 2013 when we had 

similar events, and we can pump in the range of 5,000 to 6,000 

cubic feet per second (CFS). In 2013, we were down around 2,000 

to 2,500 CFS. That was the reference that a lot of people had to 

lost water. 

This year, in both of the events, we have maximized our pumping 

under the biological opinions. When Secretary Jewell was up there 

about 10 days ago, we were at 5,800 CFS. We actually got up to 

about 7,000 CFS of pumping at the high points during that runoff 

period. We intend to do the same with this runoff period. 

We are looking at some other additional measures we can take, 

and that is an ongoing discussion amongst the five agencies, the 

three Federal and two State agencies. 

We will engage the water users in that as part of the discussion 

today and continue to try to maximize how to make use of the runoff that comes during these precipitation events. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Mike, this may be the last opportunity we 

have to get enough additional water to make the five points in the 

drought bill that Senator Boxer and I have introduced that we are 

now trying to put together 60 votes on, to produce an additional 

300,000 to 600,000 acre feet. 

So this storm is really important that we maximize the ability 

to save that water. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, absolutely. I would note several of those measures that are in your legislation are measures that we have taken 

this year that have significantly helped us increase the pumping. 

I think we can probably do more within the parameters of the 

biological opinions and the State permit we operate under. Those 

are the two constraints that we operate under, and we will do as 

much as we can. 

Can we get up to the 11,500 CFS maximum capacity of the 

pumps? I don’t know that we can get there, but we are, certainly, 

going to try to keep moving up. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, what I have to say, you know, I am a 

lifelong Californian, I have never seen the level of desperation that 

exists all down the center of our State. 

And the unemployment rate is going up. The food lines are building. It is really a problem. 

We flew over with the President for 100 miles and just saw the 

devastation of the absence of water in that valley. 

So I know you are sincere. I know you want to do it. Please make 

that push now. 

Thank you, Madam—Mr. President—Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. You honor me. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, yourself. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed. 
36 

OREGON MOUNTAINS-DESERT PEAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT

And, Secretary Jewell, let me thank you very much for your visit 

to southern New Mexico. I know that you spent a couple days 

there. You had the opportunity to get around and see the Oregon 

peaks and Oregon Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument 

and get the opportunity to get out and hike a little bit. And I hope 

that was fruitful for you. 

And I think it really prepares us to move forward with legislation on the monument, so I appreciate that visit. 

And it is always good to see Mike. Mike is a New Mexican, and 

we are very proud of you. 

DROUGHT

And as you are well-aware, Mike, New Mexico is suffering the 

same kind of drought that has been talked about here. In some 

areas, 13 years that we have been in drought, and it is severely 

impacting farmers and ranchers and people that live off the land, 

our tribes. And I know that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has 

been working very diligently on that with all the groups have been 

involved. 

It really hit me in a way when I was out near Tucumcari, and 

there is a project out there that has been organized in a way where 

the community is involved and the Bureau of Reclamation is involved. And since the Great Depression, when the project was built, 

they always had water for farmers and ranchers. 

The last 2 years, not a single drop of water. And these are families with livestock and crops. They have to have water. If they can 

afford to haul water, they can do that, but it is obviously much 

more expensive. 

So we are in that difficult situation, too. And I appreciate all 

your work on that. 

SEQUESTRATION

Secretary Jewell, last year your Office of Natural Resource Revenue (ONRR) had determined that revenue paid to the States 

under the Mineral Leasing Act were subject to sequestration. You 

and I talked about that, and I asked you to reevaluate your position. And I really want to thank you for directing the ONRR to reverse its position and not sequester the funds. 

This revenue is vital to States such as New Mexico. It funds necessary items such as public schools, community colleges, emergency 

response activities, and basic infrastructure projects. So it was critical that these funds not be impacted by sequestration. We appreciate your attention to that. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

And I also would like to share my concerns regarding another 

form of critical support for local governments. That is the program 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT. As you know, the PILT program provides critical funding to communities in New Mexico, like 

Cibola County, San Juan, Otero, Eddy counties, just to name a few 

of our 33 that get these funds. 
37 

And I am very concerned there might be a lapse. We have been 

able to work in the appropriations process to get a 1-year extension. But I am wondering if you could share with me your thoughts 

on how we can make sure we have the funds there and how we can 

get congressional-executive cooperation to see that we have PILT 

funding in 2014 and beyond. 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. It was a pleasure to visit 

your State. It was the first time I have seen a tarantula on the 

trail, so that was interesting. 

We are strong supporters of PILT as well as Secure Rural 

Schools. We recognize when Federal lands are in local communities, it takes them off the tax rolls, and that is the purpose of 

PILT. 

There is, in the President’s budget, a 1-year reauthorization. As 

you know, for 2014, it passed on the farm bill. 

We would love to see a permanent fix. I think as we look at the 

authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, potentially putting that together with PILT is an appropriate way of 

looking at a longer-term, permanent source of funding for both programs, which are so important for the reasons that I talked about 

in my opening statement, and in answers. 

I am happy to work with you. I think that makes sense for a rational path forward. 

Senator UDALL. And I was going to ask also about the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, but you hit on both of those. And they 

are absolutely key programs to the West and very much appreciate 

your help there. 

PILOT OFFICES

I wanted to also ask about the BLM pilot offices. As you know, 

the 2005 energy bill designated several pilot offices to receive extra 

resources to expedite permitting processing and conduct muchneeded environmental oversight. 

These offices, which include the Carlsbad and Farmington offices 

in New Mexico, are already understaffed and overworked. But the 

looming expiration of this program at the end of 2015 would further burden these offices. 

Can you provide some insight into the importance of this pilot 

program as it relates to the responsible energy development in 

States like New Mexico? And how does the investment in energy 

development translate into revenue for the American taxpayer? 

Secretary JEWELL. In a quick nutshell, because I know we are 

running out of time. The pilot offices were a great experiment, but 

they went along political lines, along State lines, and oil and gas 

exploration resources don’t know political boundaries. 

There is support in the 2015 budget for extension of the pilot office authority, but it also includes flexibility to be able to relocate 

the offices, to meet the demands of permitting. 

We have had dramatic reductions in the amount of time taken 

to process authorizations for permits to drill. We have improved 

the inspections, because of the investment in these pilot offices. 

We do find that there is sometimes a mismatch between where 

the pilot process is and where the demand has moved to because 

of the development. The offices have had a good return on invest-
38 

ment, and we believe that is important to our strategy going forward, in addition to asking companies to pay for a portion of what 

it costs us, particularly in inspections and safety. 

There are some revenue proposals in this budget that enable us 

to charge fees to industry to inspect, and that will also help us 

fund these offices in terms of supporting future development. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Senator REED. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Reed. I share the concerns about the PILT program. 

LANDSAT

Secretary Jewell, I applaud you, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), and, in particular, the Eros Data Center in South Dakota 

for the extraordinary success of the Landsat program. With last 

year’s launch of Landsat 8 and the inevitable expiration of Landsat 

7 in a few years, the continuity of this imagery into the future will 

become a critical question. 

As such, Congress included language in the committee report to 

the fiscal year 2014 funding bill directing USGS and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to collaborate and 

develop a new path forward for the Landsat program. 

Can you give me an update about the status of those discussions, 

and how the short timeline for needing to launch the Landsat 7 replacement is factoring into these plans? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you very much, Senator, for the questions. 

I did have an opportunity about 2 months ago to meet with 

NASA to talk about this program. It is very critical that we replace 

Landsat 7 before its batteries run out. It gives us, I think, an 8- 

day gap in data, which is very, very important. 

Landsat 8 provides a lot of new information that helps us deal 

with things like evapotranspiration, which are very important to 

understanding the impacts of drought and water across a lot of the 

country, and many other things. 

We are working closely with NASA on the potential of a clone to 

Landsat 8, and also an interim solution that gives us the data we 

need that NASA presented to us at our meeting. 

We are very committed to a path forward. We appreciate the 

support in the legislation and will continue to work with Congress 

on making sure we don’t have a data gap on this support program. 

Senator JOHNSON. I appreciate your attendance at the Eros Data 

Center recently. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Land and Water Conservation Fund has supported several 

recent projects in South Dakota, including an expansion of Wind 

Cave National Park, protection of grasslands in the Prairie Pothole 

Region, and the acquisition of key portions of the new Good Earth 

State Park. 

These projects have boosted tourism, protected our ranching heritage, and provided additional opportunities for hunting, fishing 

and other outdoor recreation. 
39 

The administration budget has identified four priority projects 

for land or easement acquisition in South Dakota in fiscal year 

2015 as a part of the Grasslands/Prairie Potholes Cooperative 

Landscape Partnership. 

However, much of the funding for these projects, and many others around the country, is proposed to come from a permanent 

funding mechanism that I support but does not yet exist. Should 

this funding mechanism not be enacted, what is your perspective 

on funding the projects on the list designated for permanent funding? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you, Senator. 

The proposal for 2015 has $350 million in the current appropriations, and the balance, to the $900 million would require a legislative approval. The legislative proposal also includes full and permanent funding at $900 million in 2016 and beyond. 

There is $350 million in this proposal, in the budget proposal 

that you have before you. 

There are many projects that exceed what we have in LWCF 

funding, and we prioritize them according to their ability to address the biggest challenges we have and the biggest opportunities 

we have. The number of willing sellers who want to sell us land 

relative to our ability to buy them, and there are a lot more people 

that want to sell us land than we have money for. 

I know we have $7 million for the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area, $3 million in the Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Area, and 

$574,000 for Wind Cave. 

Rhea or Pam, do you know where those are within the $350 million as opposed to the $900 million. And where they stack up? 

And if we don’t know right away, Senator, we will get back to 

you with details on that. 

[The information follows:] 

LWCF PROJECTS IN SOUTH DAKOTA

The following projects are included in the $350 million discretionary request: 

FWS.—Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area, $3,000,000; Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area, $7,000,000. 

The following projects are included in the $550 million mandatory request: 

FWS.—Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area, $3,887,000; Dakota 

Grassland Conservation Area, $7,000,000. 

NPS.—Wind Cave National Park, $574,000. 

Senator JOHNSON. Please do. 

Secretary JEWELL. But the Prairie Pothole, the Nation’s duck factory, it is really, really critical habitat and, as you know, disappearing very quickly from agricultural development, as well as 

other forms of development. It is very important to us. 

Senator JOHNSON. In South Dakota, visitor spending in and 

around our six national park units totaled $160 million in 2011, 

and it supported more than 2,500 jobs. 

With the importance of the national park system to our national, 

State and local economies, we cannot continue to push deferred 

needs to the future without substantial risk. 
40 

MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

The administration has proposed a substantial investment in our 

parks in the fiscal year 2015 budget, but it is clearly only a down 

payment, given the nearly $11 billion maintenance backlog nationwide. With flat or declining budgets and the upcoming centennial 

of the park system, what approaches do you see to redeem our 

stewardship responsibilities and address this backlog in an efficient 

and effective way over the next decade? 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, thank you very much for the question. This is a topic I am passionate about, and something where 

we only have one shot at the centennial. 

We know there will be increased visitation, and the National 

Park Foundation is working to raise awareness about the importance of national parks to all Americans and drive tourism, both 

domestically and abroad. 

The parks have prioritized the assets they have that need the 

most maintenance that are likely going to see the most visitors. We 

have a $40 million increase proposed in the budget. $10 million of 

that is for a matching fund, because there is a lot of private philanthropic interest, and that will be one way forward, to raise private 

money because people do love their national parks and are willing 

to support them. The match will help leverage those dollars even 

further. 

But it is just a down payment, as you point out. Even with the $1.2 billion recommendation we have in the President’s budget for 

mandatory funding for the national parks over 3 years, we are still 

not going to make a material difference in the maintenance backlog. 

The National Park Centennial will give people an opportunity to 

recognize these special places, and we believe, as the public speaks 

in a democracy, we will have the opportunity for additional support. 

I also just want to reference that in the Helium bill, Senator 

Murkowski was able to add additional $50 million for maintenance 

of the national parks, and we appreciate those efforts. They all add 

up. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator. 

We will begin a second round. 

YOUTH

Madam Secretary, we have a common goal, which is to get young 

people involved in the outdoors through education. I have introduced, on several occasions, the No Child Left Inside Act. Your 

budget identifies almost $51 million in funding for youth engagement programs. Actually, it is a 37 percent increase since fiscal 

year 2014. 

Could you please walk us through the specifics on how you intend to use these funds, and how you measure success in this investment? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thanks for the question. 

We have a four-tiered plan, if you will. We have a generational 

transformation going on in the country right now. The millennial 
41 

generation is already larger than the baby boom generation. They 

came of age during a tough economy. Many of them have been 

more disconnected to nature and the outdoors than before, and yet 

we really need them to be in the kinds of positions that are necessary for the overall stewardship and development of our public 

lands. 

Part of this program is to engage that generation, but it is also 

a continuum, recognizing that the best introduction to nature and 

the outdoors comes in the form of play for children. Part of this 

budget supports programs in our regions to partner with 50 cities 

on increasing opportunities for children to play on public lands. 

Examples might be urban wildlife refuges, which are already incredible assets in urban areas. Some of the money will go to support connecting children to those places, and the next tier, which 

is learn. 

We have a goal of getting 10 million children engaged in playing 

on public lands and 10 million children learning on public lands. 

This recognizes and supports the ongoing programs and emphasizes them further. 

Then there are two more components, serve and work. Public 

service on public lands, volunteering on public lands, enables young 

people to never look at those lands in the same way. I make it a 

point of doing service projects regularly, to get out on the land, to 

work with my hands and to work with young people. 

Those efforts oftentimes are led by young people working in 

Youth Conservation Corps, and there is nothing I like better than 

being told what to do by a twentysomething who is working on a 

Youth Conservation Corps, who can teach me the difference between poison ivy and English ivy as I remove it in Rock Creek 

Park, or things like that across the country. 

We have a goal to engage by the end of this term a million hours 

of volunteer service on public lands—that is triple where we are 

right now—and a goal to create 100,000 jobs over 4 years on public 

lands through working collaboratively with Youth Conservation 

Corps. 

We are very committed to this effort, and we will be building a 

new generation of young people that care and understand these resources and can learn from those who are already in these kinds 

of jobs. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

HURRICANE SANDY FUNDING

Before I recognize Senator Begich for his first round, let me ask 

one more question, and that is, Hurricane Sandy was devastating 

to my region, and there is about $100 million, which the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation is helping to administer through your 

office, in terms of grants. 

If you could get us up-to-date in terms of when do you anticipate 

these awards being made, and talk about the demands for these 

grants? And, indeed, what long-term goals are you trying to 

achieve through the grants? 

Secretary JEWELL. Starting with the last question, we think that 

competitive grants that provide people with an opportunity to think 

how we can leverage these funds most effectively to achieve the ob-
42 

jectives have just been very successful in other areas. The National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation is administering them for us, and I 

appreciate the four letters you sent me on projects—I think it is 

four, maybe more—in your region. We had 378 proposals submitted, totaling $568 million for the $100 million in grants. It includes 10 proposals exclusively for the 

State of Rhode Island for $11.3 million. We have a panel of experts 

who are working through these proposals who really know these 

issues, and they expect to make a final decision by June of this 

year. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am 

sorry, I had to step out there for a few minutes. But let me, if I 

can, I want to recap. 

KING COVE ROAD

I know we had a meeting yesterday, and I want to thank you for 

that, Madam Secretary, joining myself and the King Cove community in having the discussion, which I think was scheduled for a 

half-hour and ended up a little over an hour. And I appreciate the 

time that you took there. 

And I know the community laid out additional concerns, as well 

as some concerns with alternatives, and I want to walk through 

just a couple things, just to make sure to put it on the record for 

all of us. 

In the meeting, we talked about the King Cove community coming back by April 15 with information or additional information 

that they would like to present to you in regards to potential options that may be out there and the problems with those options. 

And I want to make sure I put that on the record and confirm that 

is your understanding, that by April 15, they will be coming forward to you and to the delegation, but directly to your office, I 

think it was through Pat Pourchot, if I recall right, to give you kind 

of a list of concerns they would have with many of these alternatives that are being talked about or considered as an alternative 

to the road. Is that your understanding? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. On top of that, there is a letter that they sent 

to you, I think it was early January, and they had not received a 

response yet in regards to their concerns with the Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and the actual elements of it. The commitment was, after that information was additionally given to your office after April 15, simultaneously, I should say, during that period 

of time, you will review with legal what your ability is to respond 

to that letter, how in depth or how minimal it will be, but you 

would not respond until this additional information comes in, so 

you might incorporate responses also to that. Is that your understanding? 

Secretary JEWELL. It is my understanding they will be getting 

me additional information, and I need to consult with legal counsel. 

There are really complicated laws involved here that I am not familiar with. The timing of my response relative to the information 

I get is something I need to talk over with legal counsel. Because 
43 

we met until late yesterday, I haven’t had a chance to talk with 

them yet today on a path forward. 

Senator BEGICH. No problem. But I want to make sure that, one 

way or another, it may be a very short letter, it may be a very long 

letter, but there will be a response to the correspondence they sent 

in to you the beginning of January regarding the EIS. 

You may not be able to go into detail on it, because legal may 

tell you not, but they may tell you, sure, go ahead and respond. But 

either way, after April 15, once additional information is provided, 

you will have some sort of response to the original letter and the 

additional information. It may be limited or it may expanded, depending on what legal tells you; is that correct? 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, I will provide a response in both cases. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

And can I say that your conversation yesterday, that you were 

not closed to hear these issues with these alternatives that may be 

kicked around, but you wanted factual—for example, we talked 

about the weather conditions that would not allow some port activity because of the icing, and so forth. One of the concerns, I don’t 

want to put words in your mouth, but you wanted to make sure 

that the data that comes from the King Cove community shows exactly why this would not work, which I agree with that. I mean, 

I would argue the King Cove community will give you plenty of information, why it ices up, why these conditions will just never 

allow this alternative. 

But your understanding is that you want to see that in data form 

on some site. Is that fair? I am trying to summarize here in a public forum what we talked about. 

Secretary JEWELL. There are lots of facts that were incorporated 

into the record of decision. I haven’t read the detailed EIS. I read 

an awful lot of material. 

There are legal parameters around records of decision that I 

don’t fully understand. If there are additional facts and information, I am, certainly, willing to review those facts and information, 

particularly with regard to alternatives in supporting the residents 

of King Cove, and their needs for medical evacuation. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. And I think it is fair to say that the delegation’s view, the King Cove community view, is there is one alternate. It is the road. Is that a fair, from your viewpoint at this—— 

Secretary JEWELL. Yes, in all of my communications with the 

community, and I think it is probably fair to say in the 300 or so 

consultations that have happened over the years, the community 

has been consistent in only wanting to assess one alternative, 

which is a road. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me, if I can because I will have more on 

that as we move down the process here, but I will have some additional stuff for you later, but let me ask you a couple quick things 

in regards to the budget. 

SITE CONTAMINATION AT TRANSFERRED LANDS

I know I sent a letter in regard to contaminated lands that were 

transferred to the Alaska Native Corporation through the Alaska 

Native Lands Claims Settlement Act. This was an issue. I think 

there are 600 of these sites, or plus. 
44 

There were six recommendations made in 1998. We sent you a 

letter to ask your Department to review these recommendations 

and what action you would take or not take in regard to these contaminated lands. It is almost, as you know, over 15 years since 

these recommendations. 

If you can give me a quick update on the status of responding 

to that letter in regard to those recommendations, for the record? 

Secretary JEWELL. Are these regarding the legacy wells and the 

National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska? 

Senator BEGICH. No. These are lands that were transferred to 

native corporations. Some were polluted lands. They were BLM 

lands. And they were other type of contaminations. 

Secretary JEWELL. OK, I am sorry, I don’t have information on 

that, so let me get back to you for the record on that. 

[The information follows:] 

SITE CONTAMINATION AT TRANSFERRED LANDS

Secretary Jewell responded to Senator Begich’s letter (co-signed by Senator Murkowski and Representative Young) on January 10, 2014. Secretary Jewell’s letter explained that, among other things, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing the sites listed in the 1998 BLM Report to Congress (‘‘Hazardous Substance 

Contamination of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Lands in Alaska’’) to better 

determine if the lands were Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) conveyances. Since January, BLM–Alaska has organized a team to specifically focus on the 

contaminated lands conveyance issue in Alaska. This group is currently working to 

gather data and understand the scope of the issue. They are going through BLM’s 

data to determine what contaminated lands may have been conveyed to whom, and 

whether potentially contaminated lands were contaminated prior to being conveyed 

or after, and by whom. A database of this information is being developed. BLM– 

Alaska is working cooperatively with the Alaska Native Village CEO Association on 

this issue and meeting regularly with them as it gathers information and compiles 

the inventory. The BLM’s goal is to complete the inventory by August of this year. 

Senator BEGICH. I would appreciate that. That would be very important. 

Again, it is a direct letter that I wrote, but that would be very 

helpful. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

Also, I do want to say your comments in regard to the BIA and 

the Indian Health Service funding and full funding, one, BIA, I will 

say, has done a good job on this in the sense of, one, getting this 

cap resolved, but also moving forward on settling the past due. 

Indian Health Services, they are not here today, because they are 

not part of this, has not done a very good job on this. But the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has done a good job, and I just want 

to give you credit on that, because these are monies owed. It is not 

a question of if they are owed, and the money is there, and Treasury has it in the legal fund in order to pay these. So I thank you 

for kind of aggressively moving. 

We are not done with this issue, as you know, because we need 

to make sure it is not just a 1-year, 2-year off issue that we are 

fully funding. We need to make sure that this is 100 percent into 

the future, because these are contracted services that are being 

provided throughout the country for Indian Health Services or 

health care for first people in this country. So I want to just note 

that. 
45 

INDIAN AFFAIRS FUNDING

And last, Mr. Chairman, and if I can, one note I want to put on 

the record, and maybe a response of why this is, but out of all the 

different major areas over the last decade, the BIA has had the 

smallest increase compared to any other unit within the Department of the Interior. I think it has only been, of the six largest 

units, it is the smallest increase. 

And we get this concern from our tribes on a very regular basis. 

Why are they—and I say ‘‘they’’ collectively—always on the 

backend in the increases that happened in the six largest areas in 

the Interior Department. 

And again, if you can answer now, that is great. I know I am out 

of time, but if you want to respond in writing, that would be fantastic. 

Secretary JEWELL. Do I have time for a quick response, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Senator REED. Yes, ma’am. 

Secretary JEWELL. OK, thanks. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

First on contract support costs, we fully support that. I have 

been asked by the White House to chair the White House Council 

on Native American Affairs. I can tell you from talking to my colleague, Kathleen Sebelius, and many other Cabinet secretaries, 

there is strong support for Indian country across the board. I think 

that forum gives us a chance to remind all of the bureaus and 

agencies about the role they play in upholding trust and treaty obligations to tribes. 

In terms of the budget, there is an increase in budget for Indian 

Affairs and Indian Education. It is higher than some and lower 

than others in this budget. I also want to say there is another I 

think $612 million across all of the bureaus to support programs 

in Indian country, whether it is the mineral development, because 

part of the BLM’s responsibility is the mineral estate under tribal 

lands, or invasive species or fire. It is an important component of 

the fire budget as well. 

It needs to be taken holistically, but I am very appreciative of 

the President’s budget and its support for Indian country. It is 

never enough, just as we have a backlog on our facilities and national parks, and it feels like you don’t catch up, but it is, certainly, 

a strong statement about the administration’s support. I am behind 

that and will continue to push. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will send you a document from our tribes in southeast that I 

want to share with you and BIA. And I think it would be very important to see the comparisons, and I will share that with you in 

a follow-up letter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
46 

KING COVE ROAD

And, Secretary, as you are evaluating the information that the 

community of King Cove will provide to you prior to the 15th of 

April, I want to make sure that you have a copy of the report that 

was conducted, I guess just completed the 24th of March, regarding 

the suitability of the landing craft as well as a letter from PeterPan 

Seafoods, in terms of a complete denial of any interest, recognizing 

that they would have no interest nor opportunity in a road, as well 

as information from Coast Guard that we are compiling. I think 

that that would be helpful for you. 

And I just also wanted to note that you made a comment about 

the fact that there are many communities in Alaska that experience difficulties in gaining access to medical care. That is absolutely true. But the difference between so many of them and the 

situation in King Cove, is King Cove is the only community that 

has a viable alternative right in front of them, or maybe 10 miles 

away from them. 

So I would hesitate to suggest that because other rural communities don’t have good access, that that is somehow a reason to 

deny King Cove, because two wrongs don’t make a right. I just 

wanted to add that. 

ARCTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

I just wanted to ask very quickly, with my remaining time here, 

as we wrap up this hearing, about Arctic Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS). As you know, Shell canceled its exploratory drilling program 

up in the Chukchi for this summer, based in part on the Ninth Circuit decision that came out that determined the EIS for the lease 

sale was deficient, and also failure to provide regulatory certainty 

from the Department, as far as how to move forward in the Arctic. 

So as I have talked with Shell, what they are hoping for, and 

what I am hoping to understand from you this morning, is how the 

Department intends to proceed with this. Will it be kind of a dualtrack process where the Department will work to remediate the 

EIS that the Ninth Circuit struck down while at the same time 

committing to evaluate the exploration programs so that Shell can 

proceed with work in 2015, because the concern, of course, is that 

we just work on the legal track, but we are not working the regulatory track at the same time. 

Can you tell me how that is going forward and when you might 

expect that the regulations for offshore exploration might be released? 

Secretary JEWELL. Thank you. Just to be clear, Senator, the decision that Shell made to not go forward was not based, from their 

conversations with us, on regulatory uncertainty. 

My colleague Brian Salerno, a former Coast Guard admiral who 

is running the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 

has been working hand-in-glove with Shell, including looking at its 

subsea containment system and working closely with them on a 

plan to pursue their activities in the Arctic that we consider to be 

a good illustration of where the regulations will come out. We are 

not slowing down the process of their ability to drill based on waiting for the regulations to come out. 
47 

Senator MURKOWSKI. No, and I wasn’t suggesting that you were 

slowing down. 

Secretary JEWELL. OK. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What I know is not complete, is that these 

regulations have not been released, so as Shell is trying to determine how they do proceed, they need some certainty. So I am just 

curious as to how we are coming with the timing of that, and how 

that is tracking with dealing with the deficient lease sale. 

Secretary JEWELL. They are in the process of writing up the regulations consistent with what Shell was already checking for, and 

we expect to have them published in the Federal Register this year, 

so there should not be difficulty, if there is a green light through 

the Ninth Circuit Court, and the supplemental EIS, for them to 

proceed, as long as the court is satisfied. 

We understand the very limited drilling season. We understand 

the challenges of logistics and staging. We are working closely with 

the courts on what they expect of us, in terms of an update to the 

EIS. We are continuing to stay in close contact with Shell and Conoco Phillips on their interest in pursuing this. 

I do not anticipate the regulations that are being formulated to 

have any impact at all on their ability to operate once the courts 

have agreed on a path forward. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, just know that we are monitoring 

very carefully in terms of when these regulations will come out. 

Initially, it was anticipated that they would be out well by this 

point in time. You have now indicated that they will be done sometime this year. Just for planning purposes, knowing what the rules 

of the road are is critically important. 

BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI LEASES

You mentioned the short drilling season that we have up North, 

another thing that we are facing is that many, if not all, as I understand, of the leases in the Beaufort and the Chukchi will expire 

before we can reasonably expect oil production to be brought online. And so while it may be a little premature at this point in time 

to talk about extension of those leases, I think it is something that 

the administration is going to have to look at in terms of its commitment to working with those who have leases in the Arctic, recognizing the challenges that we face with any kind of expiration 

opportunity up there, both on the environmental side, both on the 

regulatory side. 

But if there is a true commitment from this administration to advance Arctic expiration offshore, I think that is going to be a situation that we will have to look at, because the timing is not coming 

together as one might hope in terms of the lifetime of the leases 

and the ability to advance with exploration and the production. So 

I just put that in front of you. 

Secretary JEWELL. Senator, I know my colleagues at the Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement are working closely with the operators there. 

The suspensions of leases are in active discussions. We understand 

that there are time delays. If an EIS isn’t done right the first time, 

it throws you back and impacts the regulatory certainty for operators. It is unfortunate that occurred, but we are working actively 
48 

with the companies up there in what they desire and what we 

think is appropriate for the American people as well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a whole host of additional questions. As 

you well know, the Interior Department, the Secretary of Interior, 

have a great deal of influence in play in my State. I refer to the 

Department of the Interior and the Secretary’s role as being effectively one as landlords, so we have pertinent issues as they relate 

to oil and gas development; legacy wells, as the Secretary mentioned; contaminated lands; national parks; Brooks Camp, what we 

are doing up there. So I will submit those in writing and look forward to responses. 

But I thank the Secretary and the other members of the panel 

this morning. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

The record will remain open until April 2 for additional statements or questions by any of my colleagues. 

And I would ask you, Madam Secretary, to respond as quickly as 

possible. We thank you, Madam Secretary, for your testimony, and 

your colleagues. Thank you very much. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

YOUTH AND VETERAN PROGRAMS

Question. Secretary Jewell, you recently committed to raise up to $20 million in 

private funding for youth engagement programs to leverage the Department’s contributions. How do you plan on accomplishing this? Does the Department have the 

authority to solicit and hold private funding for these programs? How do you plan 

on administering the private funds you raise? 

Answer. The Take Pride in America Act authorizes the Secretary to carry out a 

number of activities, including: partnering with public and private organizations to 

promote participation in volunteer efforts through a public awareness campaign, soliciting and accepting donations in furtherance of the Take Pride in America Act, 

and accepting volunteer services from individuals and organizations. Interior’s bureaus also have authority to accept volunteer services. Interior has partnered with 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation) for the $20 million fundraising goal. Secretary Jewell and the Department will work to increase awareness 

of the opportunity to support youth and veteran engagement opportunities and inform prospective donors of the opportunity to make donations to the Foundation. 

The Foundation has established a separate fund (the Interior 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Account) to receive the funds, distribute those funds to nonprofit corps partners and be responsible for annual reporting on the associated 

projects and results. 

Question. Your budget also emphasizes making connections between veterans and 

land management agencies but doesn’t provide many details on how you will accomplish that goal. How is the Department moving forward with veterans’ programs? 

Are you partnering with the Veterans Administration or non-profit organizations? 

Answer. Since 2010, the Department has been active in establishing long-term relationships with Federal agencies, schools, veterans’ organizations and military organizations. The Department and our bureaus have entered into formal agreements 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve. 

The Department was the first Federal agency to sign an agreement with the Office 

of the Chief, Army Reserve that focused on connecting reserve service members to 

employment opportunities; connecting military youth and families to America’s 

great outdoors, history and culture; and expanding recreational opportunities for 

community-based wounded warrior programs. The Department also has partner-
49 

ships with non-profit organizations such as Veterans Green Jobs and Mt. Adams Institute, to connect America’s veterans to conservation and land management. These 

partnerships expand opportunities for veterans (and military families) to learn the 

importance of natural resource management and explore potential careers within 

land management agencies. Interior’s work with these organizations is a critical aspect of our success in hiring veterans over the past 3 years, which reached 40 percent of our permanent hires in fiscal year 2013. Our goal is to continue building 

a talent pipeline of our Nation’s veterans, by continuing and enhancing partnerships 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs, veteran service organizations and other 

non-profit organizations. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs 

also includes $1 billion in mandatory funding to create the Veterans Job Corps program that would put thousands of veterans back to work over the next 5 years protecting and rebuilding America. The Department of Veterans Affairs proposal would 

authorize and provide funding to coordinate an interagency process and transfer up 

to $1 billion in mandatory funding over 5 years to establish the Veterans Job Corps. 

Funding will enable veterans to leverage skills developed in the military in jobs on 

the country’s public lands and in its communities, ranging from conservation and 

infrastructure projects to law enforcement and first responder jobs, such as park 

rangers, police officers, and firefighters. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CENTENNIAL

Question. The centennial of the National Park Service (NPS) in 2016 is deservedly 

a major focus of your budget request. Specifically, you have requested $40 million 

for this proposal, including $30 million in visitor service and facilities projects and 

$10 million for Centennial Challenge grants to match Federal funding for infrastructure needs with contributions from non-Federal partners. How will these funds 

be allocated among park units? Where are your focus areas? 

Answer. The President’s request includes a discretionary increase of $40 million 

to prepare for and celebrate the Centennial. This requested increase includes $30 

million for operations to support visitors during the 2016 Centennial celebrations 

and to provide a stronger foundation for visitor services and infrastructure investments in its second century of preserving the parks for ongoing usage and the future 

enjoyment of visitors. Of the $30 million increase for operations, $4 million would 

support 21st Century Conservation Service Corps youth work opportunities to educate and engage the next generation; $2 million would support volunteer opportunities for young people to expand the capacity of the NPS to manage volunteers in 

parks; $8 million in competitively managed funds would support enhanced visitor 

services in the areas of interpretation and education, law enforcement and protection, and facility operations; and $16 million would support improvement in the condition of high priority park assets, such as visitor use facilities, historic structures, 

and trails. Across these centennial increases, the budget provides an $8 million increase for youth engagement and employment opportunities, and continues the NPS’ 

efforts to attract qualified veteran candidates to fill Federal positions. 

The remaining $10 million of the $40 million discretionary request is for the Centennial Challenge program, which would leverage Federal funds with partner donations for signature projects and programs at national parks. Preference would be 

given to projects that have a clear and immediate visitor benefit as well as a higher 

partner match. The Challenge will require at least a one for one match from nonFederal entities, with some projects leveraging more. While many parks and partners have expressed interest, projects would not be selected until funds are appropriated. 

In addition to this discretionary request, the President’s budget also proposes 

$400 million a year for 3 years for Centennial activities to be provided as mandatory 

funding through authorization legislation. This includes $100 million a year for 3 

years for Centennial Challenge projects and programs, $200 million a year for 3 

years for deferred maintenance projects, and $100 million a year for 3 years for the 

multi-agency Centennial Land Management Investment Fund, which will provide 

an opportunity for all of Interior’s public lands bureaus and the U.S. Forest Service 

to address conservation and infrastructure project needs. 

Question. How will the Centennial Challenge grant proposal actually work? Do 

you already have partners who are looking to match their funds for specific projects? 

Answer. Similar to the 2008 appropriation, once funding was known, an announcement would be made soliciting project ideas and partner matches. Preference 

would be given to projects that have a higher partner match, and clear visitor benefit. In order for a project to be chosen, a commitment letter from the partner is 

required as well as demonstrated park support. There is strong evidence of support 
50 

for partner matching projects; several partners have already indicated willingness 

to match Federal funds for projects. The NPS is aware of potential partners from 

both large and small parks as well as local and national organizations. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Question. It is clear that the Department has taken notice of Committee direction 

about the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and has assembled a more 

geographically diverse list of projects proposed for discretionary funding. Do you believe this budget balances the need to conserve smaller tracts in urban areas and 

larger landscapes? 

Answer. The 2015 budget requests funding for a diverse portfolio of projects 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund’s many programs, and were 

thoughtfully designed to ensure we balance the conservation and recreational access 

needs of diverse communities and landscapes across the country. For example, the 

budget requests a total of $100.1 million ($48.1 million discretionary and $52 million mandatory) for the NPS-administered State and Local Assistance Grant program, which will provide grants to States and localities to plan for, acquire, and develop facilities for close-to-home recreation in communities in every State and territory. The budget requests a total of $100 million ($50 million discretionary and $50 

million mandatory) for Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)-administered Cooperative 

Endangered Species Conservation grants, which will support State efforts to develop 

and implement plans for endangered species recovery and habitat conservation. 

These grants support small scale efforts in a wide variety of settings, including near 

developed communities and in rural areas. 

Across the discretionary and mandatory requests, the budget includes funding for 

125 unique bureau land acquisition projects in 36 States. This portfolio of projects 

reflects the reality that conservation and recreation needs vary widely across the 

Nation, and proposes funding strategies that are responsive to the unique needs of 

local communities and landscapes. The budget includes support for land acquisition 

projects that range from fee simple acquisition of a 5-acre inholding at Maine’s Acadia National Park to the FWS easement acquisition of 30,000 acres—through conservation easement partnerships with multiple landowners—in the Dakota Grasslands of North Dakota and South Dakota. 

Question. Diversity in the project lists is key to engendering support nationally 

for LWCF, particularly as it needs to be reauthorized next year. What is the Department’s plan for reauthorization? When should we expect to see a full legislative proposal and a concerted effort to engage the authorizing committees? 

Answer. The 2015 budget includes four mandatory spending proposals, of which 

one is mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We are currently working within the administration, including with the Department of Agriculture, to ensure the reauthorization proposal is comprehensive and relevant to 

21st century conservation needs. 

The administration anticipates working in collaboration with legislators and staff 

to develop a plan to authorize $550 million in mandatory funding for 2015, and to 

reauthorize the program permanently with full mandatory funding beginning in 

2016. The administration looks forward to working with Congress on the details of 

legislation that would advance our LWCF proposal. 

Question. I am concerned about how Congress, and more specifically, the Appropriations Committee, will remain involved in this process if LWCF is switched to 

a mandatory program. The Committee has a longstanding role in determining how 

land acquisition funds are allocated and how priorities are set, and we value that 

role. How is the administration planning to continue to involve Congress in land acquisition decisions through your mandatory proposal? And specifically, what role do 

you foresee the Appropriations Committee playing if funds are made mandatory? 

Answer. The administration anticipates close collaboration with Congress as we 

develop a plan for reauthorizing LWCF with mandatory funding. The administration recognizes and values the role the Committee has historically played providing 

oversight to ensure the wise expenditure of LWCF funds, and looks forward to working with Committee staff to develop procedures for implementation of a mandatory 

funding regime which provides appropriate avenues for continued congressional 

input and oversight. 

Question. As you have traveled the country over the past year as Secretary of the 

Interior, including our trip to Rhode Island in May, I know you have seen the great 

diversity in our Federal lands and the great need to protect threatened lands for 

conservation. Those of us in the East are just as worried about protecting small 

inholdings in our urban centers as those in the West are in protecting our Nation’s 
51 

most dramatic landscapes. What do you see as your mark on the Land and Water 

program? 

Answer. One of my highest conservation priorities is securing reauthorization of 

the LWCF and ensuring the program is fully funded with mandatory funding. Authorizing permanent mandatory funding for the LWCF would realize the original intent of this law: to set aside a meaningful portion of the royalties that companies 

pay for developing America’s offshore oil and gas reserves, and reinvest those funds 

in land and water conservation for the benefit of all Americans and future generations. Without mandatory funding, it appears likely we will continue to underinvest 

in land and water conservation programs as funding for these programs must compete directly with a wide range of other programs with varying objectives as part 

of the annual appropriations process. Mandatory funding will provide greater certainty this portion of our offshore royalties are used for their original intended purpose: to support the national endowment of lands and waters which provide our cities with clean drinking water, provide our children with safe places to play, and protect the way of life of our farmers, foresters and ranchers. 

Each community’s vision for conservation of their lands and waters will be unique 

to its community, but our cities, towns and rural areas across the country all share 

a common need for resources to invest in public open space and conservation. A fully 

funded LWCF will provide the resources we need to fund the full spectrum of conservation and recreational access projects that communities want to invest in. We 

can fund city parks so kids can get outside and play in their own neighborhoods, 

and we can fund landscape scale conservation, collaborating with private landowners on conservation easements that keep working lands in production while protecting habitat, wildlife migration corridors and clean drinking water. 

Question. I am concerned that we continue to hear the unsupported, shopworn argument that securing more conservation land adds unduly to Federal land management and maintenance costs. Can you please provide the subcommittee with a fuller 

understanding of the ways that land conservation through LWCF improves management and reduces operating expenses for the Department? Can you highlight a few 

specific examples where LWCF spending has reduced operating and maintenance 

costs? What are the broader positive impacts of LWCF on agency budgets? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior LWCF programs work in cooperation 

with local communities, rely on willing sellers, and maximize opportunities to partner with private landowners on conservation easements where conservation and 

management objectives can be achieved without fee simple acquisition. Proposed 

Federal land acquisition projects are developed with the support of local landowners, 

elected officials, and community groups. 

Because there is a recognized need for funding to address maintenance needs on 

existing federally managed lands, the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes 

discretionary funding (a portion of the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative) 

to address maintenance backlog needs for all natural resource agencies, and an additional $200 million in mandatory funding for the National Park Service to help 

prepare for the National Park Service Centennial in 2016. 

Acquisition of inholdings does not generally require additional operating costs as 

no new staff or equipment is required to manage new lands within existing boundaries. Occasionally, agencies may incur up front costs to remove existing improvements (fences, buildings, etc.) from an acquired property. By removing unwanted 

structures on newly acquired land, agencies avoid adding to ongoing operations and 

maintenance (O&M) requirements. 

In fact, acquisition of inholdings can greatly simplify land management for Federal managers and neighboring landowners. Eliminating checkerboard ownership 

within Federal units simplifies nearly every aspect of land management: 

—Wildland fire managers can apply appropriate fuels reduction, planned burns, 

and fire suppression treatments more easily across an unfragmented landscape; 

fire management is more challenging and costly when private inholdings and 

developed properties are intermixed with federally managed forests and public 

lands. 

—Law enforcement and public safety personnel can more easily patrol and respond to emergencies when public ownership is consolidated. An unfragmented 

unit allows unified signage, road networks, and other infrastructure that will 

best enable safe public access and allow for the efficient movement of emergency personnel and vehicles to locations frequented by visitors. 

—Recreation managers can more easily provide access for the public to enjoy their 

public lands. In some cases checkerboard ownership can cause confusion among 

the public about acceptable land uses, and can restrict the public’s ability to access some areas of public land. 
52 

—Natural resource management is simplified in an unfragmented landscape. 

When checkerboard ownership is eliminated, biologists, geologists and other 

natural resource professionals can move freely across the land that they are responsible for surveying, and natural resource management actions can be applied more efficiently across a landscape in single ownership. 

Examples of enhanced management resulting from land acquisition include: 

St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge.—St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) is an island off the panhandle coast of Florida in Apalachicola Bay, off the 

Gulf of Mexico. Acquisition of the 5-acre tract on the mainland of Apalachicola Bay 

provides permanent deep water mooring with launch site, secure parking and equipment storage. An important point is that dredging and channel maintenance are allowed in Apalachicola Bay. The lease at Indian Pass, the current deep water mooring and launch site, was ending and would not be renewed as the owners were looking to develop the mainland at the launch site. In addition, the upland portion of 

the leased Indian Pass site had been significantly reduced due to severe, continuing, 

and progressive erosion that the land owner failed to address. 

As the refuge is only accessible by water, the new deep water mooring and launch 

site reduces staff travel time from the refuge office to transfer supplies and heavy 

equipment. Daily boat access for St. Vincent NWR staff is required 24/7 for all island management activities, such as sea turtle nest monitoring and protection, habitat management, prescribed burning, hunting and fishing management and protection, and response to visitor emergencies. 

With the acquisition of the mainland deep water boat mooring and launch site, the Fish and Wildlife Service eliminates the annual $12,000 lease and has significant savings in fuel for vehicles. Staff traveling to and from the work site and hauling equipment to Apalachicola Bay from the refuge office, had to travel 20 miles to 

Indian Pass, then travel by watercraft to St. Vincent Island. At the end of each day, 

traveling was reversed back to the refuge office. Adequate parking for heavy equipment and vehicles is available at the new site. 

Prior to the acquisition of the deep water mooring and launch site, the Service 

conducted a critical review and analysis of deep water mooring and access options 

in the general vicinity of the refuge. Only two or three options were possible, with 

the acquisition of the acquired site being the most cost effective and safest for staff. 

The other sites involved longer nautical travel distances at nine miles, were more 

costly as public boat launch sites, and did not offer the security needed for refuge 

equipment. 

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge.—The Service acquired five tracts totaling 

480 acres within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. One tract contains prime river frontage along the Porcupine River with cliffs containing important nesting habitat for peregrine falcon. The other tracts contain frontage along 

Beaver Creek, Rock Slough, and the Black River. Most of these properties contain 

high quality wetland complexes and were isolated inholdings surrounded by Refuge 

land. Acquisition of these parcels greatly benefits Refuge wildlife management and 

provides a cost savings to the Government due to decreased fire management expenses. 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument.—The Bureau of Land Management 

purchased the 800-acre Alexander (a/k/a Yellow Jacket Canyon) parcel within Canyons of the Ancients National Monument (NM) with funding from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund on April 16, 2014. This purchase is completely surrounded by Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-owned land within the boundary 

of the Monument. Just northwest of Cortez, Colorado, the 173,000-acre Monument 

was established to protect cultural and natural resources on a landscape scale. 

These remarkable cultural resources have been a focal point of explorers and researchers for 130 years. 

Approximately 45,000 visitors annually explore these ancient sites and camp, 

hike, horseback ride, mountain bike, use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), hunt and view 

wildlife within the Monument. The Monument is important to Native Americans 

who maintain close ties to the sites occupied by their ancestors. The BLM estimates 

the Alexander/Yellow Jacket Canyon parcel may contain as many as 170 cultural 

sites associated with Yellow Jacket Pueblo, one of the largest and best studied Ancestral Puebloan sites in the Southwest. Purchase of this parcel also simplifies 

maintenance of the Monument as well as fire activities. 

Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park.—The National Park Service acquired 41.55 acres at the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park in October 

2013. It was the last privately owned parcel in the park and was slated for development through subdivision. Acquisition of this parcel allows the park to manage 

these lands in a way that preserves the battlefield resource of earthworks that 

marked both the Union and Confederate lines during the battle. The park contains 
53 

the best set of earthworks of any Civil War site, and these would have been bulldozed to make way for development of a suburban housing tract. Acquisition of this 

land directly contributes to the reason this unit was created. Additionally, this land 

has served as an unofficial access point for equestrian trails, and with the acquisition this access can be managed to conserve the resources (landscape, flora, water 

quality in the nearby stream). Making this access official has already saved law enforcement costs in both time and fuel as rangers can now easily access the formal 

park trails that are adjacent to this land and more effectively monitor looting and 

poaching activities which have been known to take place in this area. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Question. California is in one of the worst droughts in its history. With most of 

the rain season behind us, the State reported that much of California has received 

only about 50 percent of normal precipitation. The snowpack is at 24 percent of normal as of March 23. Shasta, Lake Oroville, and San Luis Reservoir are all below 

50 percent of capacity. The California Farm Bureau estimates that 500,000 acres 

of farm land are being fallowed, and more than 100,000 heads of cattle could be lost. 

Ten or more communities could run out of drinking water within the next few 

months. 

The Interior Department, specifically the Bureau of Reclamation and the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, play crucial roles in managing and regulating 

water operations in California. 

You have stated many times that you are looking to operate and manage the 

water system with flexibility. What specific steps have you taken to maximize operational flexibility? 

Answer. Reclamation has been coordinating with the California Department of 

Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to make the best use of water available in the system for water supply while protecting the fishery. Much of this coordination has been in the Real Time Drought Operations Team (RTDOT). Actions 

have included modifying both Endangered Species Act (ESA) and water rights permit objectives to improve our operational flexibility and increase Delta exports. The 

Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) have also shifted operations between the two projects to minimize impacts to the fish while exporting 

more water from the Delta and the CVP has delayed construction activities to accommodate operational flexibility. 

Question. Do I have your personal commitment that you will be deeply involved 

in finding ways to maximize operational flexibility so that more water can be provided to California water users? 

Answer. Yes, the drought will continue to be a high priority activity in the Department. 

California is experiencing another storm this week. This is only the third sizable 

storm to arrive in California in over a year. A group of water contractors wrote Secretary Jewell and Secretary Pritzker yesterday, urging emergency action to allow 

for more water to be captured during this storm. 

[The letter follows:] 

LETTER FROM THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER WATER AUTHORITY

SAN JOAQUIN

RIVER WATER AUTHORITY, 

Los Banos, CA, March 25, 2014. 

Re Request for Emergency Relief Due to Impending Storm Events. 

Hon. SALLY JEWELL, Secretary, 

Department of the Interior, 

C Street NW, Washington, DC. 

Hon. PENNY PRITZKER, Secretary, 

Department of Commerce, 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SECRETARY JEWELL AND SECRETARY PRITZKER: We are writing to you under 

the most urgent circumstances. As you are well aware, California is plagued by one 

of the worst droughts in its history. Water year 2013–14 thus far has proven to be 

the second worst water year since recordkeeping began in 1850. While not quite as 

bad as 1977 standing alone, it comes on the heels of 2 prior years of extremely dry 
54 

conditions. Yet, while the opportunities existed over the past 6 weeks to get more 

water to people and into storage south of the Delta, inaction has resulted in the loss 

of 225,000–450,000 acre-feet (af) of water supplies. Meanwhile, over 700,000 af 

flowed to the ocean. The situation for many in California is desperate. 

Now is the time that action is needed. The State cannot afford to lose another 

round of water supplies due to less than full implementation of proactive measures 

that are available to the State and Federal agencies. 

The Departments of Commerce and the Interior are in the unique position of having many of your stakeholders being those directly and profoundly impacted by this 

drought while at the same time having the ability to implement emergency measures that will provide a modicum of relief. The situation is as follows. 

Regulations imposed on the State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project 

(CVP) (together ‘‘Projects’’) through biological opinions issued by your Departments 

are having a real-time adverse impact on California’s water supply. With storms 

about to hit California, the Projects are collectively in the position of being able to 

capture significant amounts of water without adversely impacting listed fisheries. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been working with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and their State counterparts to examine opportunities to provide flexibility to meet crucial water supply needs in the urban and 

agricultural sectors. Despite efforts to date, the Silicon Valley, which Secretary 

Pritzker recently visited and pledged to partner with to promote greater benefits for 

our economy and our citizens, is only receiving 75,000 acre-feet of the over 200,000 

acre-feet which it would be entitled under from State and Federal water sources. 

As a result, the local water district has requested its retail customers to reduce 

usage by 25 percent. Economic impacts of water rationing are severe. Similarly, in 

the agricultural sector, much of which is served by the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys are being devastated. Over 3 million acres of 

the Nation’s most productive farm lands are receiving a zero surface water allocation this year. Permanent crops such as trees and vines are literally being ripped 

out due to lack of water. Hundreds of thousands of acres of permanent and annual 

crops will go fallow. The loss of permanent crops takes 5–10 years to restore. Annual crops fill irreplaceable supply chains that provide about 50 percent of the Nation’s fruits and vegetables. Unemployment in the valleys will soar. Banks loans and 

insurance will become more expensive if the integrity of the water system is not 

maintained. 

The Endangered Species Act provides NMFS and USFWS with the tools necessary 

to support the emergency response actions necessary to provide much-needed relief 

that California needs and avoid the imminent loss of hundreds of thousands of acrefeet of irreplaceable water. 

Weather predictions indicate that another storm is heading to California today or 

Wednesday. We request that you allow for the maximum pumping of the flow that 

is going to develop from this storm based on the following conditions. 

Currently, protected fisheries in the Delta have experienced historically low take 

at the State and Federal water pumps. The nominal take is consistent with the 

monitoring data that has consistently and clearly demonstrated a lack of presence 

of protected fish in the central and south Delta in 2014. Because of this, we believe 

that maximizing pumping for the limited time that uncontrolled Sacramento River 

flows are elevated due to the storm is unlikely to jeopardize listed species. However, 

to ensure adequate levels of protection, we propose that if take reaches the levels 

of concern identified in the species specific incidental take statement, implementation of this emergency action be reassessed. 

As we explain on the attached pages, a temporary adjustment to the Delta smelt 

and Chinook salmon biological opinions (BiOps) would allow pumping—subject to 

take of fisheries—up to the full 11,280 cubic feet per second (cfs). 

Time is short. The storm is approaching and, practically speaking, we need a decision by close of business on Thursday, before Sacramento River flows arrive at the 

Delta. We therefore request that conference calls be set up for Wednesday and 

Thursday so that the situation may be addressed in real time with the most senior 

resource managers from both the State and Federal sectors as well as the water 

user and environmental communities. 

Once this storm series passes, and thinking ahead to the rest of this water season, 

the State is installing salinity barriers in the Delta. Further, State and Federal 

water managers are confident that they can control salinity in the Delta with fairly 

minimal flow amounts this summer, generally around 2,500 cfs. Water managers 

are proposing a longer term action plan that is being finalized. Continued real-time 

management will allow for improvements of water supply and protection of the upstream and Delta ecosystems. 
55 

This letter is also being delivered to a number of other State and Federal officials 

that have a key role in California water decisions. We request that each of them 

become engaged in this rapid decisionmaking process and participate directly or 

through their delegates in these conference calls. However, we believe your direct 

leadership is necessary at this time and hope that you will participate personally. 

We have taken the liberty of setting up a conference line for the first call on 

Wednesday at 1 pm PDT (4 pm EDT). For convenience, we propose the same time 

be used for Thursday. 

The opportunity presented by this storm is upon us. We cannot afford inaction 

by either State or Federal regulators or water managers. We need your authority 

to impress upon your Departments and others that this is truly an emergency situation that requires immediate action. Failure to take action becomes a decision in 

and of itself and we are not likely to have another opportunity this year to help relieve this dire situation. 

Urgently and gratefully yours, 

STEVE CHEDESTER, Executive Director, 

San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority. 

DANIEL G. NELSON, Executive Director, 

San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water 

Authority. 

RONALD JACOBSMA, General Manager, 

Friant Water Authority. 

CHASE HURLEY, General Manager, 

San Luis Canal Company. 

RANDY HOUK, General Manager, 

Columbia Canal Company. 

CHRISTOPHER L. WHITE, General 

Manager, 

Central California Irrigation District. 

JEFF BRYANT, General Manager, 

Firebaugh Canal Water District. 

Enclosures. 

FOREGONE PUMPING

Upcoming storms commencing March 23, 2014 

Currently the Projects are operating to a combined 2,000 cubic feet per second 

(cfs) export level resulting in about 5,500 cfs Delta Outflow and an Old and Middle 

River reverse flow limitation (OMR) of about ¥1,600 cfs. The export/inflow (E/I) 

ratio is about 25 percent, and San Joaquin River stream flow is about 700 cfs. 

Storms to Northern California are forecast to begin Tuesday evening and will bring 

precipitation throughout the week and into the weekend. It is anticipated that these 

storms will result in unregulated runoff within the Sacramento Valley similar in response to the storms experienced earlier in the month, resulting in excess flow in 

the Delta which potentially is available for delivery and storage south of the Delta. 

Although there are uncertainties in the timing and magnitude of the storm events, 

the following provides an explanation of the constraints upon exports that will result in foregone pumping in the near future. 

Without immediate relaxation of several pumping and outflow constraints the 

capture of a significant amount of the excess flow will be foregone, up to 125,000 

acre-feet, similar to what has occurred during each of the storms of the last 2 

months. The graphic below illustrates projected operations beginning today, through 

April 9. Of immediate issue are the OMR and E/I constraints. As inflow to the Delta 

increases due to the storms, pumping will increase. However, almost immediately 

pumping will be constrained by a maximum OMR flow of ¥5,000 cfs and a maximum E/I ratio of 35 percent. While available pumping capacity is about 11,280 cfs, 

the pumps will be running at only about 6,600 cfs, foregoing over 9,000 acre-feet 

of excess flow per day for several days. This effect is compounded by an outflow requirement of 7,100 cfs for X2 which limits the amount of excess outflow that can 

be pumped, but which however, under the dire drought circumstances has been reduced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) this year with the concurrence of State and Federal fishery agencies. Notwithstanding the SWRCB order, 

separate, but of significant impact on water supplies, will be the effect of the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) condition in the Biological Opinions regarding the San Joaquin River Inflow to Export Ratio that would be exercised beginning 

April 1 and continuing through May. This action requires exports to be no greater 
56 

than the inflow entering the Delta from the San Joaquin River (1:1), currently about 

700 cfs. This action would constrain exports even lower than the actions already 

constraining the exports to 6,600 cfs, resulting in an additional 11,000 acre-feet per 

day of foregone pumping. 

Question. What is Reclamation doing in response to this storm so that the maximum amount of water can be captured before it flows out to the ocean? 

Answer. Our response has been primarily through the RTDOT. The agencies 

evaluate both the water supply that can be captured as well as the biological effects 

of the actions. 

Question. What are the pros and cons of invoking emergency consultation with the 

fish agencies to allow for even higher levels of water pumping? 

Answer. Emergency consultation allows for immediate action if there is an imminent threat of loss of life or property. However, a traditional consultation must ultimately be completed and mitigation actions implemented. Potential benefits are 

quick action, as in the case of a flood when an emergency flood wall must be constructed. If however the impacts of the action are extensive, extensive mitigation 

could be required. 

Salvage data from the agencies as of March 19, 2014 show that no Delta smelt 

has been taken; 276 out of an allowed 24,237 winter run salmon have been taken; 

and 148 out of an allowed 3,000 steelhead have been taken. 

Question. Does the data support the notion that more water pumping can occur 

without jeopardizing fish species? 

Answer. Take limits associated with the Incidental Take Statement in a biological 

opinion (BiOp) identify the amount of take that can occur while operating consistent 

with the BiOp and implementing the reasonable and prudent actions in a jeopardy 

BiOp. Jeopardy considerations include not only take at the pumps but also access 

to quality spawning and rearing habitat including in-stream temperatures and flows 

to improve out-migration of smolts. Through the RTDOT process, the project operators and regulatory agencies are doing all that is possible to improve exports while 

protecting the species. 

Question. What other emergency measures can be implemented within your discretion to maximize water supplies without jeopardizing endangered species? And 

are you prepared to implement those measures immediately? 

Answer. Reclamation and DWR continue to work in collaboration with the regulatory agencies (NMFS, FWS, DFW, SWRCB) through the RTDOT process to ensure 

that exports are maximized while protecting species of concern. The RTDOT participants are willing to implement measures that improve exports while protecting species. 

Question. How will the need for carryover storage affect the water projects’ ability 

to export more water as opposed to storing it? 

Answer. There will be some tradeoff between releasing water from storage for 

water supply and retaining some in storage to maintain operations in a continuing 

drought. 

Question. How much carryover storage is needed going into the 2015 water year? 
57 

Answer. We are planning the operations to satisfy the regulatory objectives in 

2014 and maintain a carryover storage that should carry us through a dry 2015 in 

the event that the drought might continue. We are assuming that if the drought 

continues there will be extraordinary operations similar to what we are experiencing 

in 2014. 

Question. California must expand water storage to capture water from the wet 

years for the dry years, so that we have a better chance of getting through conditions such as the ones we are experiencing now. 

However, Reclamation’s feasibility studies for new storage projects have been going on for over a decade and have cost over $91 million with no results yet. 

Meanwhile, California is likely to vote on a water bond this year that could make up to $3 billion available starting mid-2015 for storage projects that have completed 

feasibility studies and favorable benefit-to-cost ratios. 

What will it take to get all storage studies completed by the end of 2015? 

Answer. Reclamation has completed public review and comment on draft Feasibility Reports for expanding Shasta Lake and increasing storage in the Upper San 

Joaquin River basin. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Shasta 

was released for public review and comment last summer, and the draft for Upper 

San Joaquin is due out this summer. Both studies to support Federal decisionmaking are on track to be completed by the end of 2015, with Shasta completed by 

the end of 2014. 

All four storage studies have been affected by a significant reduction of non-Federal funding and ability to participate. As a result, while the Draft EIS for both 

Shasta and Upper San Joaquin meet the requirements for an Environmental Impact 

Report (EIR), the State is unable to release a Draft EIR for these two projects at 

this time. In addition, the North-of-the-Delta Offstream Storage Investigation 

(NODOS) and continued study of Los Vaqueros Expansion (LVE275) are delayed 

due to a lack of non-Federal cost share. In the past, the State has provided an estimated 90 percent and 50 percent of the funding for these studies respectively. These 

two projects would require significant non-Federal funding and resources. 

Question. Do you see any obstacle that would delay the completion timeframe beyond 2015? 

Answer. Endangered Species Act consultations may continue beyond 2015 for 

Upper San Joaquin. The lack of non-Federal cost sharing presents significant obstacles to completing NODOS and LVE275. 

Question. What are those obstacles, and what can be done to mitigate or remove 

them? 

Answer. Non-Federal cost sharing partnerships could mitigate the obstacles, particularly when cost shares are provided via in-kind services. Many potential cost 

share partners are contributing significant funding to other projects, have been impacted by the State economy, and are fully engaged in drought activities. Reclamation will continue to seek non-Federal cost sharing opportunities. 

We clearly need some leadership and accountability at the top level of the Department to get these feasibility studies done. 

The initial and partial construction cost estimate for expanding San Luis Reservoir is $360 million; about two-thirds are for seismic repairs that must be done 

regardless of whether storage is expanded. Therefore for an incremental cost of approximately $120 million, the project could yield additional average annual Delta 

exports of 43,000 acre feet. 

We clearly need some leadership and accountability at the top level of the Department to get these feasibility studies done. 

Question. Can you commit to completing all the studies by the end of 2015 so the 

projects could potentially be eligible for State funding if worthy? 

Answer. As described above, Reclamation can commit to completing the studies 

for Shasta and Upper San Joaquin by the end of 2015. Also noted in previous responses is the lack of non-Federal cost share for NODOS and LVE275. 

Question. Can you please share with me your overall schedule for completing the 

San Luis feasibility study? 

Answer. A detailed schedule is still being completed and a non-Federal cost-share 

agreement is still being negotiated, but it is reasonable to assume the studies could 

be completed as early as December 2017. Data and analysis to support the Safety 

of Dams risk reduction will be analyzed this summer, including an evaluation of the 

strength of the dam and potential response to seismic activity. This information is 

also required for reservoir expansion alternatives. 

Question. As you may know, the proposed Cadiz water project in the Eastern Mojave Desert has been a longtime concern for me because of its potential impact on 

the Mojave National Preserve, pristine public lands that surround it and the plant 

and wildlife that depend on rare desert water supplies. The project proposes to ex-
58 

tract between 50,000–75,000 acre feet of water from the desert aquifer for sale to 

municipal water users in Southern California. However, independent studies estimate a recharge rate between 2,000 and 10,000 acre feet per year. 

The Cadiz project had hoped to use the Arizona & California Railroad’s Right-ofWay to construct a 43-mile-long pipeline connecting their project site with the Colorado River Aqueduct. However, based on a November 4, 2011 opinion from the Interior Department’s Solicitors office (known as the M Opinion) which stipulates that 

railroad companies lack authority to permit activities along their right-of-way unless 

the projects directly benefit railroad operations, it is my understanding that the Bureau of Land Management thus far denied Cadiz permission to use the right-of-way. 

Can you provide me with an update of the status of this project? 

Answer. The BLM’s evaluation of the project is on hold and is awaiting publication of additional guidance by BLM on the implementation of the M Opinion. 

Question. It is my understanding that the BLM is currently developing guidelines 

for implementing the M Opinion. What is the status of those guidelines? 

Answer. The guidelines for implementing the M Opinion have been drafted and 

the BLM is coordinating within the Department to finalize the guidelines. 

Question. Once those guidelines are completed, does the BLM intend to issue a 

decision on whether the Cadiz project’s proposed pipeline is within the scope of the 

Arizona & California Railroad’s Right-of-Way? 

Answer. Once the guidance is issued the BLM California will complete its evaluation of the proposed Cadiz project and determine if the activity derives from or furthers a railroad purpose. Once the evaluation has been completed, the BLM will notify the party undertaking the activity of its determination of whether additional approvals are required from the BLM prior to undertaking the project. 

Question. There are an estimated 500,000 abandoned mine lands throughout the 

United States, many on public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 

the Forest Service and the National Park Service. According to the Mine Safety and 

Health Administration, every year about 20 to 30 people die in accidents that occur 

in abandoned mines across the United States. 

This has been an enduring concern for me, given that California is home to roughly 50,000 abandoned mines. That is why I pushed for language that was included 

in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill to prioritize the closure of abandoned mines which present the greatest threat to public safety, in particular those 

mines with dangerous vertical shafts that pose risks to unsuspecting visitors. 

I understand that the President’s budget proposes creating a Hardrock Mining 

and Abandoned Mine Cleanup program, which would fund abandoned mine cleanup by rescinding a 2006 reduction in fees paid by coal mines. While this is estimated to generate an additional $53 million in 2014, this proposal has been made 

in previous budgets but has failed to gain traction in Congress. 

Can you tell me how many abandoned mines were closed by the Department of 

Interior last year? How many of these were in California? 

Answer. The BLM closed 4,947 abandoned mine land features in fiscal year 2013; 

99 of those sites were in California. There were no known abandoned mine land closures completed on National Park Service (NPS) lands in 2013. It should be noted 

that a single mine may have numerous features. 

Question. How is Interior prioritizing closure of abandon mines? 

Answer. The BLM uses a comprehensive approach to determine which sites are 

addressed first based on the readiness of Federal and State partnerships and risks 

to public health, safety, and the environment. High priority sites include physical 

safety sites such as mine shafts and adits that are in close proximity to populated 

places such as residences, schools, and recreational areas. Sites impacting water 

quality are a similarly high priority because mine waste or tailings may threaten 

human health and the environment. 

Priorities are established annually with project funding distributed to State offices 

on a competitive basis. The Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) Program priorities are 

documented in the AML Program strategic plan, including State office Annual Work 

Plans. Typically, the AML Program strives to complete ongoing projects before undertaking new projects. Where appropriate, temporary mitigation measures, such as 

posting appropriate signage and using fencing, may be used until permanent or 

long-term remediation actions can be completed. In some cases, an imminent risk 

to public safety may require the BLM to take urgent action in order to address conditions at a site not previously identified or prioritized as a high risk site. 

The NPS completed an on-site AML inventory in 2013 where inspectors rated 

each AML feature for degree of hazard, accessibility (likelihood of visitation), resource significance (both natural and cultural), and resource impacts. Features with 

a likelihood of serious injury or death were ranked high. 
59 

Question. Can Interior please provide me an inventory of the abandoned mines 

on Federal lands in California, and estimated cost and schedule to close them? 

Answer. The BLM Abandoned Mine Site and Cleanup Module database identified 

1,672 AML sites containing 5,643 physical safety features in California. The average 

cost to mitigate each physical safety hazard feature is $19,400. It would cost approximately $110 million to close all identified physical safety features in the State. 

The 2015 budget request continues the legislative proposal to create an Abandoned 

Mine Lands Program for abandoned hardrock sites that will be financed through the 

imposition of a new AML fee on hardrock production on both public and private 

lands. These fees would provide resources to allow the BLM to more aggressively 

address the highest priority abandoned sites on Federal, State, tribal, and private 

lands nationwide. 

The NPS has 27,900 features at 1,211 sites in 13 NPS units in California. Of 

those, 793 features have been mitigated and 2,298 features at 632 sites remain at 

an estimated cost of $32 million for mitigation. Shovel-ready projects in California 

(those where National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning and compliance 

are complete) are estimated at $9.9 million. There is no schedule for this work at 

this time. 

Question. The National Park Service recently released its final environmental impact statement (FEIS) relating to the Merced Wild and Scenic River Plan. The plan 

is the third in the last decade and was necessary to comply with the Ninth Circuit’s 

2008 opinion requiring the Park Service to protect the river’s ‘‘outstanding remarkable values.’’ 

Responding to over 30,000 public comments, the Final EIS attempts to balance 

resource protection and visitor access in Yosemite Valley. I appreciate the National 

Park Service’s efforts to develop a plan that complies with the requirements of the 

Wild and Scenic River Act but also protects much loved recreation activities, historic 

structures and visitor service facilities in Yosemite Valley. 

I am glad to see that the new plan will allow continued bike, river rafts and horse 

rentals and winter ice skating and retain the historic Sugar Pine stone bridge and 

the Ahwahnee and Yosemite Lodge swimming pools. I applaud the Park Service’s 

efforts to resolve this dispute, but would like to know more about the budget assumptions and schedule to implement the plan while meeting other obligations at 

Yosemite National Park. 

Given the estimated $210 million cost to implement the FEIS, can you explain 

the National Park Service’s funding expectations and schedule to implement the 

changes proposed in the Merced River FEIS? 

Answer. Potential funding to implement the plan will be derived from three primary sources: (1) Recreation fee program (entrance and camping fees); (2) concessions franchise fees; and (3) other Federal sources such as Federal lands transportation programs. 

Both recreation fee revenue and concession franchise fees are annual revenue 

sources collected by the park. Over the course of the next 20 years, assuming reauthorization of recreation fee authority, the park anticipates that both of these fund 

sources (currently the park collects approximately $18 million in fees annually) will 

be available to implement the changes proposed. Based on projected revenues, the 

park is confident there will be financial resources to implement a myriad of projects 

within the next 15–20 years for all three plans mentioned. 

During the first 5 to 10 years of implementation, the focus will be to improve the 

transportation system to alleviate traffic congestion and to conduct ecological restoration of high use areas to better accommodate visitor use. Projects include adding 

and modifying parking, realigning failing intersections and restoring eroded riverbanks. Concurrent to the improvements to transportation/parking, the park will 

work towards creating additional camping opportunities and replacing tent cabins 

with hard sided lodging. 

Question. The new location of some facilities was not identified in the FEIS, such 

as the new bike racks, river rafting facilities and maintenance buildings. When and 

how will the location of the facilities be chosen and how will the public have an opportunity to engage in that process? 

Answer. The locations of minor facilities, such as bicycle rental stands and raft 

rental operations, will be located outside of the quarter-mile river corridor boundary, 

yet remain within the primary visitor services nodes. The park does not anticipate 

further environmental review and public involvement for these actions. The minor 

shift of the location of these facilities outside the corridor is an operational decision 

that will be determined after the 2016 concessions contract is awarded. The cost is 

expected to be minimal. 

Question. How will other Yosemite obligations be affected (deferred maintenance—$500 million, implementation of the Mariposa Grove Plan—$36 million and 
60 

the draft Tuolumne River Plan—$64.5 million) while implementing the Merced 

River plan? 

Answer. Implementation of both river plans will be completed simultaneously over 

a 15–20 year period. The Mariposa Grove project will be completed in the next few 

years, and relies heavily on financial support from the nonprofit Yosemite Conservancy, supplemented with other revenues from recreation fees and transportation 

funds. As noted above, project revenue will allow the park to make a substantial 

investment in major actions called for in the plans, as well as continue to address 

a significant number of deferred maintenance needs. For example, by implementing 

some of the major transportation improvement components such as road realignments and expanded day use parking lots, much of the deferred maintenance for 

these areas will be addressed. In addition, the park will continue to prioritize cyclic 

maintenance, operational funding, and repair and rehabilitation funding to strategically reduce deferred maintenance priorities. 

Question. How do you intend to prioritize the needs identified in these plans? 

Answer. As noted above, the first priority for plan implementation will be to alleviate traffic congestion and to restore riverbanks and meadows. Once these steps 

are accomplished, current levels of visitation can be managed more successfully. 

Concurrently, other priorities will be implemented to enhance the visitor experience 

by providing additional campsites and increasing the availability of year-round visitor accommodations. 

Priority projects seek to accomplish four major goals: 

—Correct identified impacts to river resources to ensure continued protection; 

—Alleviate crowding and congestion and provide for easy access to key park facilities and shuttles; 

—Enhance camping opportunities and winter lodging; and 

—Replace temporary non-code compliant employee housing. 

Question. Can you explain what the cumulative impact of all these plans is expected to be on the current visitor experience? 

Answer. All of the plans address long standing issues with visitor use and user 

capacity management in the most heavily visited destinations within the park, most 

notably by calling for actions that will improve the efficiency of the transportation 

system. Key actions such as relocating and retrofitting day use parking areas, adding campsites, and increasing the amount of year-round lodging in Yosemite Valley, 

will improve access and the overall quality of the visitor experience. In addition, the 

wide array of recreational opportunities available throughout the park will be maintained and boating opportunities will be expanded. Once implemented, the plans 

will provide for a higher quality visitor experience by improving access to the most 

popular areas in Yosemite and by providing lasting protection for the natural features within those areas. Overall, the park expects implementation to improve the 

visitor experience. 

Question. I applaud the National Wildlife Trafficking Strategy that your Department put forward as part of the President’s Taskforce on Wildlife Trafficking. 

Wildlife crimes are a global threat to conservation and put iconic species like African elephants and rhinoceroses at risk of extinction. What is equally disturbing is 

that wildlife crimes are also driving and funding transnational criminal networks 

and global terrorism. 

It is clear to me that the current criminal penalties for these crimes are too weak 

and that congressional action is needed to address the wildlife poaching crisis. 

This is why I am drafting legislation to make wildlife trafficking crimes a predicate offense under Federal racketeering and money laundering statutes, as well as 

under the Travel Act. Law enforcement already uses these laws to crack down on 

other major crimes like drug trafficking. 

Secretary Jewell, how important will these strengthened tools be in helping your 

Department end the practice of wildlife trafficking? 

Answer. Strengthening enforcement tools for those that enforce our wildlife trafficking laws is extremely important. Doing so would rightly elevate the stature of 

wildlife crimes within the U.S.’s judicial system to be on par with other serious 

crimes. Some judicial districts and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are reluctant to act upon 

wildlife crimes, such as cited in the Lacey Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act because they view them 

as less serious, especially when they are legislatively structured as weaker and 

sometimes even ‘‘petty’’ offences that have weak penalties and cannot serve as predicates for laws that thwart organized crime. This ill informed view has often frustrated us at Interior because our agents have long known that wildlife trafficking 

violations are not isolated infractions worthy of a misdemeanor. 

Wildlife crimes are serious crimes that have insidious effects upon society. In addition to destabilizing the ecology that human communities depend upon, wildlife 
61 

that is poached from iconic national parks and world heritage sites robs the surrounding communities of steady income, encourages corruption, and facilitates other 

crimes. More recently, we are even told of links to terrorism. Additionally, many 

lives are being lost in the war that is being waged to extract rare wildlife for consumption. Scores of park rangers have been murdered in recent years across Africa 

and Asia in their noble and nearly futile attempts to protect their wildlife from 

international crime syndicates. What used to be viewed as mere subsistence poaching has morphed into activity by highly motivated and ruthless criminal organizations that willfully murder park rangers on the lands they protect in order to 

slaughter and extract wildlife. Wildlife trafficking crimes are intrinsically organized 

trans-border crimes that undermine the general rule of law and the integrity of communities and rob them of their ability to manage and benefit from their natural resources. Our judicial system responds to the priorities set by the legislative system. 

Strengthening our wildlife trafficking laws would send a clear signal throughout the 

justice system from officers in the field to judges on the bench that these laws matter. 

Question. What other resources would be useful to the Department in addressing 

this issue? 

Answer. The United States is among the world’s largest consumers of wildlife, 

both legal and illegal. As with any black market trade, it is difficult to determine 

the exact market value or rank the U.S. role in comparison to other nations. However, we remain a significant market for wildlife and wildlife products, including 

elephant ivory. 

On February 25, 2014, the Service issued a Director’s Order to help protect populations of elephants and other endangered or threatened species that are subject to 

illegal trade. Poaching and illegal trade have been decimating African elephant and 

rhinoceros populations in recent years. The changes in the Director’s Order are 

among a set of administrative actions specifically called for under the National 

Strategy on Combating Wildlife Trafficking, which was issued by President Obama 

on February 11, 2014. 

The most significant gaps in the regulatory regime in place before the National 

Strategy was announced was the continued allowance of some commercial imports 

and the largely unregulated domestic trade of African elephant ivory. The administrative actions we are taking or have taken include listing the Southern White 

Rhino under the Endangered Species Act based on similarity of appearance to other 

listed endangered rhino species, implementing a prohibition on all commercial imports of African elephant ivory regardless of age, implementing a prohibition on the 

sale of African elephant ivory across State lines, and implementing stricter controls 

over sale of elephant ivory within the United States, including within States. 

The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget requests the subcommittee’s support of a $3 million increase for its Law Enforcement and International Affairs programs as 

part of the administration’s new National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The funding will be used to combat expanding illegal wildlife trafficking and 

support conservation efforts on the ground in Africa and across the globe. The budget includes important funding to expand wildlife forensic research to produce key 

advancements needed to pinpoint the origin of illegal wildlife products which is critical information necessary to prosecute criminal activity. 

We believe that these actions will dramatically reduce the U.S. role in the illegal 

ivory trade and position the Nation to encourage other major ivory consuming countries to take similar actions. In addition, we continue to evaluate whether there are 

additional tools that could be used to combat wildlife trafficking. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, you are no doubt familiar with the March 17 earthquake that struck the Los Angeles area. It is my understanding that this 4.4 magnitude earthquake is one of the strongest earthquakes to hit Southern California in 

recent years. 

I firmly believe that it is a matter of when, and not if, our next significant earthquake event will occur. 

In fact, the Southern California Earthquake Center estimates that California has 

a 99.7 percent chance of having a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake within the 

next 30 years. The chance of having a catastrophic earthquake with a magnitude 

greater than 7.5 during this period is nearly 50 percent. 

Given the millions of lives and billions of dollars at risk of the next major earthquake, can you give me an update on the status of developing an earthquake early 

warning system for the West Coast? 

Answer. Since 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has funded university research on earthquake early warning (EEW), and has invested approximately $10 

million in research, system development and seismic network modernization in California and elsewhere so that the networks are capable of generating earthquake 
62 

early warnings. In addition, in January 2012, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation awarded $6 million over 3 years to the University of California–Berkeley, 

Caltech, and the University of Washington to perform further research leading to 

a prototype EEW capability for the U.S. West Coast. As a result of these efforts, 

in January 2012, the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system began sending 

test notifications to a small number of test users, which include California emergency response organizations, utilities, rail operators and a number of private companies. 

Before public warnings can be issued routinely, the current ShakeAlert test system must meet quality, speed and reliability standards. Those standards include 

having enough sensors to ensure coverage near earthquake sources. Currently there 

are not enough sensors in the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) network 

to provide fast and reliable alerts uniformly across the U.S. West Coast. Although 

the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas have better sensor coverage than 

other parts of the State, it is estimated that several hundred additional stations will 

be needed to cover all of the earthquake source regions. 

Question. What funding and assistance will your Department provide towards 

completing this critical project? 

Answer. In 2014, Congress appropriated an additional $850,000 for earthquake 

early warning development, which was added to a base funding amount of $600,000. 

As part of the 2015 President’s budget justification, the Department’s request for 

fiscal year 2015 maintains these amounts. 

Question. Secretary Jewell, I continue to be concerned about the management and 

well being of the wild horse populations on public lands managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

It is my understanding that there are now nearly 50,000 horses in long- and 

short-term holding facilities, and that the population of horses that remain in the 

wild is expected to surpass 60,000 during the next fiscal year. 

It is my understanding that last year, the holding costs for horses was $46 million, more than half of the Wild Horse and Burro programs’ annual budget. 

This practice of placing horses into costly holding facilities is not sustainable. 

Long-term solutions for managing the wild horse population in a humane and efficient manner are desperately needed. 

Secretary Jewell, how do you plan to ensure that BLM is on the right fiscal path 

in reducing the number of animals in holding facilities and meeting its goals with 

on-the-range management techniques? 

Answer. For the BLM to sustainably manage wild horses and burros, two things 

are absolutely essential: forging a path forward to slow population growth and finding homes for families that are already off the range. To immediately address these 

issues, the BLM is implementing key recommendations from the June 2013 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report: 

—Population Growth Suppression.—Population growth suppression methods that 

are effective on western herds are needed to curb herd growth and reduce the 

need for removals. In April 2014, the BLM and the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) initiated a second pasture research trial to evaluate the effectiveness 

of new formulations of the SpayVac vaccine, which is currently the most promising contraceptive vaccine available. The BLM has also issued a Request for 

Applications (RFA) for grant funding to support research projects developing 

techniques and protocols for contraception or the spaying/neutering of on-range 

male and female wild horses and burros. The RFA closes in May 2014. 

—Population Estimation.—The BLM has entered into a new Interagency Agreement with the USGS to acquire the technical expertise and assistance necessary 

to implement NAS-endorsed population survey (census) methods. In 2014, the 

BLM will survey one-third of its Herd Management Areas using the NAS-endorsed methods to help account for undetected animals. Accurate population 

data is critical for effective land use planning and herd management. 

The BLM is also collaborating with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to explore the feasibility of launching a prize challenge to inspire a 

scientific solution to wild horse and burro population management challenges. 

Through continued collaboration with stakeholders and an emphasis in developing 

effective population growth suppression methods built on the best available science, 

the BLM remains committed to reforming the Wild Horse and Burro Program and 

maintaining rangeland health on public lands. 

A key component to ensuring long-term program sustainability by reducing the 

number of animals in holding facilities. Toward that goal, the BLM is implementing 

the following actions to curb off-range holding costs and reduce holding facility levels. 
63 

—Adoption Reforms.—The BLM is entering into new partnership agreements to 

increase the number of trained animals available for adoption. The BLM has 

finalized a new agreement with the Humane Society of the United States, and 

also launched the Wild Horse and Burro Inmate Training Initiative to increase 

the number of inmate training programs. The BLM is also in discussions with 

the Defense Services Cooperation Agency and Heifer International to explore 

the possibility of providing animals for humanitarian purposes in developing nations. 

—Lower Cost Holding Facilities.—The BLM continues to seek lower cost holding 

facilities and is currently reviewing three new ecosanctuary proposals. The 

BLM will also be issuing a new Request for Proposals for lower cost long-term 

holding contracts. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

Question. According to the President’s June 26, 2013, Executive Order, the White 

House Council on Native American Affairs was established to ensure that the Federal Government engages in a true and lasting government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribes in a more coordinated and effective manner, 

including by better carrying out its trust responsibility. It states that this policy is 

established as a means of promoting and sustaining prosperous and resilient tribal 

communities, which includes promoting infrastructure to drive economic growth and 

security and to support special efforts to confront historic health disparities and 

chronic diseases. 

The Executive Order also states that the Council shall work across executive departments to improve the quality of life for Native Americans, and make recommendations to the President concerning policy priorities, including improving the 

effectiveness of Federal investments in Native American communities. 

The Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 was enacted to ensure a safe and adequate 

water supply for the residents of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud and Lower Brule Indian 

Reservations. The Project delivers clean drinking water to the Reservations and the 

neighboring non-Indian communities. It is a significant Federal investment intended 

to improve the quality of life on the Reservations. The act clearly states that the 

United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental, water supply and public 

health needs of the Reservations. As you know, the health disparities between Native Americans and non-Indians are vast, with the Native Americans suffering from 

high rates of illness and low life expectancy especially on reservations such as those 

named above where poverty is rampant and access to healthcare is difficult. 

The Mni Wiconi Project is nearly complete, but remaining pieces still must be 

built on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations to ensure the intended beneficiaries are served. Further, the existing community systems that are intended to 

become a part of the Project need to be upgraded and transferred into the Project. 

Also, the Project needs sufficient operation, maintenance and replacement funds to 

ensure the Project can function as intended especially given the United States’ substantial investment in the Project to date. 

The Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation also has vast water infrastructure 

needs. The Federal Government, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Rural Development, has invested more than $65 million in the Mni Waste ́

water system in recent years. This funding will replace and upgrade the core components of the water system, addressing an acute water shortage that threatens public 

health and safety and inhibits economic growth. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

and surrounding communities also face longer term concerns about the state of 

water distribution infrastructure, however. The cost of major upgrades and an expansion of the distribution system to serve the approximately 7,000-acre service 

area in Dewey, Ziebach, Perkins and Meade counties could reach several hundred 

million dollars. 

It is clear to me that addressing infrastructure needs of this magnitude on Indian 

reservations will require substantial engagement and investment from a number of 

different Federal agencies. 

What will you do as Chairwoman of the White House Native American Affairs 

Council to ensure that these critical water infrastructure projects, which are intended to meet basic human needs on Indian reservations, are adequately considered and furthered by the Council? 

Answer. The United States has a unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, 

Executive Orders, and court decisions. The Federal Government has enacted numer-
64 

ous statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a 

trust relationship with Indian tribes. Moreover, the administration recognizes that 

federally recognized Indian tribes are sovereign, self-governing political entities that 

enjoy a government-to-government relationship with the United States Government, 

as expressly recognized in the U.S. Constitution. The President is a strong supporter 

of the principle of tribal self-determination and he is committed to working toward 

fully enabling tribal self-governance. 

In my capacity as Chairwoman of the White House Native American Affairs 

Council, I will advise the President about the full range of issues affecting our Native American communities throughout the country, especially those issues addressing their health and safety. Critical water infrastructure leading to access to adequate potable water is an area on which I and my staff within the Department of 

the Interior have spent considerable time, especially given their importance. I am 

fully engaged in improving the circumstances of Native Americans and their access 

to clean water, though developing or improving water infrastructure projects, such 

as rural water projects with tribal components, and by coordinating the use of limited Federal resources by multiple Federal, State and local agencies. 

The Department of the Interior supports the goal of interagency cooperation and 

efforts to engage other agencies to participate in the Mni Wiconi Project utilizing 

their existing authorities. An interagency agreement, as proposed by the Bureau of 

Reclamation during the August 8, 2012 Joint Consultation Meeting With Federal 

Agencies, has the potential to achieve this objective. The draft agreement discussed 

at that meeting provides that the agencies will meet quarterly during the first year 

to evaluate and prioritize potential system improvements. The agencies then would 

develop a schedule to fund and implement these improvements. By coordinating this 

effort, the agencies, utilizing existing authorities, could leverage multiple funding 

sources, and make more effective use of available Federal funds to accomplish the 

system improvements. 

This proposed interagency agreement and effort also meets the intent of the 

Memorandum of Understanding Among the Department of Agriculture, Department 

of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency To Better Coordinate the Federal Government Efforts in Providing Infrastructure and Promoting 

Sustainable Practices To Support the Provision of Safe Drinking Water and Basic 

Sanitation in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities signed in March 

2013. 

Also within my Department, and in cooperation with the Office of Management 

and Budget, I have charged senior staff with coordinating and improving the planning for future and current operations of Indian water settlements. Staffs from the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Reclamation, the Office of Special Trustee, the 

Secretary’s Indian Water Rights Settlement Office, and my immediate office are 

meeting to develop strategies to ensure the continuation of positive collaboration 

with tribal nations in successful resolving complex, contentious and longstanding 

litigation over water rights. 

The administration will continue to commit significant Federal resources to improving the lives of Native Americans, and the availability of potable water is at 

the top of my agenda. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

WILDFIRE CAP ADJUSTMENT EMERGENCY PROPOSAL

Question. For more than a decade, this subcommittee has provided the Forest 

Service and Department of the Interior with 100 percent of the funds requested to 

fight fires. That amount has been equal to the 10-year average. This has been an 

agreement between the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) and the subcommittee. As the cost and severity of fires have 

increased, the agencies have run out of money mid-year and had to borrow money 

from other programs to pay for fire suppression. Fire borrowing has caused this subcommittee to appropriate additional funding the following year to back pay the borrowed accounts from the previous year. This has taken over $1 billion out of programs across the bill over the last 2 years. We can all agree that this is an inefficient and problematic way to budget. I appreciate the proposal to create a wildfire 

cap adjustment to end fire borrowing, but there are many questions that remain unanswered. 

Under the new proposal, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and Forest Service 

would only need to request 70 percent of the 10-year average and any amounts 
65 

above that would be eligible for disaster cap funding. Can you tell me why the administration chose the 70 percent level? 

Answer. In the proposed new budget framework, the administration wanted to 

limit the use of the cap adjustment to just extraordinary fire costs. The 70 percent 

level is representative of the amount of funding historically needed for wildfires 

which occur in the expected seasonal activity level. The other 30 percent, which 

would be covered in the cap adjustment, represents the level of funding historically 

necessary to cover the wildfires that are above expected seasonal activity. More to 

the point, roughly 99 percent of fires comprise 70 percent of the costs in an average 

year, and thus requesting funding for 70 percent of the 10-year average within the 

discretionary budget caps is essentially funding all but extraordinary fires that 

carry outsized costs. 

The Department of the Interior and Forest Service derived the 70 percent figure 

by analyzing their total number of fires for the years 2008 through 2011 and categorizing them according to each fire’s total cost. Specifically, Interior’s universe of fires 

was grouped into total fire cost categories of $500,000 or less; $500,000 to $1 million; greater than $1 million; greater than $5 million; and greater than $10 million. 

The Forest Service’s (FS’s) universe of fires was grouped into total fire cost categories of less than $2 million; $2 million to $3 million; $3 million to $5 million; 

$5 million to $10 million; $10 million to $15 million; $15 million to $20 million; $20 

million to $30 million; $30 million to $50 million; and over $50 million. The total 

number of Interior fires for the years 2008 thru 2011 was 42,719 fires. The number 

of fires less than $1 million in cost was 42,449 or 99 percent of the fires. The total 

number of Forest Service fires for the years 2008 through 2011 was 28,642. The 

number of fires less than $10 million was 28,596 or 99 percent of those fires. 

The total cost of Interior fires for the years 2008 to 2011 was $1,247,755,482 (in 

fiscal year 2013 dollars). The total cost of fires which were $1 million or less per 

fire was $784,791,923 (in fiscal year 2013 dollars) in those same years, or 63 percent 

of the costs. The total cost of Forest Service fires for the years 2008 to 2011 was 

$5,127,000,000 (in fiscal year 2013 dollars). The total cost of fires which were $10 

million or less per fire was $3,836,000 (in fiscal year 2013 dollars) in those same 

years, or 75 percent. 

The averages when both Interior’s and Forest Service’s data were combined resulted in a percentage split of approximately 70/30. In other words, for the two 

agencies combined, 99 percent of fires consumed 70 percent of total suppression 

costs, while 1 percent of fires consumed 30 percent of total suppression costs. 

Question. For fiscal year 2014, the amount appropriated for fire suppression at 

DOI which was equal to the 10-year average was close to $400 million. Isn’t it the 

case that under your new proposal you would have only had to request 70 percent 

of $400 million thereby freeing up funds (roughly $100 million) to be used elsewhere 

in your budget? In fact, you have touted that these funds can now be used for fire 

prevention activity. 

Answer. The new budget framework for suppression costs aims to stop the crippling fire transfers and create a more responsible way to budget for suppression operations that allows for improved agency planning and management. The budget includes increases of $34.1 million in Preparedness, $2 million in Burned Area Rehabilitation, $4.2 million for fixed costs increases, and $30 million to establish a new 

Resilient Landscapes program. It also funds the hazardous fuels reduction program 

at approximately the 2014 enacted level. 

Question. Have you considered continuing to use the 10-year average as the 

benchmark and only amounts above that level would be eligible for disaster funds? 

Answer. As reflected in its proposed new budget framework, the administration 

believes it is prudent to budget for wildfire suppression costs similarly to how the 

Federal Government budgets for other natural disasters. This means funding the 

more predictable suppression costs within the domestic budget caps and funding the 

unpredictable and extraordinary suppression costs through the cap adjustment. As 

explained in the response to the question above, the 10-year average includes the 

costs of all wildfires. This includes those wildfires that are above an expected seasonal activity level. The administration determined that funding 70 percent of the 

10-year average within the discretionary budget caps is essentially funding all but 

extraordinary fires that carry outsized costs. 

The underlying premise of the new budget framework for suppression costs is to 

stop the crippling fire transfers and create a more responsible way to budget for 

suppression operations that allows for improved agency planning and management. 

The proposed 2015 framework also allows for significant investments in other components of the Wildland Fire Management program which, over the long term, will 

help control suppression costs. Limiting the budget cap adjustment to only costs ex-
66 

ceeding the 10-year average would undermine both of these attributes of the 2015 

President’s budget proposal. 

Currently, the administration has not sent up any specific language on this issue 

but has instead been working with Senators Wyden and Crapo and Congressman 

Simpson on their companion bills. 

Question. Does the administration plan to send up a specific proposal of its own? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA)/Forest Service, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), are meeting with appropriations and authorizing committees about the proposal. The administration has also offered technical assistance in drafting authorizing language. 

S. 1875, the Wildfire Disaster Fund Act of 2013, which would enact the proposed 

wildfire cap adjustment, has been referred to the Budget Committee, but last year 

the administration asked that we carry it in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for 

fiscal year 2014. 

Question. If the Budget Committee does not take action on this bill—which appears unlikely with Chairman Ryan’s objection—would the administration request 

we do it as part of the Interior appropriations bill? 

Answer. The administration has been working closely with the committees of jurisdiction including the House and Senate Budget Committees. An amendment to 

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA) is needed to authorize the cap adjustment and this authorization must be enacted prior to 

enactment of any bill containing the appropriation of wildfire suppression cap adjustment funding. Thus, the amendment could be included in authorizing legislation 

or in an appropriations bill that advances ahead of the bill containing that appropriation. 

Question. If we were to do it on the fiscal year 2015 Interior bill, what would be 

the scoring impact? 

Answer. Although the language to amend BBEDCA to authorize the cap adjustment does not itself score, it must be enacted in advance of an Interior bill that contains an appropriation for wildfire suppression cap adjustment funding. This is because the language establishing the cap adjustment must already be in law prior 

to the consideration of the funding for the cap adjustment in order to permit the 

Budget Committees to increase the 302(b) allocation by the amount of such funding. 

If the amendment is included in the same bill that contains that appropriation, the 

Budget Committees will instead count the cap adjustment funding against the Interior subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation for purposes of congressional enforcement. 

Question. Can you explain whether we could utilize the funding cap adjustment 

in 2015? 

Answer. Yes, as long as the amendment to BBEDCA authorizing the cap adjustment is enacted prior to the consideration of any bill containing the appropriation 

of wildfire suppression cap adjustment funding, the cap adjustment can be utilized 

in fiscal year 2015. 

Currently, CBO scores the Interior bill with the full outlays associated with the 

10-year average. With your proposal, you would only be requesting 70 percent of the 

10-year average. 

Question. Would CBO continue to score the bill with 100 percent of the outlays 

for the 10-year average, or how would this change under your proposal? 

Answer. Once the cap adjustment for wildland fire is enacted, we expect that CBO 

would continue to score budget authority and outlays to the Interior bill based on 

the total amount for that purpose provided in the legislation. However, only 70 percent of the 10-year average would be counted for purposes of enforcing the 302(b) 

allocation. The Budget Committee would permit an increase in the 302(b) allocation 

for the remaining funding provided for wildfire suppression as part of the cap adjustment, subject to the terms of the cap adjustment. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

Question. In fiscal year 2014, the administration proposed capping the amounts 

available to tribes for contract support costs, in what I believe was an effort to circumvent the tribes’ victory in the Ramah case decided by the Supreme Court. 

Thankfully, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the House and Senate 

determined this was not the right approach. Since then, the administration has announced it will pay full contract support costs for the current fiscal year and has 

also requested the full amount in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian 

Health Service budgets for fiscal year 2015. For BIA, this is $251 million. I have 

a few questions about this that go to how your budget is formulated so I’ll ask Ms. 

Suh. 
67 

How are these estimates for contract support costs estimated for your budget submission? 

Answer. Indian Affairs used a number of factors to estimate the Contract Support 

Cost (CSC) amount that is requested in the President’s budget request. The factors 

included prior year CSC Shortfall reports, estimating the CSC need based on the 

amount of funding requested in the Operation of Indian Programs account, and estimating the potential change in the cost associated with administering new and expanded self-determination or self-governance compacts for tribes or tribal organizations. After this analysis, Indian Affairs estimates the total CSC need for fiscal year 

2015 at $251 million ($246 million for Contract Support Cost and $5 million for the 

Indian Self-Determination Fund). This is similar to the methodology used to develop 

the CSC amount included in the Indian Affairs 2014 Operating Plan which was 

$247 million ($242 million for Contract Support Cost and $5 million for the Indian 

Self-Determination Fund). 

Question. For years, we’ve had shortfall reports which have come in after the fact 

and indicated that a sufficient amount was not appropriated in a particular year 

for contract support costs. How, if at all, has the process been improved to more accurately estimate the need in the upcoming year for contract support costs? 

Answer. The methodology for estimating the CSC shortfall amount and total CSC 

funding need has been refined over the years. With each subsequent year, with an 

additional year of data and greater experience, Indian Affairs has aspired to become 

more accurate in estimating these costs. In recent years, one refinement has been 

greater emphasis on basing the CSC estimate on the amount of funding in the Operation of Indian Programs account, which is a major driver of CSC. 

Question. Isn’t it also the case that the need for contract support costs may 

change based on how Congress treats your budget? For example, if you get an increase in several program lines, that will also increase the need for the contract support costs that go to the tribes to deliver the programs. 

Answer. Yes, the total CSC funding need can vary based on the final appropriated 

amounts that Congress enacts. If Congress increases funding for program lines that 

call for CSC, the CSC need will rise. If Congress reduces program lines that call 

for CSC, the CSC need will also decrease. 

GREATER MOOSE’S TOOTH—NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE–ALASKA

Question. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is working to finalize the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Greater Moose’s Tooth development project. This EIS tiers off the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska 

(NPRA) Final Integrated Activity Plan and EIS, and the Alpine Satellite Development Plan Final EIS. GMT–1, as it’s referred to, will allow for the first oil production from the NPRA, which the administration has specifically stated is part of its 

all-of-the-above energy strategy. As with all development projects in Alaska, construction timelines are tight, and several permits must be in place before the project 

may move forward. Simply put, GMT–1 cannot move forward until the EIS is finalized, as subsequent permits will be based on this document. 

The public comment period on the Supplemental EIS is 60 days and does not close 

until April 22. 

Given that this is a Supplemental EIS and tiers off two other Final EISs, do you 

agree that 60 days is sufficient for public comment? 

Answer. The public comment period was not extended and the BLM expects to 

have ongoing public engagement. 

Question. After the public comment period closes, how much time (weeks, 

months?) does the Department expect to need to finalize the document? 

Answer. Public comments received will be reviewed and considered as the BLM 

prepares the Final Supplemental EIS. 

Question. When do you expect the Final EIS to be released? 

Answer. The BLM is working diligently to complete the Final Supplemental EIS; 

however, it is important to note this is a complex undertaking. The project continues 

to move forward as planned and will be released upon consideration of public comments and preparation of the Record of Decision. 

Question. Does the Department have adequate resources to make sure this project 

moves forward this year? 

Answer. The BLM has an interdisciplinary team focused on completing the requirements to move this project forward. 

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON PUBLIC LANDS

Question. Domestic oil and gas development plays a critical role in our Nation’s 

economic and national security. We see daily evidence of this as we continue to 
68 

watch events unfold in Ukraine. Unfortunately, rather than encouraging onshore development, Federal policies make public lands less attractive to investment when 

compared to State and private lands. This results in important resources, revenues, 

and jobs left in the ground. I think it is unfortunate that resource rich States and 

our Nation are not able to take advantage of the myriad benefits responsible domestic development provides. 

For perspective, for every dollar invested in onshore oil and gas development on 

public lands, $88 in revenue is generated. In 2012 this resulted in $3.5 billion in 

onshore lease and royalty revenues to American taxpayers. 

I was dismayed to see the Department’s proposals for oil and gas development, 

which focus on increased fees, higher royalty rates, and shorter lease terms. Especially since activities designed to improve permitting, such as continued funding for 

pilot offices, were not prioritized and the leasing reforms put in place have primarily 

served to give anti-development interests another bite at the apple when it comes 

to litigation. Contrast this with the budget’s request for renewable energy which is 

designed to ‘‘continue to aggressively facilitate and support solar, wind, and geothermal energy development.’’ I support responsible renewable energy development 

on public lands, but I do not support favoring it over traditional energy development. 

Do you know how much revenue is generated by the renewable energy industry 

on public lands compared to the onshore program on public lands? 

Answer. Total revenues from solar, wind, and geothermal authorizations and 

leases on public land were approximately $25 million in fiscal year 2012 and $25.5 

million in fiscal year 2013. Revenues will increase substantially as construction is 

completed on many projects and these facilities enter operation and begin to deliver 

energy to the electric grid. Until recently, there were no commercial scale solar energy facilities operating on public lands managed by the Department. 

The total revenues from the onshore oil and gas program were approximately $2.9 

billion in fiscal year 2012 and $3 billion in fiscal year 2013 from oil and gas royalties, rents, and bonus bids. 

Question. Do you believe we should also aggressively facilitate oil and gas development on public lands? Why or why not? 

Answer. Promoting the efficient, safe, and responsible development of public land 

energy resources is a critical part of the administration’s broad all-of-the-above energy strategy. The BLM actively facilitates oil and gas development on public lands 

as a critical contributor to both the national economy and energy portfolio, while 

also continuing to meet various Federal environmental requirements, such as the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA). Following these mandates, the BLM supports vital oil and gas development activities 

which help our Nation achieve a more secure energy future. 

Question. Do you believe the budget proposal increases or decreases competitiveness of public lands? 

Answer. Federal oil and gas production is an important component in fulfilling 

our Nation’s energy needs and the Department has an obligation to the public to 

ensure a fair return on that production. The Department deems the proposed 

changes necessary to ensure this fair return, and we do not believe they will make 

Federal lands less competitive compared to the States. Onshore Federal oil and gas 

royalty rates, which are currently 12.5 percent, are lower than most States’ royalty 

rates. 

The administration believes that American taxpayers should get a fair return on 

the development of energy resources on their public lands. We feel industry should 

pay the cost of inspecting and monitoring oil and gas activities, as is the case for 

other industries, including offshore oil and gas. This is consistent with the principle 

that the users of the public lands should pay for the cost of both authorizing and 

oversight activities. 

The Department’s intent behind the proposed fee on non-producing leases is to encourage more timely development of Federal lands. The fee will provide an incentive 

for oil and gas companies to either put their leases into production or relinquish 

them so the Department can re-lease those tracts to companies who want to develop 

them. Many States also have similar fees (e.g., escalating rental rates) to encourage 

development. Therefore, the Department does not believe the proposed changes will 

make Federal lands less competitive compared to the States. 

The President’s 2015 budget request also includes a more than 20 percent funding 

increase to strengthen the BLM’s Onshore Oil and Gas Program and supports continued implementation of leasing reforms, enhanced oversight, and a strengthened 

inspections process. Leasing reforms launched in 2010 have cut the rate of protests 

from nearly 50 percent in fiscal year 2009 to approximately 18 percent in fiscal year 
69 

2013, leading to reduced costs and greater certainty for lessees. It is also important 

to note the BLM issued 1,468 leases in fiscal year 2013. 

Question. Given the constraints of our current budget, does the Department consider the impact to investment that increased fees and duplicative regulations have 

on generating revenue for taxpayers when making funding request decisions? 

Answer. The Department has not proposed duplicative or unnecessary regulations. Moreover, we believe that the modest fees proposed on oil and gas operations 

in the 2015 budget request will have a negligible impact on other revenue generation while providing important resources to fund the programs that support responsible oil and gas development on Federal lands. 

The BLM’s 2015 budget request for authority to collect inspection and enforcement fees aligns onshore oil and gas inspections and enforcement with the authority 

the Congress has enacted annually since 2010 for oil and gas inspection and enforcement on the outer continental shelf. The Department estimates the fees will generate $48 million which will allow for a $38 million decrease in net BLM appropriations while still providing for an increase of $10 million for BLM to expand and 

strengthen onshore oil and gas inspection and oversight. 

The additional funding provided by the fee authority is necessary to improve the 

BLM’s capacity for production accountability, safety, and environmental protection. 

The BLM will use the funds to expand capacity to correct deficiencies identified by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a February 2011 report, designating 

Federal management of oil and gas resources as high risk. Funds from the fees will 

be used to increase inspections of Federal and tribal high risk oil and gas cases and 

complete more environmental inspections to ensure environmental requirements are 

being met in all phases of development. Expanding BLM’s capacity to conduct production accountability inspections will better ensure American taxpayers are properly compensated for the value of oil and gas resources developed on the public 

lands. 

The proposed inspection fees would also enable the BLM to be more responsive 

to market demand. This funding will be used to hire new inspectors and improve 

the tools and systems necessary to implement the risk-based inspection program. 

NPRA LAND PLANNING/OTHER LAND PLAN COSTS

Question. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service more than 3 years ago began work 

on a new land management plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The preliminary plan seemed to propose that most of the 19 million-plus-acre refuge, including all of the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) predicts contains between 6.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil— 

America’s largest on shore petroleum resource—would be proposed for wilderness, 

rather than just the 8 million acres already placed in wilderness by the Alaska 

lands act in 1980. In 2013, however, efforts to finish the land management plan 

seemed to have gone into suspended animation, which means the area is being managed as if the new land plan is already in effect. 

Where is the planning process at present and when is a final NPRA revised land 

plan likely to be unveiled? 

Answer. The BLM released the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A) 

Final Integrated Activity Plan (IAP)/EIS on December 19, 2012. On February 20, 

2013, the Record of Decision for the Final IAP/EIS was released and superseded previous land use plans in the management of the 23-million-acre reserve. 

As for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service published a draft revised Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for public 

comment on August 15, 2011. The CCP/EIS proposed six alternatives ranging from 

recommending Wilderness designation for the Brooks Range, the Coastal Plain, and 

the Porcupine Plateau and Wild River designation for the Atigun, Hulahula, 

Kongakut, and Marsh Fork Canning rivers to recommending current management 

practices remain unchanged. A preferred alternative was not identified. Over 

612,000 public comments were received on the draft. These included communications by mail, e-mails, faxes, Web site submissions, and statements at public meetings. The Department is considering the comments received and continues to prepare a final CCP/EIS. 

Question. Also, can you supply for the record what both the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the BLM are planning to spend in fiscal year 2015 on updating land 

management plans in Alaska overall? 

Answer. The BLM funding allocation for updating land management plans in 

Alaska in fiscal year 2015 is $2.1 million and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

estimates that it will spend $300,000 in fiscal year 2015 for updating Comprehen-
70 

sive Conservation Plans on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. The FWS will also 

provide section 7 consultations to Federal agencies in Alaska in 2015, though the 

cost of these consultations is not tracked by agency. 

Question. There are at least three other plans throughout western and central 

Alaska in varying stages of updating/completion, some before their normal planning 

windows. I’m curious about what they are costing the Department. 

Answer. Following is a funding schedule for the Eastern Interior RMP, the Bering 

Sea/Western Interior Resource Management Plan (RMP), the Central Yukon RMP, 

and the NPR–A. 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Plan name 

Fiscal year— 

Total 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1

Eastern Interior RMP ................................ $763 $608 $44 $150 $300 $70 $50 $1,985 

Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP ............. ............ ............ ............ ............ 659 825 948 2,432 

Central Yukon RMP .................................. ............ ............ ............ ............ 561 675 1,020 2,256 

NPR–A ...................................................... ............ 195 940 977 500 ............ ............ 2,612 

1 Anticipated. Actual allocation may vary based on needs, scheduling, and competing priorities. 

LEGACY WELL CLEANUP

Question. Madam Secretary, we have spoken often about the need for the Department to speed up the cleanup of 136 abandoned oil and gas exploration wells in 

northern Alaska, wells drilled by the Government in both the 1940s and late 1980s 

and early 1990s. You had about $1 million in your budget last year for such cleanups. Fortunately, in the Helium bill last fall we were able to increase your cleanup 

funding by $50 million so that the Department will be able to tackle the worst of 

the wells in coming years and gain efficiencies by being able to reduce mobilization 

costs and improve coordination of the cleanup efforts. But that $50 million will not 

solve all of the problems. 

Will the Department change its priorities and increase its regular budgetary funding to tackle environmental cleanups of abandoned Federal wells on an annual 

basis, since their cleanup truly is a Federal responsibility, so that we aren’t back 

in the same position in 6 years of having insufficient funding to clean up environmental problems on Federal lands? 

Answer. The Department appreciates your role in the passage of the Helium 

Stewardship Act of 2013, which allows BLM to continue to provide stability to the 

helium market and support 21st century jobs and industry. The bill also provides 

a major funding source to address the worst abandoned oil and gas exploration 

wells. This funding will significantly increase the speed of remediation efforts at 

those high priority wells. 

When Congress transferred administration of the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 

4 in 1976 (legislatively renamed the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska or NPR– 

A), the Department inherited a massive legacy of federally drilled oil and gas exploration wells. Some of these wells have never been properly plugged and closed and 

the workload was well beyond the scope of the DOI environmental cleanup budget. 

To date, nearly $90 million has been spent cataloging, monitoring and remediating 

these legacy wells. 

The BLM will continue to coordinate efforts with the State of Alaska and the 

North Slope Borough in addressing well plugging and cleanup activities so these 

wells can be closed in a manner consistent with State and Federal law. Although 

it is premature to discuss budget priorities for the years 2020 and beyond, the BLM 

will keep the subcommittee fully informed of its progress over time with the objective of ensuring no surprises as we work through this legacy workload. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CENTENNIAL INITIATIVE

Question. The Department’s budget contains a proposal in support of the Park 

Service Centennial in 2016. We all support the National Parks and recognize the 

importance of this event. The most significant feature of this proposal is the request 

for $300 million in each of the next 3 years in mandatory funding, $100 million to 

be matched by private partners, for what your budget describes as signature 

projects and $200 million for deferred maintenance projects. The budget also indicates that you plan to send up a legislative proposal for this initiative later this 

year. 

Can you explain to me what you mean by signature projects? In other words, 

what are the criteria for qualifying for a project with these funds? 
71 

Answer. The minimum eligibility requirement for a project is that they have a one 

to one partner match to Federal funds. Preference will be given to projects with a 

higher partner match, a clear and immediate visitor benefit, and an ability to be 

obligated in a timely manner. The visitor benefit may include projects such as educational programing, providing increased visitor access, or rehabilitating a visitor 

use asset. All parks and partners are eligible. 

Question. Will these projects also address the backlog or will they be for new construction? My concern is that many folks who may give private donations may be 

interested in new facilities rather than fixing up many existing sites. 

Answer. These projects would support both infrastructure and non-infrastructure 

needs. There is evidence of strong partner support for projects other than new construction. For example, the Yosemite Conservancy is interested in repairing water 

lines to save the habitat of the giant sequoias, and the Gettysburg Foundation is 

interested in rehabilitating the Little Round Top visitor use area. These projects 

would be in addition to the deferred maintenance projects funded through the $200 

million proposal, which will have specific performance measures to track the restoration of the highest priority park assets to good condition. 

Question. Will more rural States with less philanthropic resources be at a disadvantage in competing for funds against wealthier areas? 

Answer. Our partners are very diverse, and their ability to raise funds varies 

widely, but we feel we will be able to match our myriad Centennial efforts to an 

appropriate partner—or partners—as 2016 approaches and the Centennial Initiative 

gains momentum. Our experience with managing the Centennial Challenge program 

from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2010 does not indicate that rural States would 

be at a disadvantage. For example, successful projects were at rural parks such as 

Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, Mesa Verde National Park, Redwood National 

Park, and Andersonville National Historic Site. Many parks in rural States have 

well established friends groups. 

Question. While I support efforts to address the backlog which $200 million of this 

proposal does, what offsets will be used to pay for this new mandatory funding? 

Answer. The administration looks forward to working with Congress on the details of legislation that would advance the Centennial proposal, including the necessary offsets for this new spending. That includes revenue generating proposals in 

DOI’s 2015 budget that are estimated to result in savings to the Treasury of more 

than $2.6 billion over 10 years. While the fiscal climate requires prudence, national 

parks have a proven track record as economic engines. For example, the recently 

released, peer reviewed National Park Visitor Spending Effects report found that 

national parks across the country continued to be important economic engines, generating $26.75 billion in economic activity and supporting 243,000 jobs. In terms of 

leveraging Federal funds, for every dollar invested by taxpayers, $10 is returned to 

the American economy. 

Question. As an appropriator, it always gives me pause when we move portions 

of an agency’s budget offline. What role will this Committee have in overseeing how 

these funds are expended? 

Answer. The administration recognizes the help the Appropriations Committee 

has provided in addressing deferred maintenance in national parks, so we would 

want a legislative proposal to provide for appropriate oversight by this Committee. 

There are a number of options, such as consultations on criteria to be used and notifications now included in annual congressional justifications on the planned allocation of Recreation Fee permanent appropriations. 

KATMAI/BROOKS CAMP BRIDGE

Question. Madam Secretary, your budget request includes $4.4 million for the first 

phase of a $7.5 million project to replace the existing floating bridge at Brooks 

Camp in Katmai National Park with an elevated bridge and walkway. This new 

bridge will be a minimum of 10 feet above the ground. The purpose is to minimize 

human-bear interactions which frequently cause lengthy delays for workers and 

visitors getting back and forth across the Brooks River. 

While these objectives may be worthwhile, I’m troubled by the fact that this 

bridge is part of what I view as an outdated Development Concept Plan (DCP) completed in 1996 that also calls for moving the entire existing Brooks lodge to the 

other side of the river. I completely disagree with that not only because it would 

be totally cost prohibitive, but also because of the historic significance of this facility. It was created by one of Alaska’s aviation pioneers who built this camp before 

Katmai National Park was established. I don’t want to see the construction of this 

bridge if it is part of an effort by the Park Service to move Brooks lodge. 
72 

Is it still the DOI’s position that the Brooks lodge facility must be moved to the 

other side of the Brooks River? 

Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) does not plan to move the historic 

Brooks lodge facility. Once the bridge is finished, the NPS will complete the supporting infrastructure at the Valley Road Administrative Area and move the majority of NPS housing to the south side. This combined effort will significantly reduce 

development on the north side, mitigating impact to cultural resources and bear use 

areas. It will greatly improve the visitor experience. The lodge, campground, cultural exhibits, and limited concessioner housing will remain on the north side. 

Question. Would the Department agree to go back and re-do the existing DCP so 

that it reflects the latest science and budget realities that we are operating under? 

Answer. The 2013 Brooks River Visitor Access EIS amended the 1996 Development Concept Plan (DCP) by retaining existing floatplane access on Naknek Lake 

and Lake Brooks, and approving an elevated bridge and boardwalk system across 

Brooks River. It improves visitor safety by reducing the risk of bear interactions and 

provides for permanent, reliable access across the river. 

The NPS utilized scientific expertise in formulating the 2013 plan (Amended EIS). 

For instance, NPS convened a panel of State, Federal, and university brown bear 

experts to advise the planning team during project scoping. Other special studies 

of cultural resources, river hydrology, geotechnology, and bear movements informed 

the plan. The plan was vetted through full public involvement, including project 

scoping and meetings conducted in Anchorage, King Salmon, and Brooks Camp. 

RED DEVIL MINE/NATIVE LAND CONTAMINATION

Question. First, I want to thank the Secretary for proposing to include $2.7 million to speed remediation of mine waste at the old Red Devil Mine site in Southwest 

Alaska—a situation that has been under consideration between Interior and the 

State of Alaska for more than a decade. However, Red Devil also brings up the 

broader issue of environmental pollution and contamination on lands already conveyed to Alaska Natives under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Currently, 

there are more than 650 such sites on Native lands—lands contaminated prior to 

conveyance—where the Federal Government is statutorily responsible for the cleanup. In 1988, the Department studied the subject and proposed a six-point effort to 

speed up cleanup of such contamination but nothing happened. Last fall, I wrote 

and asked you about the Department’s plans for cleanup. In January, you promised 

the Department would update its contaminated lands survey—and I understand you 

have assigned staff to update that survey. 

My question is how quickly might the updated survey be finished and more importantly, how quickly will the Department devote actual funding and resources to 

clean up contamination caused by Federal agencies? 

Answer. The Department shares your concern that contaminated lands may have 

been conveyed to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations. 

As I stated in my January 2014 letter, the Department is committed to determining 

what sites identified were conveyed under ANCSA in order to continue follow up 

on the six recommendations. The BLM is working cooperatively with the Alaska Native Village CEO Association on this issue and meeting regularly with them to gather information and complete the inventory. The BLM’s goal is to complete the inventory by late summer this year. 

Since January 2014, the BLM–Alaska has designated a full-time project manager 

to focus specifically on the contaminated lands. The project manager’s group is reviewing the BLM’s data to determine what contaminated lands may have been conveyed. A database of this information is being developed, which will allow us to 

prioritize future actions. Once the inventory is completed, the Department will be 

better able to assess the resources appropriate to remediate the contaminated lands. 

ALASKA VOLCANO OBSERVATORY FUNDING

Question. The United States Geological Survey operates the Alaska Volcano Observatory, a joint entity with the University of Alaska. USGS operates five such observatories in the western United States. The observatory maintains a series of seismic monitors on volcanoes in Alaska, largely on the Alaska Peninsula and the Aleutian Chain, near the air corridor for flights to America from Asia. Ash from eruptions is particularly dangerous to such flights as shown by the near crash of a jumbo 

jet years ago. 

According to USGS’s own count, many of the seismic monitors need to upgrade 

to digital technology, as well as the replacement of antennas and batteries since the 

stations are rapidly going off line. Not only is this causing a real health and safety 

issue not just for Alaskans, but international passengers on trans-Pacific flights. 
73 

Your budget contains several increases, such as a $17.1 million increase just for climate change research, while it appears to contain roughly flat funding for the Natural Hazards Program, even though tracking and predicting earthquake and volcanic eruptions would seem to be one of the Department’s most important health 

and safety responsibilities. Your budget seems to call for increases of just $314,000 

for the Earthquakes Program—a sore subject in this the 50th anniversary year of 

the strongest earthquake in North American history—the Good Friday quake in 

Alaska in 1964—and just $187,000 for the Volcano Program, even though the estimate just to maintain just the Alaska seismic monitoring network will cost millions 

additionally a year for maintenance to keep the network from collapsing. 

I’m afraid we’re going to reach a point in the very near future where we simply 

don’t have enough information available to predict and monitor the volcanic activity 

in Alaska, which could have catastrophic consequences. The fiscal year 2014 Conference Report contained language noting these challenges and concerns. 

What is USGS doing to make sure that these monitoring systems don’t collapse 

in the near future, as is predicted? Answer. The fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations report provides $400,000 

toward rapid response to ash forming eruptions and network restoration activities. 

As proposed in the 2015 President’s budget request, these funds will be applied toward installation of monitoring instrumentation at other U.S. volcanoes prone to 

ash-forming eruptions in Washington and Oregon. Restoration of existing Alaskan 

volcano networks is a long-term project with anticipated duration of 3 to 4 years 

at the current funding level. The Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO) received an additional $119,000 in 2014 

to support maintenance work on geophysical monitoring networks on Alaska volcanoes. Of this amount, the USGS will spend $73,000 on equipment and maintenance 

costs for ailing monitoring networks and $46,000 for helicopter support will be routed to the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys through a cooperative agreement to support maintenance of monitoring networks. The high priority 

targets for AVO maintenance work in the summer of 2014 will be the repair of instruments on Shishaldin, Westdahl, and Fisher volcanoes on Unimak Island, where 

all seismic instruments are operating at an impaired level. Shishaldin is experiencing an ongoing low level effusive eruption and seismic instruments are critically 

needed. Additionally, AVO plans network maintenance on the Katmai volcanoes of 

Spurr, Redoubt, Augustine, Akutan, Makushin, and Okmok in 2014, where seismic 

instruments are also operating at an impaired level. No maintenance is planned in 

2014 for Aniakchak or Four Peaked volcanoes where networks have recently failed. 

AVO hopes to re-engineer these networks so they will be more robust and cost effective to operate and plans to make repairs/upgrades in 2015 pending availability of 

funds. 

AVO is also partnering with a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded archeology project through the University of Kansas and Whitman College to place two 

new monitoring stations on Cleveland volcano. Cleveland volcano has been the most 

consistently active volcano in Alaska over the past 5 to 10 years and is currently 

not monitored with ground based instrumentation. This maintenance will lower the 

hazard risk posed to NSF-funded researchers and accompanying USGS scientists 

and provide the means to detect and warn of future eruptions of Cleveland much 

more rapidly than is currently possible. This partnership significantly lowers the 

logistical costs on placing monitoring instrumentation on this very active and very 

remote Aleutian volcano. Future commitments by the NSF GeoPrisms initiative suggest that cost effective ship and helicopter access for maintenance work will continue for at least several more years. 

Question. Could you provide this subcommittee with the current gaps in the monitoring infrastructure at the Alaska Volcano Observatory and the estimated costs to 

maintain a sufficient monitoring system? 

Answer. Currently AVO seismic networks on Aniakchak, Little Sitkin, Four 

Peaked, Wrangell, and Semisopochnoi volcanoes are not operational and seismic networks on Gareloi, Westdahl, Fisher, Shishaldin, Dutton, Peulik, Katmai, and Pavlof 

volcanoes are operating at an impaired level. To repair and consistently maintain 

these networks AVO would need an additional $2.5 million a year for an annual 

budget of $6.5 million to $7 million. AVO currently has no ground-based monitoring 

at several moderate to high threat volcanoes including Kiska, Kasatochi, Seguam, 

Amukta, Yunaska, Carlisle, Cleveland, Herbert, Kagamil, Vsevidof, and Chiginagak 

and these volcanoes represent significant gaps in our ability to address volcanic hazards in Alaska and on North Pacific air routes. 

The Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) has to balance the high threat volcanoes in 

Alaska needing instrumentation with the Very High Threat volcanoes in the 

conterminous United States whose monitoring networks are inadequate for the 
74 

threat they pose—most notably Glacier Peak, Washington (virtually no instrumentation); Baker, Washington; Mt. Hood, Oregon; Lassen Peak, California; and Mt. Shasta, California. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Question. Your fiscal year 2015 proposal asks for $550 million in mandatory 

spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program. The administration has been making similar requests to use mandatory funds for LWCF over 

the last several years and Congress has not enacted any of them. Your budget documents indicate that in fiscal year 2016, the administration will propose the fully authorized level of $900 million for LWCF, paid for entirely through mandatory appropriations. I wholly disagree with this. In a time of tight budgets and overwhelming 

debt, why should Congress, and especially this subcommittee support putting this 

program on auto pilot? LWCF has received roughly $300 million over the last few 

budget cycles in discretionary funds. 

Why should this program be placed above other critical priorities in the Interior 

bill like Indian schools and healthcare and receive guaranteed full funding? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior is entrusted with overseeing Federal 

lands for the benefit of current and future generations. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is an innovative program that has, for nearly 50 years, used revenues from offshore oil and gas development to enhance parks and open spaces in 

every county across the country. The LWCF Act has been one of our Nation’s most 

effective tools for protecting our Nation’s cultural resources, protecting important 

habitat, expanding access for hunting and fishing, creating ballfields and other 

places for kids to play and learn, and protecting Civil War battlefields. 

Congress passed the LWCF Act and established $900 million as its authorized 

funding level to ensure balance between the depletion of one national resource—our 

offshore oil and gas reserves—and the permanent conservation of our lands and waters. Authorizing mandatory funding for the LWCF would realize the original intent 

of this law: to set aside a meaningful portion of the royalties that companies pay 

for developing America’s offshore oil and gas reserves, and reinvest those funds in 

land and water conservation for the benefit of all Americans and future generations. 

Mandatory funding will not remove all congressional discretion over the use of the 

funds, but will provide greater certainty that this portion of our offshore royalties 

are used for their intended purpose: to support the national endowment of lands and 

waters which provide our cities with clean drinking water, provide our children with 

safe places to play, and protect the way of life of our farmers, foresters and ranchers. 

Wisely utilizing the revenues that are deposited into the LWCF account has been 

a high priority for the Department across many administrations, regardless of political affiliation. However, it is one of many priorities that must be balanced. The administration is also committed to ensuring that Native American youth who attend 

Bureau of Indian Education-funded schools benefit from academically rigorous, culturally appropriate education that will prepare Indian students to be successful citizens and future leaders in their communities and help build safer, stronger, 

healthier, and more prosperous Indian communities and economies. Improving education and literacy in tribal nations is essential to vitalizing community life, stimulating economic development, increasing employment opportunities, and improving 

standards of living for future generations of Native Americans. A thriving educational system for American Indian students is a critical component of the broader 

initiative to strengthen tribal communities. 

Indian Affairs owns or provides funding for a significant inventory of buildings 

and other facilities across the Nation, including education facilities in Indian country. Currently, Indian Affairs provides funds for facility programs for 183 academic 

and resident-only campuses. From 2002 through 2014, over $2 billion, including 

$300 million of funding made available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, has been provided for construction, improvement, and repair projects that have 

reduced the number of schools in poor condition from more than 120 of the 183 

schools to 63 today. Appropriations for education construction over the last 15 years 

has funded 42 complete school replacements and 62 major renovations, which are 

either completed, funded or under construction. The budget supports progress in 

completing the 2004 Replacement School Construction priority list, providing funding for the Beatrice Rafferty School. 

ALASKA LAND CONVEYANCE

Question. I was disappointed to see that the Department is once again proposing 

to cut funding for completion of Alaska land conveyances. The State of Alaska and 
75 

the Alaska Native corporations are still awaiting conveyance and patenting of the 

149 million acres promised them in 1959 and 1971 in the Statehood Act and the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The last official numbers I saw showed that 

combined, the Government still owes the State and Natives interim conveyance of 

approximately 7 million acres and patents to about 46 million acres. Only 4 years ago, the funding for these conveyances was roughly $34 million, but the administration proposed to cut that by over 50 percent to just $16.6 million in 

fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2014, Congress provided $22 million, which should 

help to speed up the required land surveys. I was disappointed, then, when your 

fiscal year 2015 budget request of only $19 million again proposes to cut funding 

for this important program. While $3 million may not seem significant, the extra 

funding could help complete conveyances within 5 to 10 years, instead of the 20 or 

30 years that likely would be result if funding fell back to fiscal year 2013 levels. 

Why is the Department again seeking to cut conveyance funding when completing 

the conveyances is clearly a legal obligation under three different Federal laws? 

Answer. The BLM has innovated and modernized its survey and business practices in Alaska and is already achieving faster and improved outcomes with a smaller investment. Under previous processes, the remaining conveyances would have 

taken decades to complete (until approximately 2045). To accelerate the timeframe 

for completing the remaining survey and conveyance requirements, the BLM transformed its survey technique to expedite land transfers. The new approach reduces 

physical monuments in the ground and provides precise geospatial data for land 

boundaries, reducing the cost of surveys by up to 50 percent and accelerating timeframes for the final patenting of lands to the State. With this new initiative, the 

BLM will meet its obligation to the State and Alaskan Natives substantially sooner 

and more economically. The 2015 request level plots a course for completing all surveys and land transfers in 10 years. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. In February 2013 a study was released that estimated National Herit- age Areas contribute $12.9 billion annually to our Nation’s economy. The study also 

reported that the 49 National Heritage Areas across the country support 148,000 

jobs and contribute $1.2 billion in Federal taxes annually. Would the President’s 

budget proposed 54 percent reduction in funding for the Heritage Partnership Program have an effect on the economic impact and jobs supported by National Heritage Areas? 

Answer. The reduction proposed in the President’s budget supports the directive 

for the more established National Heritage Areas (NHAs) to work toward becoming 

more self-sufficient. This directive was provided in the House Report 111–180 for 

the fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations bill. As NHAs develop other sources of 

non-appropriated funding to attain operational self-sufficiency, appropriated funds 

would still leverage significant economic benefits, including job creation, through 

tourism and visitor spending. 

The budget provides support to sustain critical functions of the National Park 

Service’s (NPS’) valued NHA partners, especially those areas that are in the process 

of developing and implementing their sustainability plans and forming networks of 

operational and financial partnerships. The performance-based funding formula currently in the process of being implemented for NHAs will, once fully implemented, 

reward NHA entities that bring in additional non-Federal investment and which 

have also developed a sustainability plan. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME

Question. In February 2010, white-nose syndrome was confirmed in the State of 

Tennessee and continues to spread. I am very concerned about this because of the 

potential long-term impact it could have on Tennessee. 

Bats are consumers of enormous numbers of insects that threaten crops and forests. Because of the insects and the amount of insects that bats consume, economic 

analysis estimates that the value of pest suppression bats have per acre ranges from 

$12 to $173, with an average benefit of $74 per acre. The same study estimates the 

total annual agriculture benefit of bats ranging from $3 billion per year to $53 billion per year, with the most likely annual benefit of $22 billion per year. 

As of 2011, agriculture and forestry industries in Tennessee impact the State’s 

economy with $66.4 billion in total economic activity and more than 337,880 in em-
76 

ployment according to the Tennessee Department of Agriculture. So the loss of these 

bats could severely damage the Tennessee economy. 

Would you provide an update on the research the Department has conducted on 

the spread of white-nose syndrome and what the Department’s goals for white-nose 

syndrome are and how do you plan to achieve them? 

Answer. Since discovered in 2007, white-nose syndrome (WNS), caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans (Pd), has killed over 5 million bats, and the disease has spread to 25 U.S. States and five Canadian provinces. The National Park 

Service has detected the fungus in 10 park units. Formally accepted in 2011, the 

National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing 

White-nose Syndrome in Bats (National Plan) provides a framework for coordinating 

the WNS investigation and identifies research and management goals for the collective response to the disease. Numerous discoveries stemming from collaborative research conducted over the last several years at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

and other centers, universities, and State and Federal laboratories have contributed 

to current understanding of WNS and the ability to closely monitor disease spread. 

The result of this research has enabled the USGS to develop an enhanced molecular 

method (real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction) to detect Pd, demonstrate that bat 

hibernacula serve as long-term reservoirs for Pd, characterize the influence of temperature on growth of Pd, determine that infection by Pd disrupts the physiology 

of hibernating bats, and demonstrate that Pd was likely introduced to North America from Europe. 

This fundamental understanding of WNS and the fungus that causes it has facilitated the USGS’ ability to shift the focus of research from disease and pathogen 

characterization to disease management, in accordance with the goals identified in 

the National Plan. Some of the objectives defined below (e.g., enhanced disease surveillance) are sufficiently developed for immediate implementation, while others 

(e.g., vaccination of bats or implementation of a bio-control-based disease management) will require further development and longer-term investment. Ongoing and 

proposed management-based WNS research efforts at the USGS will: 

—Enhance disease surveillance to more precisely define where the fungus Pd occurs and monitor the efficacy of proposed management actions. 

—Investigate the role that environmental conditions play in the outbreaks of 

WNS to provide information to managers to manipulate the environment as a 

strategy to manage the disease. 

—Define the host (bat) response to infection by Pd and what causes the manifestation of the disease to support the development of a vaccine. 

—Develop and disseminate an edible vaccine to protect bats against infection by 

Pd. 

—Define a host (bat) response to fungal infection to support bio-control-based suppression of WNS by manipulation of microbial populations naturally found on 

bat skin (micro-biomes). 

—Characterize soil microbial communities that suppress Pd in underground bat 

hibernation sites to support a bio-control-based strategy to reduce pathogenic 

environmental reservoirs of the fungus. 

—Develop a coordinated bat population monitoring database (NABat) to support 

regional and range-wide inferences about trends in distributions and abundances of bat populations in North America facing mortality from stressors such 

as white-nose syndrome and wind energy. 

—Develop an online national wildlife mortality event reporting system that will 

facilitate the sharing of disease event information, such as outbreak onset and 

ending date, location, species involved, numbers involved, diagnoses, laboratory, 

and contact names. 

Question. Does the research partnership between multiple Federal agencies and 

State agencies provide the best platform to solving this issue of white-nose syndrome? Are we seeing signs of improvement or should there be a more aggressive 

approach to solving this issue? 

Answer. White-nose syndrome is still a significant problem and the continued 

spread of the disease is anticipated to threaten hibernating bat species throughout 

North America. The National Plan for assisting States, Federal agencies and tribes 

in managing WNS in bats was formally accepted in May 2011 and serves as the 

framework for the coordination of agency and partner efforts to respond to WNS. 

The multi-agency response to WNS has been greatly enhanced by operating collectively under the National Plan by providing a governance structure and mechanism 

for collaboration to ensure agency actions are coordinated, meeting the priority 

needs, and are not duplicative. A sister Canadian plan, adapted from the U.S. National Plan, has also facilitated research and response activities with many agency 

and academic partners in Canada. The National Plan identifies seven elements that 
77 

are critical to the investigation and management of the disease and describes the 

goals, objectives, and action items of the working groups established to handle each 

element. Collectively, the objectives and actions identified in the base plan address 

the greatest needs and knowledge gaps that must be covered in order to manage 

the disease. The objectives also reflect a scientific approach that is solidly based in 

research, which is necessary when facing the many questions inherent in the response to the outbreak of an emerging disease. 

The response to WNS has been significantly enhanced by the partnerships and 

collaborations that have developed to combat this novel disease, and the participation of State and Federal agencies has been integral to the efforts. The progress that 

has been made since the discovery of the disease in 2007 is considerable, and is virtually unprecedented in a wildlife disease response of this nature. WNS has brought 

Federal and State agency researchers and managers together with academics and 

non-government researchers across multiple disciplines and multiple countries. 

State agencies are largely responsible for monitoring populations of susceptible bat 

species, most of which are State trust species, and for managing the disease at the 

local level. State agencies also provide critical support for research projects conducted by Federal and non-government researchers. Federal agencies fund and conduct research, facilitate cross-border collaboration, and promote consistent approaches among States and on Federal lands. Additionally, the ability of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service to make funds available to State and Federal agencies, as well 

as academic and other private researchers, has also helped to promote collaboration, 

maintain critical State activities, and further the research achievements. 

WNS has continued to spread, and observations this past winter suggest that impacts to bats may be just as severe in the Southeast and Midwest as they have been 

in the Northeast and eastern Canada. There is cause for hope, however, in that 

there is evidence of small numbers of little brown bats persisting in the affected 

area and the USGS is studying these populations to learn how and why they are 

surviving. The advancements to our understanding of disease mechanics and transmission, along with promising research into possible treatment options, are also 

cause for hope that the USGS will be able to develop new tools to manage the disease. These advancements have allowed researchers to shift their focus from basic 

science to management and conservation efforts. These efforts will continue to require attention and resources from all agencies and partners engaged in the international response, and will continue to be guided by the National Plan. 

The progress and successful collaborations fostered by the national response to 

WNS support the use of the WNS National Plan as a model for future wildlife disease response by formalizing this collaborative arrangement into a robust infrastructure to address emerging wildlife diseases. The USGS is working with partners 

to create a National Fish and Wildlife Health Network designed to build a collaborative, operational framework by which Government agencies, tribes, universities 

and professional conservation organizations will cooperate to assist tribal, State and 

Federal agencies in their responsibilities to manage wildlife diseases, and wildlifeassociated pathogens. The mission of the Network will be achieved through collaborative partnerships and the collective, voluntary adoption of protocols and actions 

to address fish and wildlife health issues, such as has been seen with the response 

to WNS. As currently planned, a Coordinating Committee will oversee and coordinate implementation of the Network. The Network will consist of agencies and organizations with the technical expertise to implement the guidelines and plans. The 

primary stakeholders are the tribal, State, and Federal government agencies responsible for managing the health of free ranging fish, wildlife, and marine animal populations. Specific areas of focus for the Network will include: (1) wildlife diagnostic 

laboratory protocols; (2) disease information management and dissemination; (3) coordinated disease surveillance; (4) interagency communication and response plans; 

and (5) species specific health issues. The Network will endeavor to address deficiencies in fish and wildlife disease monitoring and prevention programs where they 

exist, and facilitate the work of existing systems. The creation of this Network will 

be an important step in addressing this critical need. 

In addition to interagency collaboration, the USGS has been working with nongovernmental organizations in support of the Network, including the Marine Mammal Commission, the Wildlife Society, the American Fisheries Society, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Activities include hosting a successful subject 

matter expert workshop, developing a concept paper, and drafting a coordinating 

committee charter. 

The National Park Service (NPS) has detected the fungus in 10 park units. The 

NPS restricts access to caves serving as bat hibernacula or maternity roosts and restricts cave access to visitors which have been screened and hold permits or tour 

tickets. Show caves such as Mammoth Cave National Park remain open with 
78 

screening and decontamination procedures in place. The NPS only approves requests for scientific or educational permits when benefits outweigh the risk. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROY BLUNT

Question. Secretary Jewell, when you came before this Committee on May 7, 2013, 

we discussed at length the CityArchRiver project in St. Louis. As you and Director 

Jarvis have both stated, public-private partnerships will be a part of the new vision 

for Park Service operations. I wanted to review the topics you addressed in the 

hearing last year. If you can please provide the subcommittee with a written response to these items I would appreciate it. 

You stated that: 

—You would visit the Arch soon. I appreciate that you and Secretary Foxx visited 

on August 2, 2013 for the highway groundbreaking allowing time to meet with 

local elected officials, Civic Progress, and Regional Business Council leaders and 

to tour the ground. 

—You would look into the pending agreement between the National Park Service 

and Bi State Development Agency, the long-term agreement having expired in 

December 2012. I am appreciative of your personal attention. The new agreement was signed finally 9 months after in January 2014. However I have concerns the delay has cost the project time and money. 

—You would appoint one point person with whom the local partners can talk and 

help get decisions made. You stated that Peggy O’Dell, the Deputy Director was 

such a point person. Peggy O’Dell has been helpful and I know she is in charge 

of operations at the Park Service headquarters. However it is my understanding 

Ms. O’Dell is not the person who regularly interacts with the project partners, 

such as the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), Great Rivers 

Greenway or CityArchRiver. The partners need a facilitator who can provide 

consistent and transparent communication. The facilitator should meet in person with key partners to work through open issues, ensuring that decisions are 

timely. Project partners have brought an enormous amount of resources to the 

table. When the Park Service is inconsistent or not transparent in communicating and resolving schedule and policy issues, there are consequences, including financial impacts. 

—You were willing to look at public private partnerships ‘‘in a different way’’ and 

to understand partnerships only work in a collaborative way. I again want to 

stress that while I appreciate that the Park Service is in agreement with this 

goal, words must be put into action. Schedule delays because of slow legal reviews or document processing cost the project considerably. Current proposed 

schedule changes will already impact the schedule with a delay of 2 months to 

1 year. I have been informed that extra costs resulting from these schedule 

delays could total approximately $8.7 million. In the joint report language accompanying the 2014 Omnibus Appropriations bill, the Committee included language encouraging the use of public-private partnerships. I will repeat it and 

ask that you include in your responses to these questions the Park Service’s 

plans to meet this charge: 

The Committees encourage the use of public-private partnerships as an 

important tool in the successful operation of land management agencies. 

These partnerships, which leverage Federal dollars with State, local, nonprofit and philanthropy entities, have proven effective at achieving partner 

and Service goals and objectives. The Committees urge the Department and 

Service to reassess recent policy interpretations and review procedures to 

facilitate partnerships that have historically proven beneficial to national 

parks and partners. 

Answer. The National Park Service is extremely pleased to have successfully executed a new agreement with the Bi-State Development Agency. This 50-year partnership serves as one of the best partnership models in the Service and we look forward to a continued relationship. The delay in construction start, along with the associated financial impact, is not a result of the delay in the execution of the Bi-State 

Development Agency agreement. The project team, including representatives of all 

key partners and the National Park Service (NPS) project management and technical team, meet daily to work through design, schedule, and funding issues. The 

NPS team strives to communicate the legal and policy requirements of the project, 

and to explore all opportunities to expedite and benefit the project. We continue to 

work closely with the Foundation to help them develop an approach to fulfill their 

commitment to fund increased operation and maintenance (O&M) costs resulting 
79 

from implementation of the proposed project. The Foundation-managed design process is also approaching completion. Once the Supplemental O&M Agreement with 

the Foundation is executed, completed designs are delivered, and construction funding is in place, we will be able to move forward into long anticipated construction 

phase. The Great Rivers Greenway-funded landscape construction is anticipated to 

begin soon, with the Foundation-funded Arch Visitor Center/Museum project following. 

Question. I understand that the Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, along with other Federal agencies and the State of Missouri, 

is engaged in discussions with The Doe Run Company concerning their legacy liabilities in Southeast Missouri. I had a meeting with your Deputy, Michael Connor, on 

this topic before he was confirmed. Mr. Connor also assured me he would inform 

you of the issue, which I have been told he has. As I hope you will appreciate, Doe 

Run is vital to the regional economy of Southeast Missouri, and the continued viability of the company is a matter of keen interest and importance to me. 

Are you aware of the ongoing discussions involving your Department? 

Answer. Yes, I am aware of the discussions. 

Question. I would also like to ask for your personal assurance that you will pay 

close attention to this matter, and that you will make sure that Doe Run receives 

fair treatment, consistent with the importance of this company to the long-term economic interests of Southeast Missouri. 

Answer. The importance of Doe Run to Southeast Missouri is well understood by 

the Department, as it has been in operation for over 150 years. Close attention is 

being paid to the Doe Run situation. Senator Blunt’s concerns have been heard and 

Doe Run will receive fair treatment. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN HOEVEN

Question. You were recently quoted as saying that you anticipate releasing your 

new regulations for fracking on public land ‘‘sometime in 2014.’’ As you know, I have 

had serious concerns about new Federal regulations of hydraulic fracturing on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, which is why I introduced the Empower 

States Act, allowing States and tribes the ability to regulate hydraulic fracturing 

on Federal lands, like BLM land. 

Our tribes still have concerns about the proposed regulation. On March 18, 2014, 

the Three Affiliated Tribes on the Fort Berthold Reservation participated in a consultation with the BLM and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on the proposed rule 

for Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands. Following the consultation, 

the Three Affiliated Tribes sent you a letter expressing their concern that your Department is not seriously considering the tribal impacts of the proposed rule. 

How does your Department plan to work with the tribes to develop a rule that 

affirms tribal self-determination and authority and to comply with the Department’s 

tribal consultation policy? 

Answer. The goal of the hydraulic fracture (HF) rule is to ensure a consistent, 

minimum baseline standard for operations across all public and tribal lands that are 

available for oil and gas development, and aims to streamline and minimize the efforts required to comply with any new requirements, while also protecting Federal 

and tribal interests and resources. The BLM has revised the proposed rule to reduce 

some of the information requirements and avoid duplication with the requirements 

of States (on Federal land) and tribes (on tribal land). The BLM has included various options in the revised proposed HF rule to encourage streamlining, flexibility, 

and more efficient operation on both public and tribal lands. The BLM is committed 

to working closely with tribes to address any concerns on the impacts of the revised 

proposed rule for hydraulic fracturing. The BLM has been actively engaged in tribal 

consultations from the onset of this rulemaking effort. 

Question. North Dakota and other States regulate hydraulic fracturing on State, 

Federal, and private lands. Why do you believe we need the Federal Government 

to add additional regulations when the States regulate this area and FracFocus discloses the chemicals? 

Answer. The BLM has an important role to play in ensuring the safe and effective 

use of hydraulic fracturing techniques on Federal and tribal lands. The current 

rules covering these operations are 30 years old. The goal of the rulemaking is to 

ensure a minimum baseline standard for operations across Federal lands and for Indian trust minerals, including in States and on Indian reservations that are not regulating hydraulic fracturing. The BLM intends to continue to work with the State 

and tribal regulatory agencies to avoid duplication of requirements from certain 

States (on Federal land) and tribes (on tribal land), while also protecting Federal 
80 

and tribal interests and resources. The revised proposed rule also adds a provision 

allowing the BLM to approve a variance that would apply to all lands within the 

boundaries of a State, a tribe, or described as field-wide or basin-wide, that is commensurate with the State or tribal regulatory scheme. The BLM must determine 

that the variance would meet or exceed the effectiveness of the revised proposed 

rule. States and tribes would be invited to work with the BLM to craft variances 

that would allow technologies, processes, or standards required or allowed by the 

State or tribe to be accepted as compliance with the rule. Such variances would 

allow the BLM and tribes to improve efficiency and reduce costs for operators and 

for the agencies. 

Question. The President’s budget provides for $310 million for Public Safety and 

Justice, which funds law enforcement activities on approximately 56 million acres 

of Indian country in 35 States. Programs under this activity include investigative, 

police, and detention services; tribal courts; fire protection; and facilities maintenance. In North Dakota, we’ve had significant population growth in the Bakken, which 

includes the Fort Berthold Reservation, and the BIA recently assumed the child social services on the Spirit Lake Reservation. 

I need to know if you believe this money will help reduce crime on the reservations and help ensure children on the Reservation are safe. 

Answer. The 2015 budget includes a comprehensive and integrated approach to 

address the interrelated problems of poverty, violence, and substance abuse faced 

by Indian communities. In addition to continuing the robust funding support for 

public safety programs, the 2015 budget incorporates an increase of $11.6 million 

for social services and job training programs as part of the Tiwahe Initiative. As 

a longer term effort to address conditions that contribute to crime in Indian communities, the Tiwahe Initiative will support culturally appropriate services with the 

goal of empowering individuals and families through health promotion, family stability, and strengthening tribal communities as a whole. 

Beyond funding, the BIA Office of Justice Services constantly looks for ways to 

improve program effectiveness with other tools and resources. For example, the lessons learned from a successful pilot program to reduce violent crime at four reservations were published in a handbook in June 2012. This compendium of best practices serves as a valuable resource to guide law enforcement entities operating 

throughout Indian country. It includes strategies that proved effective and those 

that didn’t. The information it offers ranges from general approaches to communities policing to detailed instruction on specific crime reduction plans. 

The BIA fully utilizes all resources at its disposal to help reduce crime and ensure 

children are safe in Indian communities across North Dakota, as well as throughout 

the Nation. 

Question. As you are aware, North Dakota’s BLM Field Office in Dickinson has 

been facing a backlog of permit applications for drilling on Federal lands. I am 

pleased that my bill to create the Montana/Dakotas State Office became law last 

December. The BLM has also used innovative approaches to help tackle the workload—bringing in strike teams to the Miles City district headquarters, using teleworkers, and securing land for employee housing. 

In one notable example, the BLM has worked with the North Dakota (ND) Petroleum Council to facilitate extra funds from the oil industry to help pay salaries and 

benefits for five additional employees to process permits in the Bakken region. The 

agreement has important protections against favoritism, so no company receives expedited treatment. I commend BLM for finding creative solutions and fostering collaboration. 

In this time when additional Federal funding is limited, do you think that this 

model can be replicated to other areas and States across the country? Are there any 

other steps that can be taken to increase partnerships with other agencies—like the 

U.S. Forest Service and BIA—as well as industry stakeholders? 

Answer. The BLM remains committed to expediting the processing of applications 

for drilling permits nationwide and advancing the responsible development of oil 

and gas resources on public land. As part of this commitment, the BLM is expanding remote processing so additional staff are able to assist in reviewing permits, and 

establishing one-stop shops where resources are consolidated to further accelerate 

permit review. The BLM is conducting outreach to industry to reduce instances of 

incomplete permitting packages, thereby reducing labor costs and processing times. 

BLM has signed agreements with oil and gas associations that allow industry to 

provide supplemental financial support for agency permitting activities under certain circumstances; however, BLM would prefer to fund these activities through 

more traditional means (e.g., standardized user fees and/or discretionary appropriations) to avoid the potential for conflicts of interest. It should be noted that the 
81 

President’s 2015 budget request includes a more than 20 percent funding increase 

to strengthen the BLM’s Oil and Gas Management program and supports continued 

implementation of leasing reforms, enhanced oversight, and a strengthened inspections process. 

Question. Another issue I am concerned about is the impacts of the proposed grazing administrative fee of $1 per animal unit month will have on our ranchers. How 

has the administration taken into account the impacts this new fee would have on 

ranchers? 

Answer. After analyzing several different fee proposals, including (1) a flat fee of 

$500/permit, (2) a graduated fee schedule based on labor spent by category, (3) a 

graduated fee schedule based on animal unit months (AUMs) billed by category, and 

(4) a fee based on AUMs billed, the BLM determined that No. 4, an administrative 

fee charged on the basis of actual grazing use, or animal unit months (AUMs), is 

the most equitable and fair for permittees. The impacts to ranchers would vary depending on their size, i.e. a rancher with 500 AUMs billed would have a $500 bill. 

This may not reflect the actual cost of doing the work; i.e. the cost to process a permit for a 100 AUM permit may be the same as a 5,000 AUM permit. The BLM will 

analyze potential impacts from the permit administration fee proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request during the 3-year pilot period. 

Question. Grazing provides numerous environmental benefits such as managing 

vegetation. How have you taken into consideration the effects that could take place 

if fewer ranchers pay to graze in BLM lands due to increased cost? 

Answer. As a tool for improving the BLM’s administration of grazing permits and 

use, the proposed fee would help the agency manage livestock grazing in a manner 

which achieves and maintains the health of public lands. The BLM will analyze potential effects from the permit administration fee proposed in the President’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget request during the 3-year pilot period. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MIKE JOHANNS

Question. Last year I wrote to the Department of the Interior (DOI) about a draft 

environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Proposed Niobrara Confluence and 

Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas, first asking that the comment period be extended, 

and later asking follow-up questions and expressing strong concerns I was hearing 

from Nebraskans. My office continues to hear of strong concern from constituents 

in that region. 

What are the next steps on this project, and when will they occur? 

We have been told that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National 

Park Service (NPS) will complete a final EIS for the project sometime this summer—perhaps early this summer. Is that a correct understanding? 

After the submission of that final EIS, can we expect an open comment period 

and public meetings in Nebraska? 

Answer. The FWS and the NPS core planning team involved in developing the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Land Protection Plan—Niobrara 

Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas—met in Yankton, South Dakota 

in February 2014 to review the extensive public comments received, develop responses, and discuss a proposed course of action. Due to overwhelming interest, the 

original comment period had been extended to a full 6 months. 

The planning team is continuing to look at the best way to complete the final EIS, 

taking into consideration the desire for additional public input. In early summer, 

a full briefing package will be sent to each member of the Nebraska and South Dakota congressional delegations to answer remaining questions on the overall status 

of the project and when the planning process is expected to be finalized. The current 

goal is to finalize the Land Protection Plan and complete a Record of Decision in 

summer of 2014. 

Question. For the current fiscal year or in the fiscal year covered by the fiscal year 

2015 budget request, do you have any plans to make any designations under the 

Antiquities Act, or to consult or otherwise cooperate with the Executive Office of the 

President to identify properties for designation under the Antiquities Act? 

Answer. As I stated at the hearing, the Antiquities Act, as provided by Congress, 

has been used by Presidents of both parties for more than 100 years as an instrument to preserve and protect critical natural, historical, and scientific resources on 

Federal lands for future generations. As Secretary of the Interior, I do not have the 

authority to designate monuments under the Antiquities Act; that authority is vested in the President. I support the administration’s interest in conducting an open, 

public process that considers input from local, State, and national stakeholders be-
82 

fore any sites are considered for designation as national monuments through the 

Antiquities Act. 

Question. For fiscal year 2015, please explain the extent to which DOI budget resources will be used to help make or manage any forthcoming designations under 

the Antiquities Act and where these designations will be located. 

Answer. There are no specific funds set aside in the fiscal year 2015 budget for 

unplanned yet possible new designations under the Antiquities Act. If necessary, the 

Department could rearrange 2015 funding priorities to accommodate the costs associated with making or managing an unforeseen designation, as such costs would be 

very modest in the first year. 

Question. Are any Antiquities Act designations planned for either the State of Nebraska or in lands or waters contiguous to the State in the current fiscal year or 

in fiscal year 2015? 

Answer. I am not aware of any such planned Antiquities Act designations. 

Question. Is there any legal bar to DOI preparing statements of environmental 

impacts consistent with principles found in the National Environmental Policy Act 

for designations made by the President under authority granted to him in the Antiquities Act? 

Answer. As stated above, the administration supports conducting an open, public 

process that considers input from local, State, and national stakeholders before any 

sites are considered for designation as national monuments through the Antiquities 

Act. While land management agencies typically use the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) process in their development of management plans for new national monuments, I understand that NEPA does not apply to these discretionary 

decisions by the President because the President is not an agency. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator REED. And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., Wednesday, March 26, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 
(83) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 

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

The subcommittee met at 9:25 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Reed, Leahy, Udall, Murkowski, Cochran, 

Hoeven, and Johanns. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY MARYANN FROEHLICH, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL 

OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. I would like to call the hearing to order and welcome everyone here, particularly Administrator Gina McCarthy. 

Thank you. Gina and I understand each other because she has an 

accent similar to mine, and she is a devout Red Sox fan, so the rest 

is sort of nice, but not important. 

So thank you for being here. And she is joined by the Acting 

Chief Financial Officer, Maryann Froehlich. Thank you, Maryann. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request includes $7.9 bil- lion for EPA, and that amount is $310 million, or 4 percent, below 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $8.2 billion. Regrettably, this 

is the fourth year in a row that the administration has set up a 

declining budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and I want to express my disappointment frankly. We 

worked awfully hard, Senator Murkowski and I, to ensure that 

there were adequate resources for EPA facing significant challenges. And again, the administration sent up a budget that rolls 

that progress back. 

In addition to cutting the Agency’s budget this year, the Agency 

is proposing a workforce reduction that will bring EPA down to its 

lowest staffing since 1989, and we will talk about that. But despite 

the overall cut, the budget makes some important investments: 

dedicating $200 million to addressing the threat from climate 

change, and providing an additional $23 million for chemical safety 

work that will reduce the risk with the exposure to chemicals. The 

budget request also includes $70 million for an issue called 
84 

E-Enterprise, which will improve electronic data collection and 

availability for States and the regulated community. 

There are other encouraging fund increases. The request pro- poses $5 million for the geographic program to restore southern 

New England watersheds, and I thank the proposal for that. These 

funds will support the effort to protect, enhance, and restore the 

coastal watershed of southern New England, including Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island. The National Estuaries Program is 

funded at $26 million, an increase of $1.6 million. And also an additional $76 million is provided for categorical grants to help States 

and tribes with their environmental problems and programs for a 

total of $1.13 billion. 

Unfortunately, these very positive signs are undercut by the proposal with respect to clean water and drinking State revolving 

funds. Once again, I voice my strong disagreement with the proposed decreases to the State revolving funds. The largest reduction 

in EPA’s budget request is to these funds, cutting them by $581 

million, or 25 percent below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. And 

if realized, this cut would translate into 32,000 fewer jobs and 270 

fewer infrastructure projects nationally. 

This program is not only necessary to replace aging infrastructure and to create new environmentally sensitive infrastructure, 

but also directly cuts job creation. And I find that ironic because 

the President in February said one of the fastest and best ways to 

create new jobs is rebuilding America’s infrastructure. And if we 

take this money, you impede the reconstruction of our infrastructure, and I am troubled to see this proposal, very troubled. 

And I believe the cuts to the State revolving funds will be a setback for the economy as well as the environment. This is one of 

those programs that is not just about environmental quality. That 

is central. But it is also about economic progress, and that is critical at this moment. 

So there is lots to discuss this morning, and again, I thank the 

Administrator. I commend the Administrator. She has brought extraordinary experience and dedication to her task, and she is someone that I respect immensely. 

With that, let me turn to the ranking member, Senator Murkowski, and ask her for any comments she might make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, 

Administrator. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow on your comments 

about the State revolving funds for water. You and I have had an 

opportunity to discuss the significance of these programs. I was reminded just yesterday in a video teleconference with residents in 

the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, and a woman came to the microphone. She was from a small village called Kalskag, and she spoke 

specifically to the importance of Federal funding to help with water 

and sewer infrastructure. 

She said in her community of Kalskag, they still lack basic infrastructure. It is not like we are trying to build out existing; there 

is none. And it is a situation where in her village they are still 

using honey buckets, which basically means that they have got to 

haul their human waste and dump it, oftentimes very—clearly very 
85 

unsanitary conditions. But she reminded me that in many parts of 

Alaska, we continue to live in third world conditions. And so, I 

share your concern about the significance of funding for our water 

projects. 

Ms. McCarthy, I thank you for your willingness to come to Alaska last August to learn about our State. I got good feedback from 

some of your meetings. I think Alaskans were impressed with your 

candor. You clearly demonstrated a willingness to listen, to really 

try to get a feel for the nature of our land and our people. I think 

that you saw that we have got some pretty unique needs and resources, which present us with some very diverse challenges. And, 

of course, the hope is that when you have an opportunity to come 

and see, there is a greater understanding, a greater appreciation 

of who we are in the places that we call home. 

And I think it is unfortunate that you made some comments a 

couple of months ago, some unfortunate comments that showed 

some insensitivity not only Alaskans generally, but more particularly towards Alaska native culture, and I do appreciate that you 

have apologized for your remarks. But I think it is important that 

you recognize that the way this was then interpreted by Alaskans 

was that this was just yet one more example of how folks in Washington, DC, do not get us, do not understand our way of life, do not 

understand the issues that are so critical between Federal agencies 

and a State like mine. 

And then we have hearings like this where the agencies say we 

understand it. We get it. But when given an opportunity to make 

good on the word, oftentimes we do not see evidence of that. There 

are rules after rules of that that come out, and sometimes we feel 

like we are either ignored or disrespected. 

So I want to make clear to you how some of the statements and 

actions are being interpreted back home because I think that that 

is important for you to include into your calculus. Alaskans are 

looking for collaboration from the agencies that have such a significant impact on our State. We are clearly ready to partner with the 

EPA to continue what we believe is a proud record of resource production and environmental protection. But unfortunately, rather 

than collaboration, we have been on the receiving end of what we 

believe to be a regulatory onslaught that threatens our economy 

and, in certain cases, our way of life. And I think that this budget 

proposal is no exception to that. 

Last year when Deputy Administrator Perciasepe appeared before the subcommittee, we discussed the fact that for several years 

running I have heard more complaints from Alaskans about the 

EPA than any other agency out there. And that trend is still continuing. I am sure that this is the case for other colleagues as well. 

The sheer number of proposed rulemakings coupled with the cost 

of compliance with the vast array of regulations already on the 

books and what at times are the unreasonable consequences of 

their enforcement is very, very frustrating to Alaskans and around 

the country. 

I could spend my entire time here talking about the many existing and proposed EPA regs that profoundly affect the livelihood of 

our families and our businesses, but one of the most troubling is 

the recent development with the EPA’s proposal to change its ap-
86 

plication of the definition of ‘‘Waters of the United States’’ under 

the Clean Water Act. EPA claims that this would clarify the law, 

but in reality it promises to drastically increase EPA’s reach. 

I have described this as a potential showstopper for new development in Alaska. Roughly two-thirds of our State is already considered wetlands, and this rule could dramatically expand the lands 

subject to regulation. So it is not hard to see it as a continuation 

of this administration’s unofficial policy of what I have described 

as protecting Alaska from Alaskans. But in this case when it comes 

to this particular rule, I would suggest that it also has very serious 

impacts across the rest of the country as well. 

I would also note my concerns with rules that are proposed or 

expected for new and existing power plants—methane emissions 

and hydraulic fracking, among others. I am concerned that EPA 

continues to regulate without appropriate coordination with other 

agencies and impacted industry. I think that this agency, above 

others, could jeopardize the affordability and reliability of our energy supply. If we are not careful, I think its rules could cost jobs 

and force us to forego opportunities to create new ones. 

It is not an overstatement to say that recent actions taken by 

EPA would fundamentally change our economy and the lives of the 

people we are here to represent. And so, for this reason it is all the 

more critical that we here in Congress diligently exercise our oversight role. 

I do look forward to our discussion during the hearing. And 

again, thank you for your willingness to serve. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator REED. Before recognizing the Administrator, does anyone 

have a brief statement? All written statements will be made part 

of the record. 

[No response.] 

If there are no opening statements by colleagues, without objection, all statements will be accepted into the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Administrator McCarthy, thank you for taking on one of the most important and 

challenging jobs in the United States. Your agency invokes a lot of strong reactions 

from the public, and certainly from Congress, but in its 43 year history the EPA 

has cleaned the country’s drinking water, reduced our exposure to dangerous chemicals, and penalized polluters. 

Vermonters truly value the environment and the work of the EPA. From cleaner 

air, to conserving open spaces and wildlife, protections from exposure to toxic chemicals, to improving water quality and addressing climate change, I hear regularly 

from Vermonters about issues affecting all aspects of our environment. 

Right now, Vermonters are concerned about our ‘‘great lake,’’ Lake Champlain. 

They want and need a lake for swimming and fishing, and for drinking water. The 

Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce can tell you that a clean Lake Champlain 

attracts businesses and tourists to the region. It serves as a major driver of the 

State’s economy. 

Lake Champlain is, overall, very clean, but some sections of the Lake at some 

times of the year can become seriously impaired with nutrient pollution. For this 

reason, your agency is requiring a new restoration plan, and is working closely with 

the State to review a phase one draft at this time. As we discussed in person late 

last month, success of the new plan will hinge on having a full suite of tools available to address the major sources of phosphorus pollution in the Lake including 
87 

farms, rural town roads, culverts, river channels, as well as small town stormwater 

and transportation infrastructure. 

I hope that the EPA, and this Committee, understands that we face a unique 

challenge for Lake Champlain, compared with other, more urbanized, areas of the 

country. We have a small rural population spread across a largely undeveloped 

landscape, something I know our ranking member can easily relate to. Pollutants 

reach the lake from thousands of small, non-point sources rather than from easily 

identified discharge pipes. This is not a problem that can simply be solved by investments to improve wastewater treatment plants. Those plants contribute only 3 percent of the total phosphorus in Lake Champlain. 

Instead, we must have a broad mix of common-sense policy tools and coordinated 

education, outreach, and funding assistance to a dispersed rural population. 

Vermont cannot afford to handle these tasks on its own. We will need to partner 

with every Federal agency from the Army Corps of Engineers, to Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of 

Agriculture, and of course the EPA in order to succeed in this cleanup, and I thank 

you for your support of those efforts. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator. Administrator McCarthy. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GINA McCARTHY

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member 

Murkowski, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed 

fiscal year 2015 budget. As the chairman indicated, I am joined at 

the table by the Agency’s Acting Chief Financial Officer, Maryann 

Froehlich. 

EPA’s budget request is $7.89 billion for fiscal year 2015 which 

starts on October 1, 2014. This budget meets the challenges of domestic spending constraints while still fulfilling our mission to protect public health and the environment. The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects EPA’s plans to take advantage of new technologies and 

new regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. It recognizes that 

EPA is part of a larger network of environmental partners, and 

State, and tribes, and communities. 

This budget will provide the support for a smaller workforce by 

focusing on real progress and priority areas in communities, climate change and air quality, toxics and chemical safety, and clean 

water. We are asking for $7.5 million and 64 staff in fiscal year 

2015 to help provide green infrastructure, technical assistance for 

up to 100 communities to promote cost-effective approaches for 

water management. 

In addition, this budget request continues our environmental justice efforts. We will do more to partner with States, tribes, and 

local governments, and other Federal agencies. Funding for State 

and Tribal Assistance Grants, or STAG, is once again the largest 

percentage of EPA’s budget. 

Addressing the threat from climate change is one of the greatest 

challenges of this and future generations. The request designates 

$199.5 million specifically for this work. The Agency has added $10 

million and 24 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in fiscal year 2015 to 

support the President’s climate action plan with $2 million designated for adaptation planning. 

The Agency will focus resources in the development of common 

sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants, 

the single largest source of carbon pollution. When it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the President’s budget provides 

support for the States to help them implement the Clean Air Act. 
88 

The EPA budget requests almost $663 million to support the 

work to improve chemical safety for all Americans and especially 

for our children. We are requesting $23 million and 24 FTEs in fiscal year 2015 to support activities under the President’s Executive 

order on chemical safety, as well as Agency efforts on chemical 

prioritization, air toxics, radon, and volatile, again, compounds in 

drinking water. 

The Nation’s water resources are the lifeblood of our communities. We are requesting $1.775 billion for clean water and drinking water State revolving funds. The Agency is also directing $8 

million and 10 FTEs to advance clean water infrastructure and 

sustainable designs like the Municipal Separate Storm Water 

Sewer System Programs for technical support to communities. 

E-Enterprise is a major initiative between EPA and our States 

to modernize our business practices, to get into the 21st century, 

and to look towards the future. The benefits of implementing the 

e-Manifest system include annual savings estimated at $75 million 

for over $160,000 waste handlers. 

In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting over $1.33 billion 

to continue to apply effective approaches for clean up under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Superfund leaking 

underground storage tanks and other authorities. This strategy 

will ensure land is returned to beneficial use. $1.16 billion is requested for the Superfund, and you will see that it includes a $43.4 

million increase from remedial work and an increase of $9.2 million 

for emergency response and removal. The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13 billion for categorical grants. Within this total is over $96 million for tribal 

general assistance grant programs, an $18 million increase for pollution control, a $16 million increase for environmental information 

grants, and a $15 million increase for State and local air quality 

management. 

Lastly, science is the foundation of our work at EPA, and EPA is supported by the President’s request of $537.3 million. Recognizing the importance of the two-year budget agreement Congress 

reached in December, the levels are appropriate for us to be requesting, but they are not sufficient to expand opportunities for all 

Americans and to really drive the kind of growth that we all would 

like to see. For that reason across the Federal Government, the 

budget also includes a separate fully-paid $56 billion initiative. 

Within this initiative is a Climate Resilience Fund, which includes 

$10 million for protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands, and $5 

million to support urban forest enhancement and protection. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Chairman Reed, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify, and I would welcome an opportunity to answer your 

questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GINA MCCARTHY

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed fiscal year 2015 budget. I’m joined by the Agency’s Acting Chief Financial Officer, Maryann Froehlich. 
89 

EPA’s budget request of $7.890 billion for the 2015 fiscal year starting October 

1, 2014 reflects our ongoing efforts to meet the challenges facing the agency today 

and into the future. Despite these challenges, we remain dedicated to protecting 

public health and the environment, and we know we must target staff and resources 

and find new ways to fulfill our mission. We will focus those resources in a way 

that will allow EPA to be more effective and efficient. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget reflects a strategic approach to our budget planning 

process, looking toward the future rather than continuing to simply react to tough 

budget choices with cuts across the Agency. The fiscal year 2015 budget request 

does this in the following ways: 

—It reflects EPA’s incorporation of new technologies and new regulatory and nonregulatory approaches that can help us maintain our efficiency and effectiveness. 

—It strengthens EPA’s partnership with public health and environmental protection partners in States, tribes and local communities with a focus on aligning 

our resources, avoiding duplication, and identifying and closing any gaps in the 

broader environmental enterprise system. 

—It invests our funds and leverages funds of our partners where it makes the 

most sense and gets the biggest bang for the buck. 

Following the framework of priorities laid out in the fiscal year 2014–2018 Strategic Plan and working within our budget, we are committed to ensuring the staff 

we have in program areas and regions make the most sense and will have the most 

impact. 

EPA has already taken steps toward proactive management of our operating 

budget. Through the VERA/VSIP process, we have begun to accelerate attrition 

within EPA both at headquarters and the regions toward a ceiling of 15,000 nonrefundable full-time equivalents (FTE’s). 

Our fiscal year 2015 budget relies on a reduced workforce focused on programs, 

policies, and regulations that matter most to public health and the environment. 

This is not simply about cutting the workforce to save costs. We are reshaping the 

workforce and our work to meet current and future challenges. Doing this includes 

making key investments. 

It makes long-term fiscal sense to invest the cost savings achieved—through a 

smaller workforce and improved use of technology—to work smarter and more effectively. This approach will keep EPA strong, focused on science and the law, and 

transparent in addressing environmental challenges and the results we have 

achieved. 

This budget will provide the support we need to move forward by targeting real 

progress in priority areas: communities, climate change and air quality, toxics and 

chemical safety, and clean water. 

Building on current work on the ground in our communities, we are asking for 

$7.5 million and 64 staff in fiscal year 2015 to work toward efforts that will make 

a difference in people’s everyday lives and in their communities. Those efforts include providing green infrastructure technical assistance for up to 100 communities 

that will promote cost-effective approaches to water management. 

This budget request furthers our environmental justice efforts. The protections 

provided by our national environmental laws must be accessible to everyone. We 

will do more to partner with States, tribes, and local governments and other Federal 

agencies to better coordinate and leverage resources supporting community efforts. 

Addressing the threat from a changing climate is one of the greatest challenges 

of this and future generations. The request for climate change and air quality is 

$1.03 billion—over $41 million more than fiscal year 2014. And it designates $199.5 

million specifically for climate change work. 

Building on existing efforts and base budget resources, the Agency has added $10 

million and dedicates 24 FTE’s in fiscal year 2015 to support the President’s climate 

action plan. $2 million is designated for technical assistance for adaptation planning 

for water utilities at greatest risk from storm surges. Research and development efforts will focus on support tools for at-risk communities and tribes in preparing for 

the impacts of climate change. 

The Agency will focus resources on the development of common sense and achievable greenhouse gas standards for power plants—the single largest source of carbon 

pollution. The President’s budget provides support for the States to help them meet 

their obligations under section 111 of the Clean Air Act with regard to cutting carbon emissions. 

This request also supports the President’s interagency methane strategy and the 

President’s recently announced directive to EPA to develop phase 2 fuel efficiency 

and greenhouse gas standards for heavy-duty vehicles. EPA also will be imple-
90 

menting a range of activities in support of the President’s call to cut energy waste 

in homes, businesses, and factories. 

Chemicals and toxic substances are prevalent in our everyday lives. The EPA budget requests almost $673 million to support work to reduce the risk and increase 

the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution for all Americans and especially children. 

We are requesting $23 million and 24 FTE in fiscal year 2015 to support activities 

under the President’s Executive order on chemical safety, as well as Agency efforts 

on chemical prioritization, air toxics, radon, and volatile organic compounds in 

drinking water. $5 million in resources for air toxics work will enhance our capabilities to design effective regulations and continue developing the national air toxics 

assessment. 

The Nation’s water resources are the lifeblood of our communities. The fiscal year 

2015 budget recognizes the long-term benefits of healthy aquatic systems for all aspects of our daily lives. The Agency is directing $8 million and 10 FTE to advance clean water. Resources 

are also proposed for the municipal separate storm sewer systems program for technical support to communities that must develop effective stormwater permits for the 

first time. 

We are requesting $1.775 billion for the clean water and drinking water State re- volving funds (SRFs). Although this is more than a $580 million decrease over fiscal 

year 2014 levels, Federal capitalization of the SRFs totals over $22 billion since fiscal year 2009, if you include the fiscal year 2015 request. The fiscal year 2015 budget seeks to ensure that Federal dollars provided through the fund lead to the design, 

construction, and support of sustainable water infrastructure. 

The EPA is looking toward future ways to better serve the American people by 

employing technology where it can be used more effectively. E-Enterprise is a major 

joint initiative between EPA and States to modernize our business practices and to 

increase responsiveness. This effort holds the promise of increased effectiveness and 

savings for businesses as well as government. The agency is expanding efforts in 

the second year of the multi-year E-Enterprise business model including focusing 

people and resources to accelerate development of the E-Manifest system and associated rule-making work. For example, the benefits of implementing the E-Manifest 

system include annual savings estimated at $75 million for over 160,000 waste handlers. Transitioning from a paper-based system saves time and effort for every person who used to handle that paper. 

In addition, EPA is making changes to long-standing business practices such as 

contracts, grants management, and the regulation development process. One important area of emphasis is improving freedom of information act (FOIA) and records 

management. In fiscal year 2015, the Agency is requesting over $1.33 billion to continue to 

apply the most effective response approaches for cleanups under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank, and other authorities. This strategy will help ensure land is returned to beneficial use in the most effective way. $1.16 billion is requested for Superfund which 

includes a $43.4 million increase for remedial work and an increase of $9.2 million 

for emergency response and removal. 

In this budget, we hold firm our priority support for State and tribal partners, 

the primary implementers and front line of environmental programs. Funding for 

State and tribal assistance grants—or STAG—is once again the largest percentage 

of the EPA’s budget request and prioritizes funding for State categorical grants. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $1.13 billion in categorical grants— 

a net $76 million increase over fiscal year 2014. 

—Within that total is over $96 million for tribal general assistance program 

grants—a $31 million increase over fiscal year 2014. 

—We also included an $18 million increase for pollution control (section 106). 

—There is a $16 million increase for environmental information grants. 

—There is a $15 million increase for State and local air quality management in 

our request. 

Science is the foundation of our work at the EPA. And science is supported by 

the President’s request of $537.3 million. In fiscal year 2015, the EPA is focusing 

research on the most critical issues facing the Agency. 

These include efforts to: advance chemical prioritization and predictive toxicology, 

help communities make sustainable decisions regarding environmental protection 

and resilience, and inform regional and community level strategies for the use of 

green infrastructure and other innovative alternative practices. 

The EPA continues to focus on reducing its physical footprint and achieving greater energy efficiency. Since 2006, the EPA has released approximately 428 thousand 
91 

square feet of space nationwide, resulting in a cumulative annual rent avoidance of 

over $14.6 million. 

The EPA continues to eliminate programs that have served their purpose, accomplished their mission, or are duplicative. The fiscal year 2015 budget eliminates a 

number of such programs totaling nearly $56 million. These include beaches protection categorical grants, State indoor radon grants, and diesel emissions reductions 

assistance grants. 

Recognizing the importance of the 2-year budget agreement Congress reached in 

December, which the President’s budget adheres to, levels are not sufficient to expand opportunity to all Americans or to drive the growth our economy needs. 

For that reason, across the Federal Government, the budget also includes a separate, fully paid for $56 billion opportunity, growth, and security initiative. This initiative—split evenly between defense and non-defense funding—shows how additional discretionary investments in fiscal year 2015 can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and strengthen national security. 

—Within the initiative is $1 billion for a climate resilience fund, through which 

the budget will invest in research and unlock data to better understand and 

prepare for impacts of a changing climate. These investments will also fund 

breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure. 

—Within the climate resilience fund, EPA will support a nation better prepared 

for the impacts of climate change—with $10 million for protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands, and $5 million to support urban forest enhancement and 

protection. 

We have made some very difficult choices in this budget. But we need to look realistically at challenges we face in the future and make sure we have the best tools 

and people in the right places to make the most difference. Our final fiscal year 

2015 budget reflects a balanced approach to accomplishing this. 

Thank you for the opportunity to touch upon some of the highlights of EPA’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget request in my testimony today. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. I 

will yield my time to Senator Leahy because he has to chair the 

Judiciary Committee at 10:00 this morning. Senator Leahy. 

LAKE CHAMPLAIN GEOGRAPHIC PROGRAM

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy very 

much. And, Administrator McCarthy, we recently met in my office, 

but we have also, even more importantly, met at the celebration 

with the Red Sox at the White House. 

I have put a full statement in the record. It speaks about the 

EPA’s geographic programs, and it speaks about Lake Champlain 

and what we have been doing to try to clear that up. This is the 

largest body of fresh water in the United States outside of the 

Great Lakes and borders New York State, Vermont, and Canada. 

The Federal funding for Lake Champlain that has been cut by 

more than 60 percent over the past 4 years just as we are undertaking a comprehensive lake restoration plan. So my question is, 

how can EPA better support and be involved with the work of the 

Lake Champlain Basin Program, which for 20 years has convened 

all the Federal agencies working to restore and protect Lake Champlain. And how can EPA help to make the case to support Federal 

funding for the kind of assistance we need to do that restoration? 

And I know we have talked with the Governor and everybody else 

on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator Leahy, first I want to thank you 

for your leadership on recognizing as you do the value of Lake 

Champlain and how important it is to the region and to your State 

in particular. I know EPA shares your recognition of that value. 
92 

We are going to be working pretty hard as a follow-up to the 

meeting. The concern is that we are in the process of working together on a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and getting that 

implemented, but all of these things do carry some costs associated 

with it. So we are working with our own EPA offices to look at how 

we can be more supportive, as well as look across at other agencies 

in the programs and the Federal funding that is available. 

But we will be following up with you, and we will do everything 

we can to make sure that we can work with you to restore Lake 

Champlain and maintain its beauty, resilience, and the economic 

vitality it brings to your region. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, it has been authorized at $11 million per 

year. The need has never been greater than what it is going to be 

in 2016. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. I would hope the EPA would support a larger 

funding request for the Lake Champlain Geographic Program in 

2016. We absolutely need it. It is one of the things we do not ever 

want to get into the position, for example, that Lake Erie did decades ago where they had much of the same headwaters in nature 

in their lake. And it became so polluted that one of its tributaries, 

the Cuyahoga River, caught fire. Here is a river on fire for a couple 

of days before they could put it out. 

We are at a point with a beautiful, pristine lake that we can 

keep it that way, but it is going to take some real efforts. So please 

work with us to request more money for that area. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We are happy to work with you, Senator. 

NATIONAL RESILIENCE TASK FORCE

Senator LEAHY. You know, in 2011 we had a catastrophic flood 

in Vermont that dumped nearly as many tons of polluted sediment 

into Lake Champlain in a matter of hours that we normally would 

see in a year or more. So I might ask, how will the proposed budget 

request for climate resilience support with our work in protecting 

Lake Champlain, particularly since EPA has mandated the new 

TMDL will be one of the first in the Nation required to account for 

climate change aspects? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. Well, our work on resilience is multi-faceted, and it is across the administration. Very directly, I know that 

the good folks in Vermont have been very closely working with the 

States that experienced the damage from Hurricane Sandy. They 

have been helping to advise us on how you respond to those challenges, as well as prevent them in the future. 

We have funds set aside to work with a number of communities, 

not only to look at resilience, but how that relates to green infrastructure and our opportunity to look at our waste water and water 

quality changes and our storm water challenges differently. We 

also have a National Resilience Task Force that the President has 

pulled together, and that is an opportunity to learn from across the 

country about the efforts that are underway to adapt to a changing 

climate. 

Each of the agencies, including EPA, has also developed their 

own adaptation plan so that while Vermont may be first, you are 

not going to be the last. We are going to look at actually how State 
93 

Revolving Fund (SRF) funds can be better informed by the changing climate that we see. 

So there are a number of efforts underway, Senator, and we are 

very serious about working with communities to see how we can 

help them stay safe in a changing climate. 

STATE REVOLVING FUND FUNDS

Senator LEAHY. A lot of these efforts cost money. The EPA budget seems to be a more and more bare bones request each year. For 

example, the grants to States for the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund has been cut by $431 million. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the Geographic Program, EPA cut that by $14.6 million. In a little State like ours, that clobbers us. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, it is very difficult, Senator. There are some 

decisions that have to be made. I think we can all agree that the 

SRF is one of the most important to maintain health protections 

for our communities. We have done, I think, a good job over the 

past 5 years to really provide significant resources for these efforts. 

We again did the best job that we could in the 2015 proposal to 

continue with that and to also recognize that the States have significant money available to them from the already-existing State 

revolving funds. We are hoping that the money that the States 

have available on this will be sufficient to continue to maintain 

progress moving forward. 

Senator LEAHY. We will keep working on this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We will. 

Senator LEAHY. And I appreciate your willingness to keep talking 

with us. But we do have a very critical moment in our State. And, 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much for your courtesy. 

Senator REED. You are entirely welcome, Senator. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to 

yield to my colleague who also has to go chair another Appropriations Committee hearing. 

FOREST ROADS

Senator COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And 

thank you to the Senator from Alaska. 

Let me ask you about forest roads. The U.S. Forest Service lands 

in our State of Mississippi, there have been some recent changes 

from EPA’s decisions regarding forest roads as a point source of 

pollution and thereby requiring the filing of compliance with regulations or looking to other agencies besides the U.S. Forest Service 

for regulations in this area. I raise this because in my State we 

have some U.S. Forest Service lands, and logging is permitted, and 

has enjoyed an exemption really in many cases from the filing of 

compliance information with EPA. 

I would just ask you to look into that and be sure that it has not 

been abused or over zealously restricted the use of forest roads, 

which has been a tradition in the Forest Service by anybody, EPA 

included, in maintaining healthy forests. So I am hopeful that 

maybe you can work that out among the two agencies and come out 

with a solution that recognizes legitimate interest of the logging 

community. 
94 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will, Senator. This issue should have been resolved when we revised our storm water permitting program to recognize that you do not need National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for those roads. If, in fact, we are 

also still continuing our interest in this in other ways, I will get 

on that right away, and we will make sure we work something out 

that is reasonable and appropriate. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you very much for that assurance. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. I will 

recognize Senator Udall now, and then return to my colleagues on 

that side of the aisle. 

ABANDONED URANIUM MINES SETTLEMENT

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Reed. And I was pleased 

to see the announcement that the U.S. Government has entered 

into a settlement to clean up toxic remains of abandoned uranium 

mines on the Navajo Nation and elsewhere in the country. This is 

the largest environmental settlement, Madam Administrator, as 

you know, largest environmental settlement in history. And $1 billion of that will go towards clean up of abandoned uranium mines 

and mills on the Navajo Nation. 

Let me first say that I think this is really important progress, 

and it is a vindication of the polluter pays principle, which I think 

is a good, solid free market principle. For too long private industry 

and the Federal Government failed to ensure the safety of uranium 

miners, their families, and people affected by the hazards of exposure to radioactive materials. 

Uranium mining companies emerged overnight, left a legacy of 

sickness and contamination, and then tried to walk away leaving 

others to foot the bill. The Navajo Nation fought hard for fairness 

and settlement, and this settlement helps to right a historic injustice to the Navajo people and the surrounding communities, and I 

think will restore the environment. 

This is a big step forward, but we should remember we still do 

not know the full scope of the contamination. This remains a monumental injustice, and I want to work with you closely to follow the 

progress of the cleanup conducted with these funds to help the 

Navajo Nation until we are all satisfied that the job is done. 

So let me ask, have plans been developed already on how to use 

this settlement money, and when can we expect to see them, and 

when we will see new cleanup activities on the ground in the Nation using these funds? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, first let me thank you for raising 

this. I am pretty proud of this settlement and the work that our 

enforcement staff did on this as well as the Department of Justice 

(DOJ). $4.4 billion dedicated to cleaning up hundreds of contaminated sites is quite an accomplishment. 

The settlement was just announced. The court has to approve the 

settlement. There is a 30-day public comment period associated 

with that. We are very confident that the court will approve it, but 

it has to go through that step. We already have trusts established 

to transfer these funds so that they should become readily available in the shortest time possible. 
95 

Senator UDALL. And you are looking at doing that planning that 

needs to be done so after the court approves it, we can get the 

funds in the right hands. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Senator UDALL. Good. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We have been working on these issues, and, in 

fact, 50 abandoned uranium mines are on our agenda to be one of 

the first orders of business in the Navajo Nation. So we are very 

excited. 

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PROJECT

Senator UDALL. Yes, that is great. Well, thank you. And as I 

said, I think this is historic, and I think it is going to make a big 

difference to the Navajo Nation and to many places where you have 

this uranium contamination. 

I wanted to ask you also about the Waste Isolation Pilot Project 

(WIP), and I would like to thank you, Janet McCabe, and Ron 

Curry for the important EPA presence in Carlsbad to add additional independent air monitoring and personnel. I appreciate that 

many in your Agency have made it clear that the radioactive releases from WIP have been at levels that are a public health danger. And I am hopeful that your monitoring and verification will 

continue to support that. 

Unfortunately, the facts are that two accidents have happened at 

WIP that were not supposed to happen, a fire in a mine and a radiological release. The Department of Energy (DOE) oversight has already been found to be lacking, and that is why it is important to 

the community that an independent public health agency like EPA 

be on the ground overseeing the recovery phase to ensure public 

health is protected. Can you give me an update on the EPA’s arrival at WIP and their planned activities there? My understanding 

is that personnel arrived this week to coordinate their monitoring 

with the reentry of WIP. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is right. EPA’s main job in this is to ensure 

that we are looking at any level that could have been exceeded in 

terms of protectiveness to the outside so that surrounding communities are aware of any concerns. We are monitoring that. 

So far, it looks like any release has been far below any levels 

that are necessary for protection, but we are there. We are on the 

ground. As you know, our region is doing a great job working with 

DOE because we know people have concerns. This is a big deal. So 

we have added our own monitors to DOE’s. We are going to be 

monitoring independently so that we can verify those results. We 

can assure folks that we are doing the right thing and they have 

the information available to them that they need. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. And I cannot tell you how 

much it has been welcomed in the community that you are there 

and doing this monitoring. I think it has brought a comfort level 

in terms of health and safety to the community that we have the 

EPA being an independent monitor of these radiation releases. So 

I thank you for that. 

I just wanted to mention one thing before my time runs out here. 

Our State Environment and Health Department has brought to my 

attention a concerning reduction in the EPA budget on radon. And 
96 

so, we want to work very closely with you on that as we go through 

the budgeting process with Chairman Reed. 

And I thank you again for all the things that you are working 

on. Very much appreciate the New Mexico presence. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator. Senator Murkowski. 

PEBBLE MINE

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. McCarthy, 

I want to start my questions with an issue that Alaskans have 

really been buzzing about, and this is the issue of the Pebble Mine. 

When you were up in Alaska, you had an opportunity to go out to 

the region. You spoke with people. 

I have reserved judgment on the potential Pebble Mine waiting 

for the project developers to present an official plan and then seek 

the permits for it. EPA has decided not to wait, and has instead 

initiated this process that could very well lead to the first ever preemptive veto under 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. 

So my questions to you this morning are in a certain part related 

to timing here. Do the folks at EPA believe that they know exactly 

how the Pebble Mine would be developed? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I think that we are well aware of the Security 

and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings that indicate how the Pebble Mine intends to develop. However—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But we have not seen any permits. We 

have not seen any application. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. We have not seen the definition of that 

plan. So is it not accurate, though, that EPA would still be able to 

veto the project once details and specifics are actually permitted? 

You do not lose that ability to veto later. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And so, I guess my question has always 

been, why not wait until we know what the specifics and what the 

criteria are before you move to effectively veto? And again, a preemptive veto is—this would be first ever. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, without getting into the history of the 

use of 404(c), I want to assure you that what we have done here 

is to take a first step in this conversation. We have not made any 

decision. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I understand. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. And so, one of the, I think, good things about the 

404(c) process that we have just taken a first step on is a first step 

is to talk to the company. It is to talk to the Army Corps and to 

the State to understand the scientific concerns, we have identified 

about this unique place. As we all know, its beauty as well as its 

importance in terms of the world’s largest sock-eyed salmon fishery, and the extent of the mine given how deep the ore is and how 

low grade it is. What kind of lodge transition that area would go 

through is how we make sure that we are going to protect it. 

We do have an option to wait, but we were petitioned and we felt 

that given the science, it was really worthy of a unique response, 

which is to try to get at these issues more quickly given the uncertainty it has raised for the tribes, for the regions, for the economy 
97 

in that area, and that it was worth at least exploring and going 

through the public process associated with it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, and, again, I appreciate you outlining 

that. But I guess I would ask you to put on a different hat rather 

than as head of the EPA. Look at it from the investor’s perspective. 

You are—as an investor, you are now asked to consider the fact 

that EPA may choose to veto a project either before, during, or 

after, maybe even years after it seeks and receive permits. Why 

would anybody choose to put the money out? You mentioned the 

uncertainty to the tribes, but you have got a situation where you 

are effectively stopping any potential for development before the 

idea can really get off the ground if you have this notion that you 

could preemptively veto it before permits come in, during such time 

as you are constructing, or even afterwards. So how are we promoting certainty here? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I think that the Pebble Mine and its investors are well aware of the authority EPA has here. I think the most 

important thing we wanted to do was after you complete a scientific assessment and it shows the potential impacts from a mine 

of this magnitude in that special area—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But again, it is a definition that we have 

not seen yet because no permits have been filed. No application 

pending. You can see the concern from the investor side, I hope, as 

well as from the folks on the ground, how we balance this. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But if we have a process that does not 

allow for certainty along the way, it is pretty difficult to entice anybody to come in and put the dollars up front that would allow for 

a project, allow for economic development within the region, and 

allow for jobs and opportunities. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, I do not think that our intent is 

to create more uncertainty. Our intent is to actually have the conversations we need. If the company is ready for the permit application, they are still free to submit, and we would encourage that. 

But right now, you have a science document that we think deserves 

to be looked at and to be discussed with the company. 

We also want to make clear that this is a very unique circumstance, both what we believe to be such an extraordinarily 

large mine in such a unique area, that this is not a change in 

EPA’s operating procedure. It is an opportunity, I hope, to have the 

conversations that will provide the certainty that the company is 

looking for and the investors are looking for as well. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So you are not planning on exercising a 

preemptive veto then. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have no idea what the end point of this discussion is because it is a process that begins with a conversation. If 

that conversation indicates that concerns remain, it can then go to 

a public process, and so it is an extensive public dialogue. And I 

think that that is what is deserved at this point. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I think you are aware that just at the 

beginning of this week, one of the investors, one of the principals, 

has chosen to convey their interest in the mine to not only Bristol 

Bay Economic Development Corporation, but to a community foundation. And part of the reason for this was a recognition that there 
98 

is so much uncertainty that their ability to, whether it is to find 

additional resources or to really continue in the project, have been 

compromised. 

And so, whether this is intended or unintended, and many in 

Alaska believe that it is intended by the EPA, that this very, very 

strong signal that the Agency could come in at any point before, 

during, or after and pull those permits, it would be a pretty speculative investment on anyone’s behalf to continue on. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I will have an opportunity 

for others when we resume second round. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. 

Madam Administrator, let me go back to the—no surprise—the 

State revolving funds. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

STATE REVOLVING FUND

Senator REED. Over the last 5 years, the administration has sent 

up a budget each year, that reduces their request. Working closely 

with Senator Murkowski and my colleagues, we have restored 

funding and kept our commitment to States and localities. Again, 

this year, rather than simply meeting what we did last year, which 

would be some progress on the side of the administration, they 

again are suggesting a 25 percent cut. EPA’s own estimates suggest that over the next 20 years, we are going to need in the order 

of over $600 billion for infrastructure needs. And at the rate we are 

going, we will never get there, and every year it will get worse and 

worse and worse. 

And we all recognize, too, that the nature of these funds, there 

is State leverage. It is a revolving fund. Some money comes in, 

some goes out. It is one of the most efficient ways to build in this 

country. And it is just baffling to see the administration ignore this 

at a time when every part of this Nation—Senator Murkowski 

spoke about the need to get plumbing out literally to some of her 

constituents. In my situation in Massachusetts and Connecticut, it 

is trying to repair sewer systems that are over a hundred years old 

in many cases, here in Washington, DC, even. So it is just inexplicable that we have to again start not from where we were last 

year, but a 25 percent reduction. So simply, how are we going to 

do this? 

And the final point, everyone here is talking about jobs because 

that has to be our number one priority, and either creating them 

or doing things to avoid their inhibition. This program, it is very 

straightforward. The estimate is about 30,000 people working, and 

these are good jobs. These are technicians and people who are 

skilled in terms of installing, designing. We also have provisions in 

Buy America in the last appropriations bill, which requires that 

the materials now are going to be produced here in the United 

States. 

Again, I find it baffling that the administration would send up 

this budget and you would come up and sort of say, well, everything is fine. So can you explain, please? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Sure. Senator, all things being equal, I would 

love to have given a budget that was much larger on SRF, but we 
99 

had choices to make, and the President was respectful of the bipartisan agreement that was reached. 

The one sort of emphasis I want to place on this is the fact that 

I do not want you to think that the investment in infrastructure 

is limited to what EPA is putting in in terms of new dollars. We 

do anticipate that somewhere in the order of $6 billion will be invested between EPA and State dollars as a result of the State revolving fund. It is an incredibly valuable and important program, 

but it competes against the many other dollars that we are trying 

to support States in our categorical grants and tribes as well in 

local communities. We are doing our best to try to, you know, manage the demands on the agencies in a way that will continue to 

allow EPA to function appropriately and operate. 

These are very difficult decisions, and everyone will have certainly their say. And you will finally on what you think is most appropriate to do, and I respect that. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Senator REED. Well, thank you. Working with my colleagues as 

we have done in the past, I can tell you, my intent is to change 

this so that we put more resources into the SRF than your budget 

calls for. It will translate into a modest step in terms of the overall 

infrastructure problem we have, and also it will put people to work. 

Let me pursue an issue that came up in the context of some of 

your previous responses, and that is how is the climate change 

issue, the monies that you might have there, together with the 

President’s Opportunity Growth Security Initiative, might be able 

to leverage additional support for water and sewer infrastructure. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is a really good question, Mr. Chairman, 

because I know that we have funding that is dedicated towards climate resilience in this budget. We also have funding that is dedicated towards green infrastructure. We have worked with some of 

the larger urban areas on our combined sewer work. All of those 

will be coordinated in a way that will provide additional resources 

to communities and allow them to identify in the case of green infrastructure opportunities to not only recognize that storm water 

demands are changing with a changing climate, but there are less 

expensive ways that allow them to stretch their dollars that are 

being expended on water and waste water infrastructure in a way 

that increases the protectiveness as well as lowers the cost. 

Now, this is not a panacea, but it is a way of trying to stretch 

those dollars effectively. We will be coordinating all of those efforts 

with the States as we move forward. 

Senator REED. Well, thank you, Madam Administrator. And I 

think it is clear, at least I think you know where I am coming 

from—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do. 

Senator REED [continuing]. When it comes to this State revolving 

fund issue. Let me recognize Senator Johanns. 

AERIAL OVER FLIGHTS

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator 

McCarthy, let me start today on a positive note, if I could. Before 

I came over to this hearing, cattlemen were in my office, and they 
100 

wanted me to express to you that they appreciate what they feel 

is a more open environment to the EPA, and I know you are working on that communication. And they feel good about the fact that 

they at least get a chance to be at the table. So I thank you for 

that, and want to express their appreciation. 

Let me, if I might, now ask you a question about actually the omnibus appropriations bill that funded the Government for 2014. 

There was language directing the EPA to file a report with this 

committee within 180 days, and it required the amount of funding 

spent to contract for aerial over flights, the contractor doing the 

work, number of flights performed, geographical areas including 

county and State, fiscal year that the number of enforcement actions was utilized, and there were some other requirements. 

But let me just ask you, do you anticipate any problems in meeting the requirements of that language, number one. And, number 

two, do you anticipate any problems in doing it within the 180 days 

that is specified in that legislation? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, first of all, thank you for the message 

from the Cattlemen’s Association. I am actually meeting with them 

tomorrow. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes, I know that, and that is good. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. So that will be great. On the aerial over flights, 

I am aware that language was inserted into the budget or a report. 

I am not sure which it was. But we are certainly going to be complying with that to the best that we can. I can certainly get back 

to you in advance of that if we see any particular problems. 

Senator JOHANNS. That would be appreciated. This is something 

I have been working on, as you know, for an extended period of 

time. I just want to know what we are doing here. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I understand. 

Senator JOHANNS. And my hope is that there will not be any 

issue, that compliance will be timely, and it will be done as required by the legislation. So I would ask you to reach out to me 

and, for that matter, the committee and let us know how you are 

doing on that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That would be fine. 

Senator JOHANNS. We will be paying attention. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am more than happy to do that, Senator. I 

know this is an issue of great interest to you. 

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Senator JOHANNS. Yes. Let me ask you, if I might, a question or 

two about this issue of Waters of the United States. And I must 

admit how this was done I find to be somewhat confusing, and 

maybe you can fix that. Maybe you can clarify what is going on 

here. 

As I understand, you put the roll out that was intended to clarify 

Waters of the United States, the proposed rule. And then at the 

same time, there was issued a—it is entitled U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Army interpretive rule 

regarding the applicability of the Clean Water Act such and such 

and such. 

The reason why I find that confusing is that the rule comes out— 

the proposed rule, then you have this interpretive document. But 
101 

my understanding of the interpretive document is that you could 

change it this afternoon if you wanted to. You do not have to go 

through any kind of rulemaking process. Why would you not take 

what is in that interpretive document and put it into the proposed 

rule, and are you considering that in terms of the final product? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me explain a little bit for those who 

may not be following it as closely. The Waters of the United States 

was really a rule to try to clarify the jurisdiction of the Clean 

Water Act. It was on the face of some decisions by the Supreme 

Court which really called into question earlier decisions by EPA. 

We wanted to make sure that we provided some solid ground. 

One of the things we did in this was to really work closely with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture to identify the best we could 

not just the fact that we were maintaining all of the agricultural 

exemptions that were currently in place, those not in question, was 

to make sure that we saw over time that the farm practices that 

were exempt under the Clean Water Act were constantly evolving, 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had tremendous 

expertise in conservation practices, that we thought we could give 

a nice boost in the arm to, and at the same time clarify these farm 

practices in a way that did not limit the exemptions, but limited 

the questions that were coming up about what were legitimate 

farm practices. 

So we not only took the exemptions, but we developed this interpretive rule that identified 56 farm practices working with USDA 

so that if these farm practices are what you are doing, you did not 

need to ask a single question about whether they were exempt. You 

knew they were. And so, we tried to do that in a way that would 

allow us to expand on those. 

It is really a collaboration between the USDA and us, and hopefully the agriculture community when they see this as an ability 

to allow farmers to do farming, and to not have to ask permission, 

and to farm with more confidence, and to run their ranches with 

more confidence. So, we will work through these issues. If people 

think we did not get it right, I am fine with that, but just because 

it is not on the list, it does not mean it narrows the exemptions. 

The list is an attempt to say if you are on here, you do not even 

to ask whether it is a farm practice that is exempted. 

We thought we were doing something really good. If in the end 

people do not think it is the right strategy, we can certainly 

rethink this because it is a proposed rule. I am there tomorrow to 

ask questions and to see how people are thinking about it. 

Senator JOHANNS. Yes. I have already run out of time. So many 

questions. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am sorry. I did not mean to take all your time. 

Senator JOHANNS. No, so many questions, so little time. But if 

I might, as you know, you have farm groups already who are 

weighing in expressing concern about the proposed rules, et cetera. 

I think this is an opportunity. I think you think it is an opportunity to say to the farm groups, hey, we are listening. We are 

hearing what you are saying. We want to get this right for you. We 

want to clarify. 

And I think if you just delivered a message for the next weeks 

saying, hey, this not permanent ink on the paper, what we are try-
102 

ing to do and what we are willing to do and want to do is circle 

back with you to get your impression as to whether we get this 

right or not. And if you do not think we did, tell us what direction 

you think we should be going. I think that would be enormously 

reassuring. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, we have gone—I appreciate that, and 

I totally agree with you. I will be out and about not just in DC, 

but we also had a really good meeting with stakeholders in our Office of Water Leadership. What we offered to do was instead of just 

getting together every once in a while, would develop some workshops and look at specific areas of concern so that all the issues 

could be on the table. We could figure out how to collaborate more 

effectively. I really want this rule to work for the agriculture community. 

Senator JOHANNS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

your patience. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hoeven, please. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator, for your recent visit to North Dakota. I want to pick 

up on the Waters of the United States proposed rule that Senator 

Johanns was just asking you about. 

Our farmers are very concerned about this. I want to emphasize 

that. Farm groups and our farmers. I was just back in the State, 

and they are very, very concerned that you are extending the reach 

of EPA beyond navigable waters to anything that you determine 

has significant nexus, which we have no idea what that means or 

how far now you are going to extend EPA reach and authority. And 

when you talk about legitimate farming practices, our farmers 

think they know what those are, and they are very concerned that 

now EPA is going to weigh in and start trying to make that decision. 

So this is of immense concern to the ag community. And how are 

you going to assure us that private property rights are going to be 

protected as you work to extend the reach of EPA beyond what has 

traditionally and historically always been navigable bodies of 

water? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually, Senator, we will do everything we can 

to walk through this rule, and to listen to all the comments, and 

to try to walk through the history of what the Clean Water Act is 

supposed to do. 

The Clean Water Act is supposed to protect navigable waters. We 

did not define the jurisdiction of protecting navigable waters to just 

navigable waters. It is all of the streams and tributaries that can 

actually significantly impact the integrity of navigable waters. That 

has always been part of the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, 

and we are not changing that. 

But what we are doing is paying very careful attention to what 

the Supreme Court told us about it is not just enough to be hydraulically connected to navigable waters. You have to really have an 

ability to significantly impact the integrity of those waters in order 

for a permit to be required. So we are really trying to pay attention 

to that, narrowly crafted to what the Clean Water Act said, and to 

pay attention to the science. 
103 

Our intent is to stick with what we have historically regulated 

under the act, do what the Supreme Court said, and hopefully do 

a little bit more to the agricultural community to provide them the 

certainty that they are looking for. 

Senator HOEVEN. I think there is going to be significant disagreement on whether or not you are, in fact, extending your authority 

here depending on what you do with this significant nexus determination. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Nexus, right. 

AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY

Senator HOEVEN. Going back to what you just talked to Senator 

Johanns about, we need some kind of process for the ag community 

to weigh in here. So you need to build it with USDA wherein stakeholders have opportunity. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. If we are going to do what you just described, 

this needs significant involvement and input from the agricultural 

community. How do we accomplish that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, I just indicated that we have already had 

many meetings, and we are going to have some workshops around 

this. If there are other suggestions, Senator, I am open to them. I 

know that there is concern about this, but there is also an indication to—well, let me just say it clearly. There is a distrust between 

agriculture and EPA, and when we say one word and it can be 

taken well, it might be taken exactly the opposite. We need to work 

on that as a whole, and we need to get the language correct so that 

you are certain that we are doing the right thing here. We will 

work hard to do that. 

Senator HOEVEN. When do you anticipate finalizing the rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I cannot tell you exactly, Senator. We are going 

to take whatever time it takes to get this right. But we generally 

would look for about a year in between a proposal and final is a 

standard process for EPA. 

Senator HOEVEN. One more time. So a year? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. About a year between proposal and final is just 

generally what we look at. But we know there is a lot of anxiety 

about this rule, and we want to get it right. 

Senator HOEVEN. And you are willing to engage in a process with 

USDA and with the farm community—farm and ranch community 

to have a dialogue on this? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. So then we need to work on setting that 

up. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Appreciate that. 

CARBON POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR NEW POWER PLANTS

Senator HOEVEN. Let me switch for just a minute to the subject 

that you were in our State to work on, the CO2 rules. Tell me, with 

these CO2 rules, first in regard to new plants, it is not a rule that 

is achievable in terms of meeting the CO2 emission requirements 

with a natural gas equivalency as you have proposed it, because 

carbon capture and storage (CCS), carbon, capture, and sequestration, is not commercially viable. So how are we going to build any 
104 

new coal plants, even with the latest technology and CCS, with 

your proposed rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, with all due respect, we believe 

that carbon, capture, and sequestration is actually technically feasible, and it is available. 

Senator HOEVEN. No, no—I am sorry. I apologize for interrupting. I did not say ‘‘technically feasible.’’ I said ‘‘commercially 

viable.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, technically feasible and available is the 

standard under the law, and nobody is indicating that CCS is not 

adding cost. The challenge we have here is that we need to provide 

a path forward for coal in what we know is a future that will be 

carbon constrained. 

There are already facilities that are being constructed with CCS. 

This is where new coal and clean coal investment is happening. We 

are hoping to continue to provide an emphasis for that in this regulation, but certainly it is still a proposal and we are looking at the 

comments we receive. But we think this is the future, and we think 

that facilities are investing in it now. We see it for new power 

plants. CCS has been around for a very long time in other applications. 

Let me just mention one thing, Senator. We also took a look at 

what we could do to keep the cost of CCS down as much as possible 

while still providing an emphasis for this technology to continue to 

be developed, continue to be enhanced, and be more cost effective 

by lowering the amount of capture that is required in this rule 

from what we had been considering before. So it is partial capture. 

It is lower cost. It is available now, and we believe it has been technically demonstrated. 

Senator HOEVEN. I know my time is up here, but just let me 

wrap up with the only way that CCS is going to be developed is 

if it becomes commercially viable, so we have got to get it to that 

point. By having a rule that prevents it from ever being put in 

place or from having any company move forward with it, we are 

never going to develop the very technology we need both to produce 

the energy and get the stewardship—environmental stewardship 

we want. 

And that also goes to the proposed rule that you are going to be 

bringing out for existing plants. You have got to show us that 

whatever rule you bring out is commercially viable and that it is 

not going to shut down plants, and what the cost to consumers and 

small business across this country is going to be. It is vitally important as you move forward now with the existing plant rule as well. 

We need to see that it—you know, that it is something is truly 

achievable, not technically achievable. It has to be commercially 

viable. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I heard you and I heard the good folks 

in North Dakota when I was there. And we are working hard to 

do exactly that, and we will have this conversation as many times 

as we see one another and when it comes out, and I will be looking 

forward to it. We are working hard on it. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 
105 

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS

Senator REED. Thank you very much. Let me begin the second 

round by focusing on the issue of renewable fuel standards, the 

EPA proposed volume requirements last November for cellulosic 

biofuel, biomass based diesel, advanced biofuel, total renewable 

fuel. These are sort of stagnant at the 2013 levels. You are recommending about 1.28 billion gallons for both 2014 and 2015. In fact, 

this is not only less than anticipated, it is less than the actual production today, which is about 1.7 billion gallons. 

So, many of my colleagues joined together in a letter, and also 

biodiesel producers in not my State, but across the country, see a 

threat to their operations because of the standards you are setting. 

Can you tell us when you anticipate finalizing the volumes of 2014, 

and will they be increased to encourage more biodiesel? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, the good news is, Senator, that when we 

put the proposal out, we got lots of comments, and there was lots 

of concern. That was not necessarily the good news part is the lots 

of concern, but we got lots of comments. We are looking forward to 

considering those comments in a final. We are hoping to get it done 

quickly. 

You know, personally I think June is likely, and it should never 

go beyond that. I am hoping that we could do better than that, but 

it is pretty complicated, and we need to work it through the process. 

SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND ESTUARIES

Senator REED. Thank you. Let me turn now to another issue, and 

that is the southern New England estuaries. In the omnibus, we 

had $2 million for it. It is very critical to my part of the country, 

your part of the country. And we are pleased that the 2015 budget 

request includes a $3 million increase. Can you give us an idea of 

what activities you hope to pursue, how you are going to select 

these projects and measure success, and the types of projects that 

you would anticipate? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, as you know, these projects are really all 

about habitat restoration and water quality. I am pretty excited 

about the opportunity for increased funds if that comes about. Certainly I think it is pretty important as I know you do as well, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The region has been working pretty hard to put a vision together 

for how these funds could be best expended, and we certainly have 

not done it all alone. We actually have a work group that has been 

initiated that is advising the expenditures and how we can most 

effectively meet the expectations of the people that will be served 

with these dollars. 

So we will not be sitting in our own offices making this decision. 

We will be taking a lot of input from the communities themselves. 

We hope to have a lot that actually provide information that will 

be available for how you deal with climate resilience and adaptation, green infrastructure. We have seen some of it already starting 

to happen, and it is pretty exciting. 
106 

BEACH ACT GRANT PROGRAM

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Let me talk 

about another concern, and that is that in this budget EPA is proposing to eliminate the Beach Act Grant Program. And as you 

know, this program helps States—coastal States to monitor the 

quality of the water. It is actually part of your not only environmental, but your health responsibilities. Without continued funding, there is a real possibility that the States will not have the 

budgets, particularly in our part of the country, to replace this 

money. And the monitoring and water quality attention will diminish significantly. 

Prior to making this determination, did you consider the ability 

of the States to sort of fill the gap, one. Two, you have now, as you 

point out, a significant amount of your resources going to State programs to support State activities all across the country. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator REED. Is this something you are going to insist that they 

continue through other sources so that this beach grant money will 

not be detrimental in its absence? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, as you know, categorical grants were proposed to increase by $76 million. And really the intent of the program eliminations was to look at whether or not there is an ability 

to continue with that without us independently interjecting or creating a fund specifically for that purpose. 

On the Beach Monitoring Program, it is a pretty sort of robust 

program that has been operating for a long time. We think that the 

States have the ability to do this and will continue to do this given 

the importance to them and to us, but clearly there are difficult 

choices that are made. Radon was mentioned as well, which is another eliminated program, as well as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) Program, which for me is a really hard one as 

well. But we did the best we could, and we are hoping to work with 

the States moving forward on beach monitoring. 

Senator REED. Well, thank you. Again, you put your finger on the 

next issue, which is the radon program. Senator Leahy mentioned 

that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

RADON PROGRAM

Senator REED. My home State of Rhode Island, we have, I think, 

three times the national average in terms of the sort of presence 

of radon in homes and other buildings. And it seems we are taking 

away some of these programs, and then we are giving a little bit 

more money to the States in terms of your general support, but giving State budgets their ability to cover all these sorts of gaps— 

beach monitoring, radon programs, et cetera. 

Indeed 23 States reported that they will probably have to eliminate their radon program, and that is another health threat, which, 

you know, you have a lot of issues from the Waters of the United 

States, to the air of the United States, to the health of the American people. And we also understand that States—many States are 

in very difficult situations, Rhode Island being sort of one of those. 
107 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, thank you for raising the rate on it. If 

nothing else, I can remind people that after smoking, the leading 

cause of lung cancer, and it takes approximately 22,000 lives every 

year. It is something that I have been working on myself for quite 

a while. 

We still have a program on radon, Mr. Chairman, so I do not 

want you to think that this is an indication that EPA is not going 

to continue to work with States on radon. But I perfectly understand that it does take some funds away from the States that they 

have been directing towards this issue. 

But we have been working on a Federal radon plan that we actually think is gaining some significant momentum about making 

sure that people who are buying homes and mortgaging homes 

through the Federal Government are actually checking for radon, 

needing to address it, because these are deaths that do not need 

to happen. Every one of them is preventable with really inexpensive tests and, frankly, incredibly inexpensive renovations to address those. 

So it is a frustration, I think, for all of us that we continue to 

talk about radon decades after it hit the news as one of the leading 

causes of death. We need to do better, and I know that. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Senator Murkowski. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take 

you back to the Clean Water Act and the connectivity issue. You 

have indicated to both Senators Hoeven and our colleague from Nebraska that you are continuing these discussions, and I think that 

that is going to be critically important moving ahead. Are you planning to hold any meetings in Alaska on the impact of the rule? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Is that your interest, Senator? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That is absolutely my interest. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Okay. I will take—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In fact, I would ask for a commitment that 

we would—that you would be able to hold at least one, hopefully 

more, public events scheduled in the State so that resource producers, other stakeholders can express their views and concerns. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, I certainly realize that it was 

very helpful for me to go to Alaska because you have told me that 

Alaska is different. I got to see it myself. And I recognize just how 

much of the land mass there is wetlands and how important this 

is going to be. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, let me ask on that question. Do the 

folks at EPA have an estimate for the approximate number of acres 

of land in the State or the percentage of our State that would be 

subject then to the Clean Water Act as a result of this re-interpretation of the Waters of the United States? Do you have that number? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me see if we do have that. I know we 

have a national estimate. I do not know the exact impact on Alaska, but we will certainly respond to that after the hearing. 

[NOTE: The information was not provided for the record.] 
108 

MAPS OF STREAMS AND WETLANDS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I would appreciate that. And the 

other thing I would like you to look at, when my staff was looking 

at the EPA website, they noticed links to maps that purported to 

show streams and wetlands in all the 50 States. But what was 

more of a surprise was that the map of seasonal and rain dependent streams does not actually feature Alaska because apparently 

there is a lack of data. There is a map of drinking water that did 

include Alaska, but again it shows zero data available. 

So it is obviously an issue of concern where supposedly this rule 

is attempting to provide for clarity and efficiency, but in a State 

like Alaska where at least your own maps are not indicating that 

we have the appropriate data within which to base any decisions. 

So I would like talk with you about that as well. But I think prior 

to any meetings that you might be holding in the State, I think it 

is going to be important to be able to provide data so that we can 

look at that as well. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, I am happy to provide you with 

what information I have. But, you know, clearly the interest that 

EPA has is to clearly define what is within the jurisdiction, and 

then what is the process that you need to go to when there is uncertainty. Because what the science has told us is that science can 

define certain parameters, but others require a closer look working 

with States and communities on a case by case basis. 

And so, there is the opportunity to be certain in some areas, but 

to hopefully define a streamlined process in areas where the data 

is not available so that judgments can be made, and the basis of 

those judgments can be consistent as the Army Corps makes 404 

decisions and EPA interjects and comments on some of those. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And I appreciate a desire for consistency 

and certainty, but you have started your comments out recognizing 

that there are unique—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. There are. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. To a State like Alaska—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Absolutely. 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. One-fifth the size of the 

United States of America, a State where—you will get the percentage for me, but in terms of wetlands in our State, some would say 

that almost the entire State is subject to a wetland determination. 

So what that might mean for us is incredibly significant. 

And as I have mentioned in my comments, an interpretation that 

goes a different way could really be a showstopper for us. So we 

need to—we need to have greater understanding. I think it will be 

critically important that you and your staff make sure that Alaska 

is very much given an opportunity to weigh in as these issues move 

forward. 

And I will ask you, we have had a, I think, a pretty good working 

relationship between the senior staff at EPA, who have made themselves available to meet with my senior folks to talk about usually 

a laundry list of issues that we have compiled that come up. Some 

of them we have been able to work through. The issue last year 

was the mom and pop veterinarian clinic—— 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Right. 
109 

Senator MURKOWSKI [continuing]. That subject to the same incineration rules as a major factory. We were able to work through 

some of the specifics. We have a lot more on our plate, not the least 

of which we are still continuing to work on the small incinerator 

initiative. Great deal of concern still with where we are with the 

fish grinding requirements for discharge from offshore processors. 

So I would like your commitment to continue the practice that 

we have had over the past couple of years to have your senior folks 

with operational authority sitting down with my senior advisers in 

discussing many of these issues. And if we can get a meeting 

scheduled sooner than later I think that that would be helpful for 

both sides. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It has been incredibly valuable, and of course we 

will continue that, Senator. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AND DRINKING WATER

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Chairman, I have one more quick question, if I may, and then I will conclude. And this relates to the budget request. On the Agency’s hydraulic fracking study, you have requested an increase of $8.1 million over last year’s level. This study was the result of congressional direction in the 2010 interior bill, which requested an analysis of the ‘‘relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking 

water.’’ 

So now, according to your budget, you are expanding that study 

beyond the original congressional mandate to include additional 

issues, such as water quality in general, air emissions from oil and 

gas operations, including volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants. So the question that I have for you now is 

why has the Agency gone beyond the original scope that was outlined in 2010, and how much are we actually paying for an expansion of this study cost? How much has the Agency spent to this 

point in time? 

As you know, many of us are very concerned about this, and feel 

that the effort coming out of EPA is a duplicative effort. And if we 

are just spending more money in an effort to expand a project that 

really does not have the authorization to expand, we want to know. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, let me be a little bit clearer because I do 

understand your question. On the Office of Research and Development study, which is really focused on looking at the potential 

water impacts related to the full range of hydro fracking operations, we have been expending in 2013, 2014, and 2015, $6.1 million. My understanding is that this budget requests a similar 

amount of $6.1—I am sorry, did I say ‘‘billion?’’ 

Senator MURKOWSKI. You said ‘‘million.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Oh, I was thinking, wow, that would be great, 

would it not? A million for the drinking water study. The additional funds are being used for research that is being done collaboratively with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department 

of the Interior (DOI). $4.3 million of that is looking at water quality in ecological studies that is separate from the Office of Research 

and Development (ORD). That is research efforts. 

Then the $3.8 million is air emissions. This is an effort to look 

at methane that is being emitted in the hydro fracking process 
110 

where we have effectively, and I think nice and quietly and collaboratively, regulated that from natural gas operations during hydro 

fracking. We have other work to do that in area, including in tribal 

regions to actually expand some opportunities for controls to be recognized and sources to be permitted through our minor source permitting process. 

So there is work to be done, and that is a reflection of that overall work on hydro fracking, not an expansion of the ORD study. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I do not know. Based on what you have just 

said, it still sounds to me like there is an expansion of that study. 

You have indicated that you have other agencies that are a part 

of this, but it would appear that it goes beyond what was originally 

asked in our fiscal year 2010 interior bill. 

Now the budget indicates that you expect to have a draft report 

to your scientific advisory board by the end of this year, then you 

publish a final report in—at the end of 2016 apparently. I guess 

the last question would be whether at a minimum, would you agree 

that it does not make sense for the EPA to issue a major rulemaking concerning fracking before the final report is issued and reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Board? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of any rule that is currently 

being contemplated, Senator. This hopefully will bring to light data 

that we have not seen before and will allow everyone to make judgments. Right now, the most important thing that I think we are 

doing is working to provide States some technical information that 

they can use if they want to as the line of first defense to protect 

water in their States. That is how I envision we will continue to 

operate, unless there is a reason that national intervention is necessary. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, and do not get me wrong here. I 

think that the States are doing a good job here in terms of regulating hydraulic fracking. And so, I just do not see that we need 

to add another layer with EPA onto that regulation. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I fully understand that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I am just—I am looking at your budget and 

trying to follow the timeline here, and that is why I raise that 

question. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. All right. I appreciate that, Senator, and we are 

not in disagreement. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my 

questions. I appreciate the comments today. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Thank you, Madam Administrator for your leadership and for 

your testimony here today. And let me indicate that the record will 

remain open for statements and for questions from my colleagues 

until April 16. And I would ask you to respond as quickly as you 

can to any questions that are forwarded to you from the subcommittee. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 
111 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

CUTTING THE WORKFORCE

Question. The fiscal year 2015 budget request proposes cutting EPA’s workforce, 

which is a significant departure from prior years. This year the budget proposes a 

staffing level of 15,000. This is almost 1,600 fewer staff than you asked for last year 

and would result in the lowest agency staffing level since 1989. Please outline EPA’s 

plans for reshaping the workforce? What assurance is there that EPA will retain 

sufficient expertise to fulfill its mission? 

Answer. In the fall of 2013, the EPA began researching the use of voluntary retirement and separation authorities to streamline organizational practices and to realign our workforce to meet changing mission requirements in light of technological 

advances, resource constraints and limited hiring capacity. Nineteen of our regional 

and program offices began developing strategic, office-level proposals that formed 

the basis for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) requests that were submitted to the Office of Personnel Management in late December 2013. Proposals emphasized streamlining administrative processes, consolidating functions to the greatest extent possible and, 

in some cases, updating the skill sets of our workforce. This agency-wide effort was 

undertaken strategically and with thoughtful consideration by all levels of leadership to ensure that critical expertise was retained while allowing the agency to increase efficiency, thus enhancing EPA’s ability to meet its mission. 

Question. There seems to be a discrepancy in the fiscal year 2015 request between 

staff numbers that will decline and an operating budget that will increase. Why 

does the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account increase by 

$113 million dollars if the overall number of employees will be reduced? If EPA isn’t 

investing in its workforce, how will additional operating funds be used? 

Answer. The increase in EPM funds in the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget is 

relative to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Despite the reductions to the workforce, a portion of this increase is for additional payroll costs. Our fiscal year 2015 

request also invests in our workforce by supporting efforts to build a High Performing Organization (HPO). These efforts support our workforce by maximizing efficiency and allowing them to focus on the most important aspects of their work— 

interacting with communities; problem solving by applying accessible and accurate 

data; and developing new approaches to emerging issues—rather than working 

through process steps that add little value. This requires changing the way we do 

business through modernizing our work and taking advantage of advances in technology (e.g. applying software that allows more efficient learning events for all employees and reduces the number of redundant learning management systems). On 

the programmatic side, the additional EPM non-payroll funds requested will enable 

the Agency to make progress on priorities such as implementing priority water 

projects in communities, increasing outreach for brownfields projects to help ensure 

the success of these well received grants, improving data on watersheds to help enhance priority-setting, improving the coordination on chemical plant safety, and 

working with localities at risk for direct impacts from severe storms or other climate 

related events. 

Question. EPA has already started to reduce its workforce through an early 

buyout that offers incentives for voluntary separation from the Agency. Are there 

particular groups of employees targeted for the buyout? Which programs are most 

heavily impacted? When reductions are completed, what will the smaller EPA look 

like? 

Answer. Nineteen of our regional and program offices developed strategic, officelevel proposals that formed the basis for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority 

(VERA) and Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) requests that were 

submitted to the Office of Personnel Management in late December 2013. The proposals emphasized streamlining administrative processes, consolidating functions to 

the greatest extent possible and, in some cases, updating the skill sets of our workforce. Based on these proposals, the five occupational series most often identified to 

be authorized for VERA/VSIPs across the agency were Environmental Protection 

Specialist (0028), General Physical Science (1301), Environmental Engineering 

(0819), General Attorney (0905), and Management and Program Analyst (0343). 

The programs with the highest acceptance rate of VERA/VSIP offers were Superfund: Remedial, Superfund: Enforcement, Civil Enforcement, Surface Water Protection, and Compliance Monitoring. The impacts of these departures were considered 

in the proposals prepared by the regions and programs. 

As a result of the VERA/VSIPs, the EPA will be a more streamlined, efficient organization that is well-poised to take on today’s challenges and those that present 
112 

themselves in the future. The reductions achieved through the VERA/VSIPs are 

spread across 19 regional and program offices; no single office lost a significant 

number of employees. Most offices are now or will soon be engaged in limited, strategic hiring efforts to obtain employees that possess needed skill sets, which will ensure that EPA maintains its scientific and technical edge, and enable the EPA to 

meet its mission requirements. 

EPA FURLOUGHS—PAYROLL DISCREPANCIES

Question. One of the tough budget choices that EPA made last year was the decision to furlough EPA employees. Since that time, it has come to the subcommittee’s 

attention that EPA had at least $33 million dollars of unspent funds at the end of 

the fiscal year. 

Please explain why EPA had unspent funds from fiscal year 2013 and why these 

funds weren’t used to minimize the impact of the furlough on EPA employees? 

Answer. The agency continues to focus on timely use of appropriations to ensure 

that all funds are expended efficiently but also effectively to ensure the most environmental benefit. In many cases, (competitive grants or large contracts, for example) the nature of the work leads to 2-year appropriation funds being committed in 

the second year. Final calculations identifying the amounts and location of carryover 

were completed following the end of year closeout. However, the original need for 

those resources to support the agency mission remained. 

In addition, to maintain the commitment to treating all employees equally, a One 

EPA approach, the carryover would have to have been distributed in the appropriation and program projects aligned with the total payroll need. Lacking transfer authority and certainty on congressional approval for reprogramming requests as well 

as continued uncertainty concerning fiscal year 2014 appropriation levels at that 

time, diverting these carryover funds to pay was very problematic and would not 

guarantee equitable furlough reductions. 

Question. While it’s not unusual for an agency to have some carryover funds, fiscal year 2013 was not a normal year. How did the agency make its spending decisions and determine funding priorities? 

Answer. Working within the appropriation, program area, and project levels provided following sequestration reductions, highly detailed analysis was conducted to 

balance payroll needs and critical support for the agency’s mission with extramural 

resources. Based on this analysis, our commitment to treating employees equally 

with respect to furloughs, and the need to continue the work of the agency, the Acting Administrator made a decision concerning the maximum number of hours as 

well as a firm commitment to reevaluating that number at the midpoint to find any 

possible reductions made possible by savings in non-pay funds. Over the course of 

the furlough period, the maximum number was reduced on two occasions resulting 

in total agency furlough hours being a maximum of 47 per employee. 

Question. How many hours of furlough could have been avoided with the unspent 

funds from fiscal year 2013? 

Answer. Without using congressional reprogrammings and having access to transfer authority, the EPA could not have avoided any hours of furlough with unspent 

funds from fiscal year 2013 while still maintaining its commitment to treating all 

employees equally. 

E-ENTERPRISE INITIATIVE

Question. EPA has proposed a major $70 million dollar initiative, called E-Enterprise, to transition compliance reporting from paper to electronic web-based reporting. What does EPA hope to achieve with the $70 million dollar investment and 

what will its effect be on States and the regulated community? 

Answer. E-Enterprise is a broad strategy to modernize how EPA and its co-regulator partners do business, going far beyond the move from paper to web-based 

(electronic) reporting. The E-Enterprise business strategy will reduce the burden 

and impact of environmental regulations on regulated entities and co-regulators 

(States, tribes, and territories) through applying LEAN management principles to 

programs, improving business processes and modernizing data flows. For fiscal year 

2015, the E-Enterprise Leadership Council (EELC), a joint governing body between 

the States and the EPA, identified $70 million high-potential projects which align 

with the E-Enterprise business strategy and are ripe for near-term investment. The 

majority of these funds are in existing programs/projects, and are contained in 

EPA’s base budget which supports critical functions within those programs. Examples are the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and e-Manifest in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) waste management. 
113 

1http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/edmr/eDMR.aspx. 

Approximately $19 million of the $70 million has been identified by the EELC as 

new work with the immediate potential to significantly reduce burden on States and 

regulated entities. This includes grant resources to enable State (and tribal) participation in E-Enterprise; development of the Regulatory and Public Portal for data 

exchange and transparency; and support for streamlining and modernization in a 

number of environmental programs through the use of shared services. 

The Agency has established a new fiscal year 2014–2015 Agency Priority Goal 

(APG) to improve environmental outcomes and enhance service to the regulated 

community and the public. The E-Enterprise strategy will help the Agency achieve 

these burden reduction goals through modernizing data flow processes (e.g. moving 

from paper-based to electronic reporting) while requiring no additional data to comply with existing regulations. For example, with the Hazardous Waste e-Manifest, 

burden reduction is estimated between 370,000 and 700,000 hours (and more than 

$75 million) for States and the regulated community. 

States are supportive of the E-Enterprise business strategy and are already engaging in E-Enterprise efforts. For example, Ohio EPA launched its electronic Discharge Monitoring Report Submission (eDMR) system,1 which uses electronic reporting to allow permittees to report their discharge measurements quickly and easily 

online. This method of reporting has increased data quality (errors have dropped 

from 50,000 per month to 5,000), while also saving significant time and resources 

for all stakeholders. Ohio EPA reduced the number of reporting staff from 5 FTE 

to zero through the automated compliance tools and a positive ROI was achieved 

within 2 years. 

Below are a few of many examples of stakeholder (e.g. States and the regulated 

community) comments expressing support for key pilot projects of the E-Enterprise 

business strategy including streamlining existing regulations in the Tier 3 Vehicles 

Emissions and Fuel Standards Program and the NPDES Electronic Reporting rule: 

—Marathon Petroleum Company.—EPA has made regulatory streamlining a priority and we appreciate the Agency’s efforts. We agree that regulatory streamlining will result in more efficient and less costly compliance. We support the 

elimination of unnecessary and outdated provisions. These provisions are independent of Tier 3 and should be promulgated in a final rule earlier than the 

Tier 3 final rule. We agree with the Agency that these are straightforward and 

should be implemented quickly. [EPA-420-R-14-004 p. 6-1] 

—Phillips 66 Company.—We are appreciative of the effort to streamline various 

portions of existing regulations. With changes over time, there are several areas 

that need ‘‘clean-up’’ and this effort will reduce confusion and burden on the 

regulatory parties. We offer the following comments on the proposed revisions 

as well as suggestions for other provisions that we feel would add value and 

should be considered. [EPA-420-R-14-004, p. 6-2] 

Change in reporting dates—Overall, the concept of aligning the various reporting dates and being able to develop a unified and simplified reporting form 

is a good one. Providing additional time is beneficial. We appreciate the Agency 

providing this change. [EPA-420-R-14-004, p. 6-13] 

—Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA).—MWRA appreciates that 

the proposed rule [NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule] will allow EPA to obtain, 

and provide to the public, a more complete picture of NPDES discharges—one 

that includes small as well as large discharges. Electronic data collection has 

the potential to reduce the errors in ICIS–NPDES and also allow errors to be 

corrected in a more timely way. In summary, MWRA generally supports the 

idea of phased-in electronic reporting, provided data can be accompanied by 

qualifying comments. Document No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0263-A2. 

—Metropolitan Sewer District of St. Louis (MSD).—In general MSD supports the 

purpose of the rule [NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule] in moving to electronic 

reporting for many NPDES related activities. We agree that electronic reporting 

will likely provide for better data recording and management by EPA and authorized States, tribes, or territories. Some portions of the proposed rule will 

also support communities like MSD in their continued efforts in transparency 

and to provide the public with uncomplicated access to quality information 

which is free of errors due to multiple data entry points. Document No. 

EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0364-A2. 

—North East Biosolids & Residuals Association (NEBRA).—We support the overall concept of the proposed rule [NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule] and agree 

that, if implemented thoroughly with considerable support, it might achieve the 

benefits stated in the Federal Register discussion. The increased availability of 
114 

data would serve to enhance public understanding of wastewater treatment and 

biosolids management. NEBRA feels that the proposed rule merits further consideration, but that the details of the proposed electronic reporting system are 

critically important and will determine whether or not the system is a success. 

Document No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0288-A1. 

—United States Steel.—U. S. Steel generally supports the rule [NPDES Electronic 

Reporting Rule] and its goals, such as publically sharing discharge information, 

improving the Agency’s decisionmaking capabilities, and enhancing Agency resources through minimizing expenditures for monthly reporting. Document No. 

EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274-0268-A2. 

Question. How many years does EPA expect to request funding for the initiative? 

What is the total cost estimate and how does EPA expect to spread these costs over 

future budget cycles? 

Answer. Out-year requests are expected to be similar to current request levels. 

Investments in individual projects are expected to be recouped through the deployed 

business efficiencies. 

Each budget cycle will include investments to transition the Agency and its coregulator partners to an updated customer and information-centric business strategy. In a phased implementation approach, a set of programs and projects are chosen for modernization and E-Enterprise supports the planning and development 

phases. 

Aligning EPA’s existing programs to the E-Enterprise business strategy will remain a priority for the EPA and States. In the out-years, individual projects will 

continue to be jointly selected by States and the EPA based on their potential for 

streamlining, modernization, and potential Return on Investment (ROI). Rather 

than EPA and States creating a particular capability several times over, the E-Enterprise strategy incorporates a ‘‘build once, use many’’ approach. As individual 

projects are completed, resources shift to the next priority. Once program systems 

have been modernized, the program offices manage the ongoing operations and 

maintenance (O&M) of the systems at a reduced cost for the participating co-regulators than would otherwise have been possible, allowing resources to be used for 

program implementation. The additional benefits from increasing transparency and 

improving customer service to stakeholders provide additional value. 

Under the E-Enterprise strategy, investments in individual projects have individual value. While priorities will change annually within the overarching E-Enterprise strategy as determined by the co-regulator partners, individual projects that 

have been completed will continue to operate and provide value. 

Question. The budget request discusses the potential cost savings that the regulated community will realize through electronic reporting. Please share details about 

anticipated savings and, if funding is provided in fiscal year 2015, when is it anticipated that the initiative be fully operational? 

Answer. Savings under the E-Enterprise business strategy to the regulated community can be measured in time and resources that will be reduced (e.g. burden reduction) through streamlined regulations and implementation of individual projects. 

The streamlining of regulations, shared State and EPA information reporting approaches, and moving from paper-based to electronic reporting will result in significant burden reduction. The agency has a commitment of one million hours of burden 

reduction in one of its fiscal year 2015 Agency Priority Goals. Examples of burden 

reduction and cost savings estimated for key projects coordinated under the E-Enterprise strategy include the following: 

—Safe Drinking Water System (SDWIS).—910,000 hours of burden reduction for 

States, 80,000 hours for Public Water Systems and Labs. 

—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) e-reporting Rule.— 

914,000 hours of burden reduction, $28.5M savings for States, $1.1M savings 

for permittees, EPA savings of $0.7M. 

The E-Enterprise strategy will cover a series of programs and projects, each of 

which is designed to be modular with regular milestone deployments. Smaller 

projects can be fully operational within 1–2 years; projects of larger scope will operational within 3–5 years. Some projects are already underway such as SDWIS and 

NPDES mentioned above. The intent is for E-Enterprise to continually improve the 

full range of EPA’s environmental programs and projects. The EPA, States, tribes, 

and territories have a set of legacy information systems to be transitioned and integrated without interruption in service. All programs/projects will undergo an alternatives analysis and business case with a return on investment (ROI) study to determine the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to the investment. 
115 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Question. Administrator McCarthy, both you and President Obama have said that 

we must have the courage to act before it is too late and make historic investments 

in resilience to climate change. The President further promised that his fiscal year 

2015 budget proposal would include a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund. I applaud 

this priority considering the accelerating impacts of climate change. In Vermont, the 

EPA recognizes that climate change is impacting water quality in Lake Champlain 

and is requiring the State of Vermont to address these impacts as part of a new 

EPA Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan for phosphorus pollution. In light of 

the administration’s strong commitment to spending $1 billion in fiscal year 2015 

for climate resilience, and that the Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL will be 

among the first in the country where the EPA requires climate change to be addressed, please tell me how in fiscal year 2015 and beyond, you will direct additional Federal resources to support implementation of resilience measures as part 

of the EPA’s Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL efforts? 

Answer. The EPA is responsible for developing a new phosphorus Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) because, in January 2011, the EPA disapproved Vermont’s 2002 

Lake Champlain TMDL. The EPA disapproved the 2002 TMDL because it did not 

provide sufficient assurance that phosphorus reductions from polluted runoff would 

be achieved, and did not provide an adequate margin of safety (MOS). The development of the new TMDL has given the EPA the opportunity to re-examine and update all the elements of the TMDL and consider factors that would affect phosphorus loads. 

Regardless of whether or how potential climate change impacts may be reflected 

in this TMDL, the EPA remains committed to improving our understanding of how 

climate change may impact the Lake, such as influencing changes in flow, sediment, 

and phosphorus inputs. The EPA has funded two climate-related studies in the Lake 

Champlain watershed. Based on these studies and recent storm events, the EPA 

and the Vermont (VT) Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) recognize 

the importance of incorporating additional resiliency into Best Management Practice 

designs (e.g., culvert sizing to accommodate larger stream flows) that will be important components of VT DEC’s TMDL implementation planning. 

The EPA remains committed to supporting implementation of the Lake Champlain TMDL, and it will work with Federal and State partners to leverage the much 

needed Federal investment in climate resiliency. 

I have heard from a number of Vermont residents, farmers, and businesses with 

concerns about the use of persistent herbicides and the presence of such herbicides 

in compost. Their gardens and farms have been seriously damaged by compost or 

mulch that was contaminated with persistent herbicides. These potent chemicals are 

applied to lawns, pastures, hayfields, and roadsides, and continue to be highly toxic 

to plant growth even after residues on grass or hay have been composted. These 

herbicides even remain potent in the composted manure of livestock and horses that 

graze on treated pastures and hay. 

I am worried about the environmental and financial risk to the multi-billion dollar 

compost industry if new standards and testing are not developed to identify the 

presence of these herbicides in compost, and if steps are not taken to ensure that 

persistent herbicides cannot persist in compost at dangerous levels. I fear that, 

without new protections, there will continue to be tremendous financial loss and environmental damage similar to what we have already experienced in Vermont. 

This problem will only escalate as more States and municipalities make it illegal 

to send leaf and yard debris and food scraps to landfills, and require greater use 

of composting. Unless the issue of persistent herbicides in compost is addressed, the 

market for finished compost may simply disappear, or composters may find themselves liable for sizeable payments to their customers with damaged crops, as happened in Vermont. 

Question. As the EPA continues its work to review registration for these persistent herbicides, beginning with the ongoing review of Picloram, can you assure 

me that you will take into account the impact on the compost industry and will the 

EPA require these persistent herbicides to break down in the composting levels that 

are not phytotoxic to plants? 

Answer. The pyridine class of herbicides (the group of pesticides recently associated with compost problems) are currently in, or approaching, registration review, 

the program that requires us to re-evaluate registered pesticides every 15 years to 

ensure the product continues to meet the statutory standard. During this registration review, we are requiring additional data to aid our understanding of how persistent these herbicides are in compost and manure. These data may inform the development of mitigation measures and advisory resources. All members of the pyri-
116 

dine class will be screened for potential compost concerns during the problem formulation stage of the program. Following this initial analysis, we may impose compostspecific data requirements as needed. These data include a dissipation study in compost and an environmental chemistry method (with accompanying independent laboratory validation) on compost. The agency is working with interested stakeholders 

to develop a protocol for conducting the compost dissipation study. These data will 

be used to characterize the potential risk from residues in compost and may inform 

the development of guidance resources for composters. 

While the pyridines registration review is underway, we have taken a number of 

interim steps that appear to have had a positive impact on this issue, including 

stronger label warnings and restrictions and registrant educational outreach materials. EPA will continue to monitor incidents related to contaminated compost to 

evaluate the effectiveness of these steps. If these efforts do not resolve contaminated 

compost issues, the EPA intends to consider additional regulatory action for these 

herbicides. 

Question. What is the EPA doing to develop publically available test methodologies to detect the presence of these herbicides in finished compost and in compost 

feedstocks? 

Answer. We have established a workgroup that is evaluating a standardized testing procedure for pesticides that could persist in composted material. Representatives from the U.S. Compost Council, the California Recycling Council, and the State 

FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group, participate in this workgroup. We 

hope to have a standardized testing procedure in place within the next few years. 

The EPA has proposed new fine particulate matter (FPM) emission standards for 

residential wood heaters. I applaud this long overdue update of new source performance standards, considering that cordwood heater technology has improved in the 

25 years since the standard was first issued and we now better understand the serious health impacts of fine particulate matter air pollution. I am concerned, however, 

that implementation of the new standards will place heavy burdens on manufacturers of EPA certified wood heaters as they transition to cleaner technology, while not 

moving fast enough to take the most polluting devices, those currently exempted 

from regulation, off the market. 

Question. How will the EPA’s implementation of a final standard for FPM emissions from wood heaters protect public health while ensuring emission limits and 

compliance schedules that are viable for U.S. manufactures of high quality certified 

appliances? 

Answer. The proposed rule considers both protection of public health and viability 

of U.S. manufacturers by using a phased implementation approach. Step 1 of the 

proposal would level the playing field by requiring emission levels that over 85 percent of currently certified wood stoves already meet and requiring reasonable emission levels for those devices that are not regulated by the 1988 New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). Five years later, Step 2 would require emission levels for 

all devices that correspond to what the best systems of emission reduction are 

achieving in the marketplace today. 

Question. What more can and will the EPA do to encourage homeowners across 

the country to make investments in new wood heater technology to change out their 

older inefficient wood stoves or fireplaces with new EPA certified wood stoves, while 

also encouraging homeowners to support American manufacturers? 

Answer. The EPA places a high priority on encouraging homeowners and manufacturers to invest in cleaner and more efficient technology. We will continue to inform homeowners of the benefits via our Burn Wise program (www.epa.gov/ 

burnwise), provide tools for State, tribal, and local agencies to conduct changeout 

programs, and provide a means for manufacturers to promote cleaner wood-burning 

fireplaces. 

The EPA is working with the Environmental Defense Fund and others to coordinate a national roundtable to help identify potential funding and technical resources 

needed for residential changeout programs and promoting other ways to reduce residential wood smoke. The roundtable expects to host members from the EPA, other 

Federal agencies, such as the Department of Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, manufacturers, and State and local air agencies. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

RADON

Question. Our State Environment and Health Department has brought to my attention a concerning reduction in the EPA budget. 
117 

I understand the President’s budget zeroed out a categorical grant program for 

radon detection and information. This is disappointing. I understand that we need 

to make hard choices, but this program provides a lot of significant impacts for 

every dollar spent. 

After smoking, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United 

States and the leading cause in non-smokers. It’s a significant public health problem 

throughout the United States. 

States like New Mexico have used these grants to inform citizens through outreach, education, and training to lower their risk from exposure to this natural radioactive gas that exists in our homes, schools, and commercial and government 

buildings. I’d like to work with you to discuss the future of this program. 

Can you explain why this program was zeroed out and what we can do to restore 

funding? 

Answer. The State Indoor Radon Grants (SIRG) program was established by Congress to fund the development of States’ capacity to raise awareness about radon 

risks and promote public health protection by reducing exposure to indoor radon 

gas. After 26 years in existence, the radon grant program has increased States’ technical expertise and capacity to raise awareness about radon risks and promote public health protection by reducing exposure to indoor radon gas. Eliminating the 

SIRG program is an example of the difficult choices the agency has made in this 

budget to help meet the Nation’s fiscal challenges. The Radon Program will continue 

to be a priority and the EPA will focus on driving action at the national level with 

other Federal agencies, through the Federal Radon Action Plan. Released in June 

of 2011, the Action Plan aims to increase radon risk reduction in homes, schools, 

and daycare facilities, as well as radon-resistant new construction. It contains both 

an array of current Federal Government actions to reduce radon risks and a series 

of new commitments for future action. More information about the Action Plan and 

its progress is available at: http://www.epa.gov/radon/actionlplan.html. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

GREENHOUSE GAS NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)—NEW UNITS

Question. Ms. McCarthy, I am concerned about the impact of the EPA’s proposed 

rule setting New Source Performance Standards for new units and soon to be issued 

proposed rule for existing units. Alaska’s electric system is unique compared to the 

grid in the lower 48. As you may know, there are 126 certified electric utilities in 

Alaska, and only 6 of those utilities are connected to each other through the 

‘‘Railbelt Grid’’ that serves the most populated areas of the State. The other 120 

electric utilities provide electric power to approximately 30 percent of Alaska’s population that is spread out over millions of square miles. Usually the ‘‘one size fits 

all’’ approach to regulations does not work for my State. 

Alaskans are concerned they will not have reliable, affordable electric service as 

a result of the NSPS rules. The utilities in my State face many challenges that utilities in the lower 48 do not face, such as the option to rely on an interconnected grid 

and the availability of infrastructure and support services. 

Would EPA consider providing a waiver to the NSPS rules for electric generating 

units/utility power plants not located in the contiguous United States? 

Answer. The proposed performance standards to limit carbon pollution from newly 

constructed power plants were published on January 8, 2014 and the public comment period recently closed on May 9, 2014. We are currently reviewing the nearly 

2 million comments that we received on the proposed rule. Please note that the proposal does not cover newly constructed oil-fired turbines, which we were told in previous comments are expected to be the most commonly built new sources in remote 

areas of Alaska and some other areas. The proposal for emission guidelines to limit 

carbon pollution from existing power plants was signed on June 2, 2014. The Agency 

heard from many stakeholders—including States, municipalities, utilities, and others—regarding the need for flexibility in developing State plans. The Agency looks 

forward to receiving comments from the public during the comment period. 

SMALL REMOTE INCINERATORS

Question. I want to thank you for your continued efforts to work with the oil and 

gas and mining industries in Alaska on a new testing program for emissions from 

small remote incinerators (SRIs). The expectation is that the EPA will consider the 

emissions data from this program and revise the emissions limits for SRIs, if warranted, based on the new data. If the limits are not revised, no incinerator will be 

able to continue operating. For most of these incinerators, there simply is no fea-
118 

sible alternative to incineration, or the alternative risks increase environmental 

damage or risks human and wildlife health and safety. For example, the only alternative for the Oooguruk oil field is to helicopter sling garbage hundreds of miles 

away to the closest landfill; and this would necessitate waste storage in polar bear 

habitat. 

Do you acknowledge that there is no viable alternative to incineration for most, 

if not all, of the oil and gas and mining projects where SRIs are located? 

Answer. Because of the remote location, SRI units do not always have lower-cost 

alternative waste disposal options (i.e., landfills) nearby. Emissions associated with 

transporting the solid waste could be significant. 

Question. Please explain why the Park Service may operate the same type of incinerators in Glacier Bay and Denali National Parks, yet they are exempt from 

emissions limits requirements? 

Answer. Incinerators subject to the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

(CISWI) rule are those located at commercial or industrial facilities. The Park Service operates municipal and/or institutional incineration units. Institutional units 

and certain municipal units are subject to standards under the Other Solid Waste 

Incineration (OSWI) Rule, which was finalized in December 16, 2005 but does not 

apply to incinerators located in isolated areas of Alaska. The EPA will evaluate 

whether to establish standards for such units when it next reviews the OSWI rule 

pursuant to the periodic review provisions of section 129 of the Clean Air Act. 

Question. Is the EPA’s intent to continue working with the oil and gas and mining 

industries on a new testing program for emissions from small remote incinerators 

to sufficient data will be provided to warrant the EPA taking a second look at the 

emissions limits for SRIs? 

Answer. The EPA is willing to work with SRI stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate data are collected. The EPA staff are engaging regularly with the SRI 

stakeholders regarding the proposed testing protocol for collecting additional emissions data. On May 27, 2014, we had a meeting to discuss the EPA comments on 

the most recent revisions to the testing protocol. The EPA will continue engaging 

in discussions with the SRI owners and operators to develop the protocol for gathering more data. 

Question. Does the EPA still intend to consider emissions data from the new testing program and potentially revise the emission limits for SRIs? 

Answer. The EPA has a history of considering data submitted by industry and we 

would do so in this case as well. If SRI stakeholders collect additional data, the new 

data could be submitted to the EPA with a petition for rulemaking. The EPA is committed to working with the SRI stakeholders to further develop and refine the testing protocol, review a petition for rulemaking and accompanying data, and determine whether further rulemaking is appropriate. 

DISCHARGES FROM OFFSHORE FISH PROCESSORS

Question. EPA currently requires that offshore catcher processors operating in 

Federal waters off the coast of Alaska have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Offshore Seafood Processors General Permit. This NPDES 

permit applies national effluent limitation guidelines requiring that no ‘‘pollutants’’ 

may be discharged which exceed 1⁄2 inch in any dimension. This standard dates back 

to 1975 and was developed for shore-based wastewater treatment plants, and applying it to fishing vessels at least 3 miles from shore never has made much sense. 

In fact, there is little, if any, measurable benefit to the environment. Instead, the 

offshore catcher processors have experienced significant difficulties in achieving the 

1⁄2 inch in any dimension standard due to challenges with grinding fish skin, slime, 

muscle, cartilage, and other internal organ fibers. As they have attempted to meet 

the standard by installing larger and larger grinders, their fuel consumption, costs, 

and emissions have gone up, as have the risks for crew operating this dangerous 

equipment. 

It is my understanding that staff in EPA’s Office of Water and Region 10 are 

working with the freezer longline sector to determine whether to take this ‘‘fish 

grinding’’ requirement through the annual Effluent Limitations Guidelines review 

process. 

Can you confirm that this review is proceeding expeditiously and provide a 

timeline for the agency’s decision on eliminating this permit requirement? 

Answer. The Office of Water and Region 10 continue to work with the Freezer 

Longline sector with respect to their NPDES permit requirements. The EPA expects 

to complete its evaluation prior to issuance of the next applicable permit. 
119 

NPDES GP FOR GEOTECHNICAL DISCHARGES/ARCTIC OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Question. In November 2013, the EPA released a draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for geotechnical discharges associated with oil and gas activities off the coast of Alaska. Geotechnical work is a 

necessary precursor to development, and without coverage under the permit, operators cannot conduct critical soil surveys along potential pipeline routes and at potential production facility locations. Unfortunately, the draft permit is completely unworkable, and forced at least one operator to cancel a geotechnical program planned 

for 2014. The comment period closed for the draft permit, with extensive comment 

detailing technical and logistical issues with it. 

Is it the agency’s intent to put out a revised draft permit for public comment that 

addresses those issues? 

Answer. Based on the comments received during the public review of the draft 

geotechnical general permit, on March 21, 2014, the EPA determined that certain 

permit provisions may warrant further consideration. To further that process, the 

EPA has met with representatives from Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips to clarify several technical issues and obtain additional information. The EPA is in the process 

of reviewing this new information, in addition to considering all comments received. 

The EPA will make a determination shortly whether to make changes to the draft 

general permit and whether these changes are significant enough to warrant re-noticing the draft general permit for public review and comment. The EPA will provide 

the public with an updated project timeline once this decision has been made. 

The draft permit incorporates monitoring and testing requirements (i.e., before, 

during, and after each borehole) that are similar to the requirements for drilling exploration oil wells. But this is a permit for geotechnical boring discharges. 

Question. Can you explain why the requirements for both activities are essentially 

the same even though the environmental impacts are significantly different? 

Answer. The draft geotechnical general permit requirements for environmental 

monitoring are not essentially the same as those for exploration wells, and in fact, 

reflect the different nature of the activities. 

The draft geotechnical general permit requires two phases of monitoring: 

—Phase I includes a physical (wind/current speed and direction, water temperature, salinity, depth and turbidity) and visual characterization of the seafloor 

at each borehole location. Obtaining this information is relatively straightforward and can be based on existing data. The baseline information is necessary to ensure the geotechnical activity site is not located in or near a sensitive biological area, habitat, or historic properties. 

—Phase II is only required if drilling fluids are used and is conducted during and 

after the geotechnical drilling occurs. Phase II includes observations for potential marine mammal deflection during discharge of non-contact cooling water, 

which is the largest volume discharge and consists of elevated temperatures, 

and a physical sea bottom survey. This basic level of monitoring is consistent 

with NPDES permits where drilling fluids are used. 

In contrast, the exploration general permits require four phases of monitoring at 

each drill site location. Because of the increased discharge volumes and levels of activity, these requirements are more extensive than those in the draft geotechnical 

general permit: 

—Phase I (baseline).—Initial site survey; collect physical and receiving water 

chemistry data; analyze drilling fluids for metals; analyze sediment characteristics; evaluate benthic community structure; and conduct dilution, plume, and 

deposition modeling. 

—Phase II (during drilling).—Effluent toxicity characterization; sample the drilling fluids and drill cuttings discharge plume in the water column; and collect 

observations for potential marine mammal deflection during periods of discharge. 

—Phase III (post-drilling).—Survey sea bottom; analyze sediment characteristics; 

and conduct benthic community bioaccumulation monitoring. 

—Phase IV (15 months after drilling ceases).—Survey sea bottom; analyze sediment characteristics; and conduct benthic community bioaccumulation monitoring. 

The draft permit incorporates a whaling blackout throughout the Chukchi Sea in 

the spring and the Beaufort Sea in the fall, which goes beyond the recommendations 

of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. 

Question. Can you explain to me why the EPA went beyond what even the local 

subsistence users requested in terms of when geotechnical activities should not 

occur? 
120 

Answer. The draft geotechnical permit does not go beyond the recommendations 

of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. The EPA received comments from tribal 

governments, the North Slope Borough, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission requesting no discharge into the Spring Lead System before July 15 in the 

Chukchi Sea and no discharge of any waste stream during fall bowhead hunting in 

the Beaufort Sea. These requests are much more restrictive than the current requirements of the draft geotechnical permit. 

The draft permit applies only to geotechnical discharges associated with oil and 

gas activities in Alaska. Yet, this type of geotechnical work is routinely performed 

offshore in the U.S. for work relating to the development of offshore infrastructure 

for shipping, as well as for wind farms. 

Question. Does the EPA require the same sort of rigorous data collection for 

boreholes drilled for any other outer continental shelf (OCS) purpose—wind farms, 

port infrastructure outside of State waters, etc? If not, what is the scientific basis 

for distinguishing between a borehole drilled for a pipeline or production facility survey versus a borehole drilled for any other purpose? 

Answer. The EPA Region 10 is not aware of other activities, such as infrastructure development for wind farms or ports, that would require geotechnical surveys 

to be conducted in the outer continental shelf; nor have NPDES permit applications 

been submitted for discharges associated with these types of activities. 

Please see the response to the previous question regarding the level of monitoring 

data collection for geotechnical activities. Certain industry operators are proposing 

to discharge drilling fluids, generally for deeper boreholes that range from 50 to 499 

feet beneath the sea floor. Drilling fluids include borehole stabilization additives, 

which include polymer and bentonite, and may be used for boreholes drilled at 100 

feet depth. Some operators plan to add barite to the drilling fluids. Barite is a concern because it is known to contain trace heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium, 

arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc. 

The specific geotechnical activities proposed here also involve a number of different waste streams and the discharge of potentially large volumes of pollutants 

from geotechnical vessels. Such practices and discharges may not be involved as 

part of other activities such as port infrastructure or wind farm projects. 

In addition, because the geotechnical permit is a general permit, it is designed 

to include all potential discharges from similar activities, i.e. both shallow and deeper boreholes, drilled with and without drilling fluid. As noted above, if drilling fluids 

are not used to drill the boreholes, then the monitoring requirements are reduced 

accordingly. Similarly, the general permit establishes limits specific to each pollutant based on applicable effluent discharge limitations (allowable pollutant concentrations that are established by regulation based on available technology and 

that apply across a particular industry sector) as well as water quality standards. 

The EPA applies the standards and requirements to address the pollutants in the 

discharge regardless of the type of activity. 

CLEAN WATER ACT RULEMAKING ON POWER PLANT WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES

Question. Ms. McCarthy, it has come to my attention that the EPA has initiated 

an Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service on the proposed rule regarding 

section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act governing power plant cooling water intake 

structures. I have been told the nuclear industry has raised concerns about the potential for the rule to be applied in an overly broad manner such that it could require facilities to install cooling towers or stop operations if a threatened or endangered species is located in a water body from which the facility draws water from, 

even if there is no evidence of impact to that species. 

Do you believe the section 316(b) proposed rule should require a power generator 

to monitor all species in a water body from which a facility draws water from or 

should the rule only focus on threatened and endangered species directly affected 

by the intake structure? 

Answer. The final rule requires all facilities to identify all species affected by the 

cooling water intake structure, and then establishes protections for the aquatic life 

affected by that intake structure. This includes protection of threatened and endangered species. 

In the past, section 316(b) monitoring focused on the prevention of ‘‘adverse environmental impact’’ of threatened and endangered aquatic life. 

Question. Do you believe the scope of monitoring should be expanded to look at 

species that may be in the water body and might be indirectly affected by intake 

structures? 
121 

Answer. The EPA’s final rule requires that all facilities identify in their permit 

applications all federally-listed threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat that are or may be present in the vicinity of the intake. 

Identification can be based on information readily available to the facility at the 

time of the application. A facility may request to reduce monitoring requirements 

after the first full permit term, if the monitoring data show that the intake does 

not directly or indirectly affect listed species/habitat. 

Question. Do you think it is appropriate to order a facility to install a cooling 

tower or stop operations if a threatened or endangered species is located in a water 

body from which the facility draws water from, when there is no evidence of impact 

to that species? If yes, should any consideration be given to the impact on electric 

reliability? 

Answer. The final rule provides the Permitting Director (the State or EPA, depending upon the location of the discharge) with much discretion to choose the appropriate technology to protect fish and shellfish generally, or threatened and endangered species in particular at a specific location. Closed cycle cooling is only one 

of a number of different technologies the Director may select to prevent impingement or entrainment of fish and shellfish. 

INSPECTOR GENERAL (IG) REPORT CONCERNING EPA CREDIT CARD ABUSE

Question. The EPA IG issued a report last month on March 4, and found that over 

half of the government credit card transactions by EPA employees were used for inappropriate personal expenses—such as gym memberships for friends and family, 

hotel rooms, and expensive meals. While the number of transactions that the IG 

looked at was rather small—80 transactions totaling $152,000—agency employees 

as a whole spend roughly $29 million on government credit cards. If anywhere close 

to half of these charges are inappropriate that is truly alarming. 

What processes is EPA putting in place to correct this problem? 

Answer. In response to the IG’s March 4 report, ‘‘Ineffective Oversight of Purchase 

Card Results in Inappropriate Purchases at EPA’’ (report no. 14–P–0128), the EPA 

has implemented or plans to implement the following corrective actions to strengthen management controls within the EPA National Purchase Card Program: 

—The EPA will reform and integrate existing biennial reviews into the Office of 

Acquisition Management (OAM) Contract Management Assessment Program 

(CMAP). The CMAP is OAM’s internal controls program. These internal reviews 

will be part of organizational self-assessments and peer reviews under the Contract Management Assessment Program (CMAP) to facilitate more robust and 

independent oversight of the program. The first peer review that included a review of purchase card transactions took place in Region 9 in April 2014. EPA 

anticipates completing another three regional reviews in fiscal year 2014, and 

will review all headquarter and regional offices by the end of fiscal year 2017 

as part of the agency’s plan to review the purchase card programs of all headquarter and regional offices on a 3-year cycle. Purchase card reviews, which 

OAM conducts, are now a permanent part of the EPA’s peer review process 

under the contract management assessment program. 

—The EPA implemented a block of over 130 merchant codes to prevent transactions considered high risk. These include codes considered non-applicable for 

routine agency transactions. Cardholders must submit supporting documentation to the program for review and override, if appropriate. 

—The EPA will deploy an automated system including an electronic purchase 

card log with a requirement to document all purchase card transactions agencywide by September 30, 2014. The system will ensure documented evidence of 

electronic approvals; provide a record of all purchases made with purchase 

cards and/or convenience checks; allow virtual audits of all purchase card transactions and provide the ability to conduct spend analysis on all purchase card 

transactions. The agency began an automation pilot with several agency cardholders on March 31, 2014. 

—Effective March 18, 2014, the EPA placed a moratorium on the issuance of new 

purchase card and convenience check accounts while we continue to improve 

management oversight and internal controls. 

—The EPA is drafting improvements to agencywide standard operating procedures, and minimum documentation required, for each purchase card transaction. These draft improvements were completed and sent out for agency review and comment. The EPA’s OAM is currently reviewing comments. 

—The EPA is developing training sessions on purchase card policy and procedures 

for purchase cardholders and approving officials to address the non-compliance 
122 

issues identified in the report. The EPA’s OAM has also changed purchase card 

refresher training requirements from every 3 years to every 2 years. 

—The EPA is reviewing the subject audit findings to ascertain the specific areas 

of non-compliance that need to be addressed with cardholders and approving officials. The agency will institute follow-up actions as appropriate to hold individuals accountable and to recover funds used for prohibited, improper or erroneous purchases identified in this audit. Depending on the severity of the violation, cardholder(s) and approving official(s) in violation of agency policy and/or 

procedures may have their authority revoked, or suspended pending the completion of this review. 

—The EPA is finalizing its Awards Policy to eliminate the use of Gift Cards and 

Gift Certificates within the agency. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. Earlier this month, the Governor of Mississippi declared a state of 

emergency in 12 counties due to severe rain and flooding in the Pearl River Basin. 

In 1979, similar weather related events caused the Pearl River to flood the capitol 

city of Jackson, Mississippi, which resulted in damages equivalent to $1.3 billion in 

today’s terms. To date, Jackson doesn’t have a comprehensive flood risk management solution and remains vulnerable to flood risk, despite many years of efforts 

between local leaders and the Army Corps of Engineers to develop an effective solution. Years and even decades may pass from the time the Corps is authorized to 

study a water-resources related problem and when the Corps actually constructs a 

project, and numerous Civil Works actions are subject to outside agency review, consultation, or coordination. Additionally, it is my understanding that individual 

projects often take longer than anticipated due to disagreements between Federal 

agencies. In your testimony, you suggest the fiscal year 2015 budget request 

strengthens EPA partnerships with a focus on aligning resources, avoiding duplication, and closing gaps in the broader environmental enterprise system. 

If Congress provides the amount of funding recommended to be appropriated by 

our subcommittee, will the EPA be able to do a better job working with the Corps 

of Engineers to streamline flood control projects and reduce inefficiencies and delays 

with regard to environmental regulations and requirements? 

Answer. The EPA appreciates your concerns over the time it can take to plan and 

construct major flood control projects. This administration is committed to expeditiously building a 21st century infrastructure, including flood control projects, highways and pipelines, in a manner that also safeguards our communities and the environment. Over the past year, the EPA has worked closely with OMB, the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and several other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to develop a plan that will modernize the Federal Government’s role in permitting and review processes for infrastructure projects. This plan was published on May 14, 2014, and identifies a wide 

range of strategies and reforms, with both near-term and long-term milestones including improving interagency coordination. The EPA’s budget request includes 

funding that will enable us to work more effectively with other agencies as they propose and review these critical infrastructure projects. 

Question. The Corps of Engineers has indicated the Jackson metropolitan area 

will remain vulnerable to flood risks as well as life and safety issues. Currently, the 

Pearl River is several feet above flood stage and is expected to rise. Given the current situation, would you be willing to work with the Corps of Engineers and the 

Rankin-Hinds Drainage Control District as they move to find a solution? 

Answer. EPA stands ready to work with the Corps and local authorities to provide 

technical assistance and support to the affected communities. 

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act was passed in 2012. It sets 

a minimum funding level required in order to allow EPA to collect registration service fees. However, sequestration, combined with a continuing resolution, has required Congress to waive the minimum level to allow the pesticide registration program to continue to operate. 

Question. Was EPA’s guidance to the Congressional committees of jurisdiction on 

the decision timelines included in the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act 

(PRIA) reauthorization based on specific funding levels? 

Answer. Yes, EPA’s ability to meet the PRIA decision review timeframes was 

based on receiving both the minimum appropriation level specified in the law— 

$128.3 million—and the PRIA fees. 

Question. Has EPA been able to adhere to those timelines given the funding that 

has been provided for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014? 
123 

Answer. No, in fiscal year 2013 (the first year of PRIA–3), the on-time completion 

rate fell to 98.8 percent due to a fiscal year 2013 budget cut and personnel furloughs. We expect the partial Government shutdown of October 2013, as well as a 

fiscal year 2014 budget cut, to have a further, measurable impact on the fiscal year 

2014 on-time completion rate. We will be able to evaluate and report that impact 

after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2014. 

Question. How does this compare to actions under PRIA–I or PRIA–II? 

Answer. During the 3.5 years of PRIA–1 (fiscal year 2004–fiscal year 2007), the 

on-time completion rate was 99.9 percent. During the 5 years of PRIA–2 (fiscal year 

2008–fiscal year 2012), the on-time completion rate was 99.3 percent. The table 

below contains the total number of actions completed and the number of those actions completed late under PRIA–1, PRIA–2, and PRIA–3. 

Fiscal Years # of completed 

actions 

# of actions 

completed late Percent on time 

PRIA 1 ............................................ 2004–2007 ................................... 4,273 3 >99.9 

PRIA 2 ............................................ 2008–2012 ................................... 7,892 55 99.3 

PRIA 3 ............................................ 2013 .............................................. 2,084 25 98.8 

Question. What would be the impact of funding below $128.3 million in future 

years? Please include impacts that address both inclusion and exclusion of a waiver 

of the minimum appropriation. 

Answer. As stated above, EPA’s ability to meet the PRIA decision review timeframes is based on receiving both the minimum appropriation level specified in the 

law—$128.3 million—and the PRIA fees. Below that level, EPA is increasingly challenged to meet the PRIA timeframes as the number of actions increased substantially in 2013. The full impact of the current budget will be better understood at 

the end of fiscal year 2014. If, in the future, the minimum appropriations requirement is not met, and no waiver of that requirement is provided, then EPA’s authority to collect PRIA fees would be suspended. The loss of PRIA fees, which on average 

generate about $15 million per year, would significantly impact EPA’s ability to 

meet the timelines set forth in the legislation. The resulting delays in the pesticide 

registration process impact the ability of food producers to fight crop pests and effectively maintain food production. 

Question. In 2012, EPA stated that as a result of beach grant funds, the number 

of monitored beaches in the country has more than tripled. The President’s budget 

proposes to eliminate categorical grants for the beach protection program. Given the 

current fiscal strain on State and local environmental agencies, what impact do you 

estimate the elimination of grant funds would have on the number of beaches monitored? 

Answer. We do not have information about the number of beaches that would not 

be monitored, or would be monitored on a reduced schedule. 

Question. There is growing concerns from a variety of stakeholders about EPA’s 

willingness to ‘‘Sue and Settle.’’ It is my understand that Federal agencies including 

the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Department of Agriculture 

are opting not to appeal environmental lawsuits in an attempt to regulate rather 

than litigate. I am concerned settlements are being conducted without any transparency or public input. Often these settlements can yield new regulations imposing 

costly burden on agriculture, construction, manufacturing and other businesses. 

What is the number of lawsuits EPA has settled in the past year and how much 

EPA paid to resolve these lawsuits? 

Answer. Each settlement agreement is the result of a negotiation between opposing parties, with the Department Of Justice (DOJ) representing the Environmental 

protection Agency and the interests of the United States. In some cases, the agreements also go out for public comment, and are entered by a court only upon a finding that the terms are fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and that the overall resolution is consistent with the underlying statute and allegations. 

In fiscal year 2013, the EPA did not pay fees in the settlement of any defensive 

environmental cases out of EPA’s appropriated funds. In the EPA’s most recent ‘‘Attorney Fee and Cost Payments Obligated in Fiscal Year 2013 Under Equal Access 

for Justice Act’’ report, located in the fiscal year 2015 Congressional Justification, 

the EPA reported 12 settlements of defensive environmental cases in fiscal year 

2013. These payments were all made through DOJ from the Judgment Fund administered by the Treasury Department. Total fees paid in those cases were approximately $423,267.50. 
124 

The EPA does not and will not commit in a settlement agreement to any final, 

substantive outcome in a rulemaking or other decisionmaking process. Rather, in 

EPA rulemaking, there is an extensive and robust public process, designed specifically to provide for input and participation. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

requires the Agency to provide public notice and an opportunity for comment on all 

proposed rules. This opportunity to comment is open to any interested party and 

comments submitted are carefully considered and often significantly shape the final 

rule. It is after the conclusion of that public process that Agency would publish a 

final rule. 

Question. I have concerns with EPA’s mishandling of sensitive information belonging to farmers and livestock producers. It is my understanding this wide spread 

problem affected 30 or more States. The EPA has a responsibility to protect the 

American citizens’ personal information from government mismanagement. What 

safeguards has EPA implemented to make sure that the personal information of 

farmers and livestock producers is not inadvertently released again? 

Answer. The EPA understands the need to protect personal information. The EPA 

has a Privacy Policy which establishes agency requirements for safeguarding the 

collection, access, use, dissemination, and storage of personally identifiable information and Privacy Act information in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the 

E-Government Act of 2002, the Federal Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA), and policy and guidance issued by the President and the Office of Management and Budget. The EPA also has a Privacy Act Manual, which establishes policy 

and procedures for protecting the privacy of individuals who are identified in EPA’s 

information systems. The EPA will continue to work together with our Federal partners, industry, and other stakeholders to ensure the agency continues to address the 

privacy interests of farmers. 

Question. Section 12313 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 amends section 402(I) of 

the Clean Water Act to reaffirm EPA’s longstanding policy that Best Management 

Practices for forest-related activities are recognized and pollution discharge permits 

are not needed for stormwater runoff. 

Does EPA commit to implementing this provision as Congress intended? 

Answer. Prior to the Agricultural Act of 2014, the EPA revised its Phase I 

stormwater regulations to clarify that stormwater discharges from forest roads do 

not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are not required for these discharges. This is consistent with the Agricultural Act of 2014. 

Question. In what, if any, circumstances would EPA disregard congressional intent and in fact require this kind of permitting for forestry activities? 

Answer. The Agricultural Act of 2014 clearly directed that the EPA shall not require or direct any States to require an NPDES permit for runoff from forest roads. 

The EPA continues to review available information on the water quality impacts of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. In addressing water quality impacts from 

these roads, the EPA will work with stakeholders and State and Federal partners 

to explore flexible, non-permitting approaches under the Clean Water Act. The EPA 

recognizes that effective best management practices exist that protect receiving waters and minimize impacts from forest roads. 

Question. The EPA recently announced a proposed rule on waters of the United 

States that identifies exempted agricultural conservation practices not subject to 

Clean Water Act permitting. 

Will this rule give EPA the authority to enter into negotiations with the Department of Agriculture related to the technical aspects of a conservation practice if a 

desired water quality benefit is not achieved? 

Answer. No, under the interpretive rule and associated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) authority to develop conservation practices is unchanged. At the same time, however, the agencies’ 

MOU contemplates continued collaboration among the agencies, including evaluating the implementation of relevant practice standards to ensure they are resulting 

in anticipated water quality benefits. 

Question. Would this new rule give EPA new abilities to usurp the expertise of 

the Department of Agriculture with regard to conservation standards? 

Answer. No. Nothing in the interpretive rule changes the roles or responsibilities 

of any of the three agencies. NRCS remains solely responsible under its authority 

for developing agricultural conservation practice standards. 
125 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator REED. With no further questions, thank you again, 

Madam Administrator. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:47 a.m., Wednesday, April 9, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the 

Chair.] 

(127) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 2014 

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

The subcommittee met at 9:38 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Reed, Tester, Merkley, Begich, Murkowski, 

and Blunt. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF 

ACCOMPANIED BY TONY DIXON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANNING, 

BUDGET, AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. Let me call the hearing to order. 

Good morning. This is the third hearing of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget 

request, and today, we will discuss the budget for the United 

States Forest Service. 

I am very pleased to welcome Forest Service Chief, Tom Tidwell. 

Chief, thank you for your service, and for your support to the important programs of the Forest Service. Thank you very much. 

And I also recognize the agency’s Budget Director, Tony Dixon, 

who is testifying before the subcommittee for the first time. So welcome, Tony. Good to have you here. 

Turning to the budget request for the Forest Service, the fiscal year 2015 request is a total of $5.7 billion, including $4.77 billion 

in discretionary spending. In addition, the President has proposed 

a significant budgetary shift to provide $954 million in fire suppression funding within the disaster cap. 

Since I assumed the chairmanship of this subcommittee, we have 

been forced to make unfortunate tradeoffs to provide the appropriate resources for fire suppression, both on the frontend—through 

increases in the 10-year average—and on the backend—through repayment of borrowing—because the 10-year average proved insufficient. 
128 

In the last 2 years alone, we have been forced to carve out more than $1 billion from other accounts in order to pay for unanticipated emergency firefighting costs. This has been a change from 

traditional practice under which extraordinary firefighting costs 

were treated as emergencies, just like other disasters. 

These additional obligations have come at a cost in the investments we can make in public land maintenance and construction, 

water and sewer grants, land acquisition, and every other account 

funded in this bill. And I know you, Chief, are as worried as we 

are about the Forest Service just becoming ‘‘the fire service.’’ That 

cannot happen. 

This is just as troubling to me as it is to my western colleagues. 

Indeed, I would note that my colleagues, Senators Wyden and 

Crapo, have introduced bipartisan legislation in the senate to deal 

with this problem. An identical bill has been introduced in the 

House by Congressman Mike Simpson, former chairman of the 

House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and it has been cosponsored by Representative Ken Calvert, the current chairman of 

the subcommittee. 

While Rhode Island does not have any national forest lands, we 

do rely on the Forest Service’s expertise and grant programs for 

our State and private forested lands. We all agree that it is a Federal responsibility to fight fires on Federal lands to protect the life 

and property of Americans. But if we continue down the path that 

we have been forced under the current budget caps, we put in jeopardy the rest of the Forest Service’s mission. 

For Rhode Island, that would mean losing the Forest Service’s 

expertise in research and science that has led to breakthroughs to 

defend against the invasive species and disease that attack our 

trees in the country and in the city, Forest Legacy funds to protect 

threatened areas, and urban and community forest funds to get 

people outdoors. 

That is why I think what you have done, Chief, to work on the 

budget proposal to move a portion of the spending into the disaster 

cap is such a great step forward. It takes care of three problems 

that we have been struggling with. 

First, it removes the agency’s need to borrow from non-fire accounts and provides a steady stream of funding throughout the fire 

season, so that you can do both your firefighting and your other 

work without setting aside funds within construction, land acquisition, and your mandatory programs in case there is a need for it. 

Second, it allows us to put emphasis on the programs that will 

help you prevent catastrophic fire in the future, such as hazardous 

fuels reduction, watershed and vegetation management, and 

inholdings acquisitions. 

Third, it protects the programs that would otherwise get cut 

within future budget proposals to pay for fire needs like research 

and State grant programs. 

So with this budget proposal and your recent acquisition of air 

tankers from the Coast Guard and next generation air 

tankercontractors, it is quite possible that fiscal year 2015 could be 

the turning point in adopting a more rational approach to fire management. And you deserve much credit for this progress, Chief. 

Thank you very much. 
129 

While I am pleased that we are able to move the administration 

to address the fire problem, I am disappointed to see the cuts to 

other programs like research, State and private forestry, and international forestry, even with the shift to firefighting resources, that 

are being proposed. 

I am looking forward to discussing with you how we can work together to restore and strengthen these programs as well. 

Now, before turning to Senator Murkowski, the bottom line here 

is, and I do not mean to sound too cute, but these firefighting funds 

are just burning up your entire budget. Our budget too, because 

what we have to provide for firefighting, we cannot provide for 

State water funds, infrastructure, national parks, a host of programs. So we have to get this right. 

With that, Senator Murkowski, please. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome 

Chief. 

It is good to be examining the budget request for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2015. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are going 

to need any assistance with firefighting here in Washington, DC 

this morning. It is a mess out there, it is so wet. 

Chief, I think I mentioned at the hearing last year, when we had 

the 2014 budget in front of us that, I said that it felt a little bit 

like Groundhog’s Day. Well, I am back at Groundhog Day all over 

again. Every year, you and I have this conversation. You commit 

to working with me to improve the timber sale program and permitting for other multiple use activities on the Tongass, and then 

we move to the next year and, we are having the same conversation about really why things have not improved. And again, we are 

just facing the same thing today. 

Despite repeated pledges from the Forest Service to increase timber harvest levels, we continue to steadily march towards losing 

what remains of that timber industry in southeast Alaska. 

Our 2013 timber harvest numbers did improve a little bit to 36 

million board feet compared to 21 the year before, but you and I 

both know, Chief, that that is well, well below the allowable sales 

quantity of 267 million board feet. It is far short of what your own 

economists say that the market demand is in southeast, or what 

it takes to sustain any kind of a viable forest products industry 

within the region. 

I am trying to look on the positive side. I am trying to find some 

hopeful signs here that we might be turning the corner, but it 

seems like every time there is something out there, we run up 

against a roadblock. A great example, of course, is the Big Thorne 

sale. We have been talking about the Big Thorne sale. It was supposed to be bringing in 150 million board feet. This was the sale 

that everybody was counting on, the sale that your agency said was 

going to be absolutely necessary. It was going to be critical to making the transition to second growth that you keep talking about in 

the Tongass. Everybody knew that the Big Thorne was what was 

going to be able to help us piece it together. 

But what has happened to it? It has been on hold since September of last year. I hope you will have a little bit of an update 
130 

for me this morning on when we might see this critical sale offered. 

Every year, I bring up the situation with the roadless rule exemption. On the 26th of March, the Ninth Circuit upheld the roadless 

rule exemption for the Tongass. 

I know that this administration did not defend the exemption. 

Alaska, my State, had to take it on itself. I am glad we did. I also 

know that this is not the end in the courts. 

So again, I think you are going to hear in my questions this 

morning a great of concern about what is going on within the 

Tongass, the impact of the roadless rule, how the ruling will affect 

management actions. In my view, I hope we are going to see balance restored with respect to the conservation and economic development there. 

Now, with regards to the budget and the chairman’s comments 

here this morning, once again, you are proposing to consolidate several line items into one big pot called ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration.’’ We talk about this, again, also every year. And I am 

sympathetic to the Forest Service’s desire to improve efficiencies, 

but until we can really see some concrete results from these three 

pilot programs, I just cannot support making this program permanent across the agencies. 

You have a multiple use mandate there at the Forest Service, 

and one of the most important ways that we have here in Congress 

to ensure that you are following this mandate is having a budget 

that shows where and how much the agency is spending on activities that we, here in Congress, believe are important. 

So whether it is for timber, whether it is for recreation, habitat 

improvement, whatever it is, we cannot sacrifice our oversight role 

solely for the sake of efficiency. And again, I say this every year. 

The chairman speaks to the issue of fire borrowing. When we 

look to ways that we can improve financial management at the 

Forest Service, really, one of those ways is how we deal with the 

fire borrowing situation, which disrupts important programs by effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul until an undetermined date in 

the future. I think it is a bad way to budget, a bad way to manage 

important programs. 

I do share the goal of the propose fire cap adjustment, but I am 

concerned whether in its current form, it is the most fiscally responsible way to proceed. 

I do think that the administration’s proposal is a good starting 

point for discussing how we deal with fire borrowing, but I think 

the committee, OMB, and the firefighting agencies need to work together to reach a resolution that not only fixes the problem, but is 

also politically tenable in the current fiscally constrained environment. So we need to be working together on this to find a workable 

solution. 

There are many other important issues we need to work on like 

how to effectively modernize our air tanker fleet, promote fireadapted communities, and meet our obligations to communities 

that are dependent upon our national forests for economic survival. 

So I look forward to hearing your comments this morning, some 

updates, and then the questions and answers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
131 

Senator REED. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues want to make 

a brief opening statement? 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Murkowski. And I will be very brief. 

I want to thank you both, Mr. Dixon and Chief Tidwell for being 

here. I want to thank you for your work. Your agency, you know 

the area intimately, has a profound impact on Montana, whether 

it is from recreation, wildfires, sawmills, whatever it may be. 

My focus and my questions are going to be around the firefighting ability that you are going to have for aircraft, and it is 

going to be around some of the same things Senator Murkowski 

talked about, and that is timber cut. 

I can tell you, and you correct me if I am wrong, but I believe 

every timber sale in Montana was blocked. I will be the first one 

to fight not having public input on timber sales, because I think 

it is critically important. By the same token, I am really getting 

sick of the obstructionists, and I look forward to any ideas you 

might have to help streamline that process. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working 

with both these gentlemen and the Forest Service to make things 

better in our public lands. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Chief Tidwell, please. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CHIEF TOM TIDWELL

KEY AUTHORITIES

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, once 

again, it is a privilege to be here. Mr. Chairman, thank you for 

your opening remarks, Senator Murkowski for yours. You did an 

excellent job to make all the key points that I had planned to make 

in my opening remarks. 

I did want to reflect on last year when I was up here to testify. 

I was asking for your support for several key authorities that were 

about to expire: stewardship contracting, the Good Neighbor Authority. So I want to thank you for your good work to provide these 

key authorities through the 2014 Appropriations bill, and also for 

your support for the Forestry Title in the Farm bill. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

Those authorities, plus this budget request, really reflect the opportunity, the responsibility we have to restore and maintain our 

national forest and grasslands. Through this proposed budget fire 

suppression cap adjustment, we will finally be able to stop the disruptive practice of having to shutdown our projects every August 

and September, to stop the work that reduces the effects of fire, to 

stop the work that produces jobs just to be able to shift money to 

pay for fire suppression. I want to thank you, for the job you have 

done to repay those funds every 3 to 6 months later. 

WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT

I, too, need to recognize the work from Senators Wyden and 

Crapo for introducing the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act and the 

members of the subcommittee that are cosponsors of this bill. 
132 

Senator Murkowski, we do want to work with the committee on 

finding a solution for this. The legislation that is here in the Senate and the House, plus the work that we have been doing in the 

administration, I think is a very good starting place, and we do 

want to work with the subcommittee to be able to find a resolution 

to this issue once and for all. 

Over the last 10 years, fire funding has gone from 13 percent of 

our budget to over 40 percent. The 10-year average has increased 

by $500 million, and just since 2012, the 10-year average has gone 

up $156 million. Now, under a constrained budget, these increases, 

they have to come from all the other programs. The other programs 

that are essential to provide all the benefits that people want, the 

public demands from their national forests. 

It also has had a critical impact to our staffing. Over this period 

of time, our staffing in our national forest system, the folks that 

manage the national forests, has gone down 35 percent; staffing 

and forest management, down 49 percent. Now, at the same time, 

we are actually putting out about the same level of outputs that 

we worked 12 years ago with a much reduced staff, and I give a 

lot of credit to our work, our employees. They are doing an outstanding job to work with the communities and partners to be able 

to do as much work as they possibly can. But it is time to recognize 

that something needs to change here. 

Now, I cannot change that the fire seasons are now 70 to 80 days 

longer. The fires are burning hotter. We are dealing with these extensive droughts that we will, no doubt, talk about today, and more 

and more homes are in the Wildland Urban Interface. But what we 

can do, by increasing the pace and scale of restoration, we can reduce the effects of wildfires to our community, making it easier for 

us to suppress these fires. And we can do that by what this budget 

is proposing with the increased funding that we are asking for in 

some very key programs. 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

This request is $125 million less than in 2014 enacted, which reflects the difficult choices that we have had to make to address the 

deficit reduction. But it does provide for some key increases in programs that will help us to restore our national forests, reduce the 

threat of wildfire, reduce the threat to wildlife, to threatened and 

endangered species, and also reduce the impact to recreational settings that are the reason 170 million people visit the national forest and grasslands every year. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

Now, this level of preparedness, it will still provide for a level of 

funding that will suppress 98 percent of all the fires that we take 

initial attack on. It also requests a funding level to cover the costs 

for 99 percent of our wildfires. Then it requests a fire suppression 

cap adjustment that basically will cover about 1 percent of our 

fires, which equals about 30 percent of the cost. It is these fires 

that, we feel, should be considered a natural disaster, and that is 

the purpose of the budget fire suppression cap adjustment. 

Now is the time, for us to make the shift. Chairman as you mentioned, in 2015, it could be the time when we recognize that we 
133 

have actually made a change to address the fire suppression issue, 

and at the same time to be able to increase our investment in the 

national forests and grasslands. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

The science is clear. It is supported by the results on the ground. 

We can reduce the effects. We can reduce the effects of the severity 

of insect and disease outbreaks. We can reduce the impacts to 

water quality, but we must increase the pace and scale of our restoration. 

So again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here to 

address the committee, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF TOM TIDWELL

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here 

today to testify on the President’s budget request for the Forest Service for fiscal 

year 2015. I appreciate the support this subcommittee has shown for the Forest 

Service in the past, and in particular, thank you for your hard work on the fiscal 

year 2014 appropriations act. When I testified before you last year, there were a 

number of important authorities, like stewardship contracting and good neighbor 

authority, which were set to soon expire. Thanks to the hard work of Congress on 

the 2014 appropriations act and the 2014 farm bill, we are in a much better position 

this year. I look forward to continuing to work together with members of the subcommittee to ensure that stewardship of our Nation’s forests and grasslands continues to meet the desires and expectations of the American people. I am confident 

that this budget will allow the Forest Service to meet this goal while demonstrating 

fiscal restraint, efficiency, and cost-effective spending. 

The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget for the Forest Service focuses on three key 

areas: restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, and managing 

wildland fires. It calls for a fundamental change in how wildfire suppression is funded. It proposes a new and fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire, contributes to long-term economic growth, and continues our efforts to achieve the 

greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the least cost. This budget will enable us to 

more effectively reduce fire risk, manage landscapes more holistically, and increase 

resiliency of the Nation’s forests and rangelands as well as the communities that 

border them. 

The President’s 2015 budget also includes a separate, fully paid for $56 billion Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative (OGS Initiative). The Initiative identifies 

additional discretionary investments that can spur economic progress, promote opportunity, and strengthen national security. The OGS Initiative includes funding for 

Forest Service programs. The OGS Initiative includes $18 million for Research and 

Development and would focus on energy security and national economic stability 

while simultaneously addressing our conservation and restoration goals. In addition, 

the OGS Initiative includes $61 million for Facilities and Trails to provide essential 

infrastructure maintenance and repair to sustain the benefits of existing infrastructure as domestic investments to grow our economy. 

As part of the President’s Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative and a permanent legislative proposal, the Forest Service would also have the opportunity to 

compete for conservation and infrastructure project funding included within the 

Centennial initiative. The Centennial initiative supporting the 100th anniversary of 

the National Park Service features a competitive opportunity for the public land 

management bureaus within the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service 

to address conservation and infrastructure project needs. The program would be 

managed within Interior’s Office of the Secretary in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture with clearly defined project criteria. The administration proposes $100 million for the National Park Service anniversary’s Centennial Land 

Management Investment Fund, as part of the Opportunity, Growth and Security 

Initiative and $100 million for conservation and infrastructure projects annually for 

3 years as part of a separate legislative proposal. 

The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative also includes a $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund. A portion of this funding source allows us to continue to invest in research to better understand the projected impacts of climate change and 

how we can better prepare our communities and infrastructure. The Fund would 
134 

also serve to fund breakthroughs in technologies and resilient infrastructure development that will make us more resilient in the face of changing climate. The Fund 

proposal includes three Forest Service programs: an increase of $50 million for State 

Fire Assistance Grants to increase the number of communities that are ‘‘Firewise’’ 

and the number of communities implementing building codes and building protection requirements, resulting in increased protection of communities, their residents 

and private property; an increase of $50 million for Integrated Resource Restoration 

(IRR) and Hazardous Fuels to enhance support for public lands managers to manage landscape and watershed planning for increased resilience and risk reduction; 

and an increased $25 million for Urban and Community Forestry to maintain, restore and improve urban forests mitigating heat islands and other climate change 

impact. 

VALUE OF THE FOREST SERVICE

Our mission at the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future 

generations. The Forest Service manages a system of national forests and grasslands totaling 193 million acres in 44 States and Puerto Rico, an area almost twice 

the size of California. These lands entrusted to our care provide some of the richest 

resources and most breathtaking scenery in the Nation, are the source of drinking 

water for millions of Americans, and support hundreds of thousands of jobs. Thousands of communities across the Nation depend on the national forests for their social well-being and economic prosperity. 

Since our founding in 1905, as the Nation’s leading forestry organization, we continue to serve Americans by supporting the sustainable stewardship of more than 

600 million acres of non-Federal forest land across the Nation, including 423 million 

acres of private forest land, 69 million acres of State forest land, 18 million acres 

of Tribal forests, and over 100 million acres of urban and community forests. This 

commitment to sustainable forest management helps Americans use their lands 

while caring for them in ways that benefit them, their families, their communities, 

and the entire Nation. 

We also maintain the largest forestry research organization in the world, with 

more than a century of discoveries in wood and forest products, fire behavior and 

management, and sustainable forest management. We are pursuing cutting-edge research in nanotechnology and green building materials, expanding markets for 

woody biomass. Land managers across the Nation use the results of our research 

to conserve forests, ensuring continuation of a full range of benefits for future generations. 

America’s forests, grasslands, and other open spaces are integral to the social, ecological, and economic well-being of the Nation. They play a vital role in providing 

public benefits such as clean air, clean water, mineral and energy production, and 

fertile soils for supporting timber, forage, carbon storage, food and fiber, fish and 

wildlife habitat, along with myriad opportunities for outdoor recreation. The Forest 

Service provides a valuable service to the public by restoring and improving forest, 

grassland, and watershed health; by producing new knowledge through our research; and by providing financial and technical assistance to partners, including 

private forest landowners. 

The benefits from Forest Service programs and activities include jobs and economic activity. Jobs and economic benefits stem not only from public use of the national forests and grasslands, but also from Forest Service management activities 

and infrastructure investments. We completed an economic analysis that calculated 

activities on the National Forest System contributed over $36 billion to America’s 

gross domestic product, and supported nearly 450,000 jobs during fiscal year 2011. 

Through our Job Corps and other programs including the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps, we provide training and employment for America’s youth, and 

we help veterans transition to civilian life. Our Urban and Community Forestry 

Program has provided jobs and career-training opportunities for underemployed 

adults and at-risk youth. 

The Forest Service routinely leverages taxpayer funds by engaging partners who 

contribute to investments in land management projects and activities. In fiscal year 

2013, for example, we entered into more than 8,200 grants and agreements with 

partners who made a total of about $540 million in cash and noncash contributions. 

Combined with our own contribution of nearly $730 million, the total value of these 

partnerships was over $1.27 billion. 

Other noncommercial uses provide crucial benefits and services to the American 

people. Many Tribal members use the national forests and grasslands for hunting, 

fishing, and gathering wild foods and other materials for personal use. They also 
135 

use sacred sites on National Forest Service (NFS) lands for ritual and spiritual purposes. 

National forests and grasslands attract about 160 million visits annually, and 55 

percent of those visitors engage in strenuous physical activities. Based on studies 

showing that outdoor activities contribute to improved health and increased fitness, 

the availability of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to all Americans provides 

other tangible benefits. In addition, since more than 83 percent of Americans live 

in metropolitan areas where opportunities to experience nature are often reduced, 

the Forest Service has developed an array of programs designed to get people into 

the woods, especially children. Each year, we reach an average of more than 5 million people with conservation education programs. 

CHALLENGES TO CONSERVATION

Our Nation’s forest and grassland resources continue to be at risk due to drought, 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire behavior, invasive species, and outbreaks of insects and disease. Although biodiversity remains high on national forests and grasslands, habitat degradation and invasive species pose serious threats to 27 percent 

of all forest-associated plants and animals, a total of 4,005 species. 

The spread of homes and communities into wildfire-prone areas is an increasing 

management challenge. From 2000 to 2030, the United States could see substantial 

increases in housing density on 44 million acres of private forest lands nationwide, 

an area larger than North and South Carolina combined. More than 70,000 communities are now at risk from wildfire, and less than 15,000 have community wildfire 

protection plans. 

This same growth and development are also reducing America’s forest habitat and 

fragmenting what remains. From 2010 to 2060, the United States is predicted to 

lose up to 31 million acres of forested lands, an area larger than Pennsylvania. 

Forest Service scientists predict that fire seasons could return to levels not seen 

since the 1940s, exceeding 12 million to 15 million acres annually. Highlighting 

these concerns, for the first time since the 1950s, more than 7 million acres burned 

nationwide in 2000 and more than 9 million acres burned in 2012. In 2013, the largest fire ever recorded in the Sierra Nevada occurred, and a devastating blaze in Arizona killed 19 highly experienced firefighters. 

BUDGET REQUEST AND FOCUS AREAS

To meet the challenges ahead, the Forest Service is focusing in three key areas: 

restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, and managing 

wildland fires. We continue to implement cultural initiatives and cost savings measures focused on achieving a safer, more inclusive, and more efficient organization. 

To help us achieve these goals, the President’s proposed overall budget for discretionary funding for the Forest Service in fiscal year 2015 is $4.77 billion. The budget 

also proposes a new and fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire that 

recognizes that catastrophic wildland fires should be considered disasters, funded in 

part by additional budget authority provided through a budget cap adjustment for 

wildland fire suppression. Combined with the funding for fire suppression in the discretionary request, this strategy will fully fund estimated wildfire suppression funding needs. 

Restoring Resilient Landscapes 

Our approach to addressing ecological degradation is to embark on efforts that 

support ecological restoration allowing for healthier more resilient ecosystems. In cooperation with our partners across shared landscapes, we continue to ensure that 

the Nation’s forests and grasslands retain their ability to deliver the social, economic, and ecological values and benefits that Americans want and need now and 

for generations to come. 

In February 2011, President Obama launched the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, setting forth a comprehensive agenda for conservation and outdoor recreation in the 21st century. In tandem with the President’s initiative, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack outlined an All Lands vision for conservation calling for partnerships and collaboration to reach shared goals for restoring healthy, resilient forested 

landscapes across all landownerships nationwide. 

In response, the Forest Service has launched an initiative to accelerate restoration 

across shared landscapes. The Accelerated Restoration Initiative builds on Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR), the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program (CFLRP), the 2012 planning rule, and other restoration-related programs 

and initiatives to pick up the pace of ecological restoration while creating more jobs 

in rural communities. Our collaborative, holistic approach to restoring forest and 
136 

grassland health relies on the State Forest Action Plans and the Forest Service’s 

own Watershed Condition Framework to identify high-priority areas for restoration 

treatments. 

In fiscal year 2012, Congress authorized the Forest Service to pilot test the combination of multiple budget line items into a single line item for IRR. By combining 

funds from five budget line items we can better integrate and align watershed protection and restoration into all aspects of our management. In fiscal year 2013, our 

integrated approach restored almost over 2,533,000 acres of forest and grassland, 

decommissioned 1,490 miles of roads, and restored 4,168 miles of stream habitat 

substantially improving conditions across 12 entire watersheds across the NFS. 

Given the success demonstrated in the three pilot regions, we propose fully implementing IRR across the entire Forest Service in fiscal year 2015. We propose a national IRR budget of $820 million. Investing in IRR in fiscal year 2015 is expected 

to result in 2,700,000 watershed acres treated, 3.1 billion board feet of timber volume sold, approximately 2,000 miles of road decommissioned, and 3,262 miles of 

stream habitat restored or enhanced. An estimated 26 watersheds will be restored 

to a higher condition class in fiscal year 2015. 

CFLRP was created in 2009 to help restore high-priority forested landscapes, improve forest health, promote job stability, create a reliable wood supply, and to reduce firefighting risks across the United States. The Secretary of Agriculture selected 23 large-scale projects for 10-year funding. Although the projects are mostly 

on NFS land, the collaborative nature of the program ties communities to local forest landscapes, engaging them in the work needed to restore the surrounding landscapes and watersheds. We propose to increase authorization for this successful collaborative program in the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget. We propose to increase the program authorization to $80 million and are requesting $60 million in 

fiscal year 2015 to continue implementation of the current 23 projects and for inclusion of additional projects. All of the existing projects are on track to meet their 10- 

year goals, and to date, more than 588,461 acres of wildlife habitat have been improved, while generating 814 million board feet of timber and 1.9 million green tons 

of biomass for energy production and other uses. 

To gain efficiencies in our planning efforts, the Forest Service is moving forward 

with implementing a new land management planning rule. The new rule requires 

an integrated approach to forest plan preparation and multilevel monitoring of outcomes that allows for adaptive management, improved project implementation, and 

facilitated landscape scale restoration. We are also working to be more efficient in 

our environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

through development of three restoration-related categorical exclusions promoting 

hydrologic, aquatic, and landscape restoration approved in 2013. Other investments 

in ‘‘Electronic Management of NEPA’’ (eMNEPA) have significantly reduced administrative costs; we estimate that we save approximately $17 million each year because of these investments. Collectively, these efforts will help land managers to 

focus on collaborative watershed restoration efforts that also promote jobs and economic opportunities in rural communities. 

Building Thriving Communities 

The Forest Service works to build thriving communities across the Nation by 

helping urban communities reconnect with the outdoors, by expanding the benefits 

that both rural and urban residents get from outdoor recreation, and by providing 

communities with the many economic benefits that result from sustainable multipleuse management of the national forests and grasslands. 

Through our Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage program, we are dedicated to 

serving tens of millions of recreation visitors each year. Rural communities rely on 

the landscapes around them for hunting, fishing, and various amenities; the places 

they live are vital to their identity and social well-being. We maintain these landscapes for the character, settings, and sense of place that people have come to expect, such as popular trail corridors and viewsheds. 

In support of the President’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative and the First 

Lady’s ‘‘Let’s Move’’ initiative, we are implementing a Framework for Sustainable 

Recreation. The framework is designed to ensure that people of all ages and from 

every socioeconomic background have opportunities to visit their national forests 

and grasslands—and, if they wish, to contribute through volunteer service. We focus 

on sustaining recreational and heritage-related activities on the National Forest 

System for generations to come. That includes maintaining and rehabilitating historic buildings and other heritage assets for public use, such as campgrounds and 

other historic facilities built by the Civilian Conservation Corps. 

A significant portion of our budget to sustain operations for outdoor recreation— 

roughly 20 percent—comes from fees collected under the Federal Lands Recreation 
137 

Enhancement Act (FLREA). Of the fees collected, 95 percent are locally reinvested 

to maintain and restore the facilities and services for outdoor recreation that people 

want and need. We propose permanent authority for the FLREA while clarifying its 

provisions and providing more consistency among agencies. This is an interagency 

proposal with the Department of the Interior. 

For decades, the Forest Service has focused on protecting and restoring critical 

forested landscapes, not only on the national forests, but also on non-Federal lands. 

All 50 States and Puerto Rico prepared comprehensive State Forest Action Plans 

identifying the forested landscapes most in need of protection and restoration. Based 

on the State plans, the Forest Service has been working with State and other partners to tailor our programs accordingly, applying our limited resources to the most 

critical landscapes. 

In fiscal year 2014, we began building on our successful State and Private Forestry Redesign initiative through a new program called Landscape Scale Restoration. The program allows States to continue pursuing innovative, landscape-scale 

projects across the Forest Health Management, State Fire Assistance, Forest Stewardship, and Urban and Community Forestry programs without the limitation of a 

specific mix of program funding. The program is designed to capitalize on the State 

Forest Action Plans to target the forested areas most in need of restoration treatments while leveraging partner funds. We propose funding the new program at almost $24 million. 

We are also using the State Forest Action Plans to identify and conserve forests 

critical for wildlife habitat and rural jobs through our Forest Legacy Program. 

Working through the States, we provide working forests with permanent protection 

by purchasing conservation easements from willing private landowners. As of February 2014, the Forest Legacy Program had protected more than 2.36 million acres 

of critical working forests, benefiting rural Americans in 42 States and Puerto Rico. We propose $53 million in discretionary funding for Forest Legacy and $47 million 

in mandatory funds, from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), for a 

total of $100 million. The increase is a key component of the President’s America’s 

Great Outdoors Initiative to conserve critical landscapes and reconnect Americans 

to the outdoors through reauthorizing the LWCF as fully mandatory funds in fiscal 

year 2016. 

In a similar vein, our Land Acquisition Program is designed to protect critical ecosystems and prevent habitat fragmentation. In accordance with the President’s 

America’s Great Outdoors Initiative, we worked with the Department of the Interior 

to establish a Federal interagency Collaborative Landscape Planning Program, designed to leverage our joint investments and coordinate our efforts to protect intact, 

functioning ecosystems across entire landscapes. Land acquisitions are a proven 

value for the taxpayer, making it easier and less expensive for people to access their 

public lands—and easier and less expensive for the Forest Service to manage and 

restore the lands entrusted to our care. An analysis by The Trust for Public Land 

showed that every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition returns $4 to the taxpayer; taking returns beyond 10 years into account, the benefits are even greater. 

The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes $51 million in discretionary 

funding for our Federal Land Acquisition program and almost $76.7 million in mandatory funding from the LWCF, for a combined total of $127.7 million. These mandatory funds are part of the President’s proposed LWCF reauthorization with fully 

mandatory funds starting in fiscal year 2016. 

Working with the Department of the Interior, we propose to permanently authorize annual mandatory funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation for the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture LWCF programs beginning 

in fiscal year 2015. Starting in 2016, $900 million annually in permanent funds 

would be available. During the transition to full permanent funding in 2015, the 

budget proposes $900 million in total LWCF funding, comprised of $550 million in 

permanent and $350 million discretionary funds. 

Another legislative proposal listed in our fiscal year 2015 budget is an amendment 

to the Small Tracts Act to provide land conveyance authority for small parcels, less 

than 40 acres, to help resolve encroachments or trespasses. Proceeds from the sale 

of National Forest System lands under this proposed authority would be collected 

under the Sisk Act and used for future acquisitions and/or enhancement of existing 

public lands. 

We are also helping communities use their wood resources for renewable energy. 

Through the Forest Service’s Woody Biomass Utilization Grants Program, we are 

funding grants to develop community wood-to-energy plans and to acquire or upgrade wood-based energy systems and in fiscal year 2013, State and Private Forestry awarded 10 biomass grant awards totaling almost $2.5 million to small businesses and community groups. In an interagency effort with the Rural Utilities 
138 

Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Business-Cooperative Service within Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development and the Farm Service Agency, 

the USDA Wood to Energy Initiative synergistically facilitates achievement of the 

cooperating agencies’ goals. The Forest Service leverages its small amount of grant 

funds with the Rural Development’s grant and loan programs by providing subject 

matter expertise and technical assistance in the early stages of project development, 

so the proponents can successfully compete for Rural Development’s loans and 

grants. Our goal is lower energy bills, greater rural prosperity, and better environmental outcomes overall. 

Better environmental outcomes result, in part, from removing woody materials to 

restore healthy, resilient forested landscapes. Many of the materials we remove 

have little or no market value, and by finding new uses for them through our Research and Development Programs, we can get more work done, producing more 

jobs and community benefits. Our Bioenergy and Biobased Products Research Program is leading the way in researching wood-based energy and products. Through 

discoveries made at our Forest Products Lab, woody biomass can now be used to 

develop cross-laminated timber for building components such as floors, walls, ceilings, and more. Completed projects have included the use of cross-laminated panels 

for 10-story high-rise buildings. 

Over 83 percent of America’s citizens now live in urban areas. For most Americans, their main experience of the outdoors comes from their local tree-lined streets, 

greenways, and parks, not to mention their own backyards. Fortunately, America 

has over 100 million acres of urban forests, an area the size of California. Through 

our Urban and Community Forestry Program, the Forest Service has benefited more 

than 7,000 communities, home to 196 million Americans, helping people reap the 

benefits they get from trees, including energy conservation, flood and pollution control, climate change mitigation, and open spaces for improved quality of life. 

We are expanding our work with cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Los 

Angeles, working with an array of partners in the Urban Waters Federal Partnership to restore watersheds in urban areas. We are also helping communities acquire 

local landscapes for public recreation and watershed benefits through our Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program, which is funded at $1.7 million 

in the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget. Our goal is to help create a Nation of 

citizen-stewards committed to conserving their local forests and restoring them to 

health for all the benefits they get from them. 

Our community focus supports the President’s America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to achieve landscape-scale restoration objectives, connect more people to the 

outdoors, and support opportunities for outdoor recreation while providing jobs and 

income for rural communities. Building on existing partnerships, we have established a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps to help us increase the number 

of work and training opportunities for young people and veterans while accomplishing high-priority conservation and restoration work on public lands. 

Managing Wildland Fires 

The administration has worked this year to analyze and develop a strategy to address catastrophic fire risk. The budget calls for a change in how wildfire suppression is funded in order to reduce fire risk, to more holistically manage landscapes, 

and to increase the resiliency of the Nation’s forests and rangelands and the communities that surround them. The cost of suppression has grown from 13 percent 

of the agency’s budget just 10 years ago to over 40 percent in 2014. This increase 

in the cost of wildland fire suppression is subsuming the agency’s budget and jeopardizing its ability to implement its full mission. The growth in the frequency, size, 

and severity of fires in recent years; along with the continual expansion of the 

wildland urban interface (WUI) have all increased the risks of catastrophic fires to 

life and property. Collectively these factors have resulted in suppression costs that 

exceeded amounts provided in annual appropriations requiring us to transfer funds 

from other programs to cover costs. This shift in funding is creating a loss in momentum for critical restoration and other resource programs as fire transfers deplete the budget by up to $500 million annually. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a new funding strategy that recognizes the 

negative effects of funding fire suppression as we have historically. The budget proposes funding catastrophic wildland fires similar to other disasters. Funded in part 

by additional budget authority provided through a budget cap adjustment for wildfire suppression, the budget proposes discretionary funding for wildland fire suppression at a level equal to 70 percent of the estimated 10-year average suppression 

costs, which reflects the level of spending associated with suppression of 99 percent 

of wildfires. In addition, the budget includes up to $954 million to be available 

under a disaster funding cap adjustment to meet suppression needs above the base 
139 

appropriation. This proposed funding level includes 30 percent of the 10-year average of fire suppression costs and the difference to the upper limit of the 90th percentile range forecast for suppression costs for fiscal year 2015. This additional 

funding would be accessed with Secretarial declaration of need or imminent depletion of appropriated discretionary funds. This strategy provides increased certainty 

in addressing growing fire suppression needs, better safeguards non-suppression 

programs from transfers that diminish their effectiveness, and allows us to stabilize 

and invest in programs that more effectively restore forested landscapes, treat forests for the increasing effects of climate change, and prepare communities in the 

WUI for future wildfires. 

Our evolving approach to managing wildland fire is integral to meeting our goals 

of safety, landscape-scale restoration, cross-boundary landscape conservation, and 

risk management. We continue to learn more about wildland fire, and we continue 

to apply what we learn through fire and risk management science in partnership 

with States, communities, and other Federal agencies. We strive to maximize our 

response capabilities and to support community efforts to reduce the threat of wildfire and increase ecosystem resilience. The agency has made great progress in its 

continued focus on risk-based decisionmaking when responding to wildfires, and in 

2015 will continue this important work to better inform decisionmakers on the risks 

and trade-offs associated with wildfire management decisions. The budget also furthers efforts to focus hazardous fuels treatments on 1.4 million WUI acres focused 

on high priority areas identified in Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 

Through our Hazardous Fuels Program, the Forest Service controls fuels by removing buildups of dead vegetation and by thinning overly dense forests that can 

be hazardous to lives, homes, communities, and wildland resources. From fiscal year 

2001 to fiscal year 2013, the Forest Service treated about 33 million acres, an area 

larger than Mississippi. For fiscal year 2015, we propose $358.6 million for our Hazardous Fuels program. We also propose performing non-WUI Hazardous Fuels work 

within the IRR line item in order to accomplish work more efficiently. With more 

than 70,000 communities in the WUI at risk from wildfire, the Forest Service is 

working through cross-jurisdictional partnerships to help communities become safer 

from wildfires. Through the Firewise program, the number of designated Firewise 

communities rose from 400 in fiscal year 2008 to nearly 1,000 in fiscal year 2013. 

Our Hazardous Fuels program is also designed to help firefighters manage 

wildfires safely and effectively, and where appropriate, to use fire for resource benefits. Our Preparedness program is designed to help us protect lives, property, and 

wildland resources through an appropriate, risk-based response to wildfires. Preparedness has proven its worth; Fire Program Analysis, a strategic management 

tool, shows that every $1 subtracted from preparedness funding adds $1.70 to suppression costs because more fires escape to become large and large fires are more 

expensive to suppress. Unless we maintain an adequate level of preparedness, we 

risk substantial increases in overall fire management costs. 

Airtankers are a critical part of our response to wildfire. Their use plays a crucial 

role in keeping some fires small and greatly assists in controlling the large fires. 

Accordingly, we are implementing a Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy to replace our aging fleet with next-generation airtankers. Our strategy, reflected in our 

budget request, would fund both the older aircraft still in operation and the nextgeneration airtankers currently under contract. It would also cover required cancellation fees and the C–130 Hercules aircraft transferred by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

SAFETY AND INCLUSION

In addition to our focus on restoring resilient landscapes, building thriving communities, and managing wildland fire, we continue our agency efforts to become a 

safer, more diverse, and more inclusive organization. 

Accomplishing our work often takes us into high-risk environments. For that reason, for several years now, we have undertaken a learning journey to become a safer 

organization. Every one of our employees has taken training to become more attuned to safety issues and the need to manage personal risk. As part of this effort, 

safety means recognizing the risk and managing it appropriately. Our goal is to become a zero-fatality organization through a constant, relentless focus on safety. 

Recognizing that more than 83 percent of Americans live in metropolitan areas, 

the Forest Service is outreaching to urban and underserved communities to introduce more people to opportunities to get outdoors, to participate in NFS land management, and to engage in conservation work in their own communities. Part of this 

inclusiveness is creating new opportunities to come into contact with and to hiring 

individuals from various backgrounds that might not otherwise be exposed to other 

Forest Service programs. 
140 

COST SAVINGS

The Forest Service is committed to achieving the greatest benefits for the taxpayer at the least cost. Mindful of the need for savings, we have taken steps to cut 

operating costs. Taking advantage of new technologies, we have streamlined and 

centralized our financial, information technology, and human resources operations 

to gain efficiencies and save costs. We continue to work with other USDA agencies 

under the Blueprint for Stronger Service to develop strategies for greater efficiencies 

in key business areas. In fiscal year 2013, we saved millions of dollars through additional measures to promote efficiencies, ranging from an $800,000 annual savings 

through consolidation of local telephone service accounts to right-sizing our existing 

Microsoft software licenses, which yielded over $4 million in savings in fiscal year 

2013. In fiscal year 2013, we also instituted measures that will yield $100 million 

in cost pool savings by fiscal year 2015. 

Another cost saving highlight is the Forest Service completion of the design and 

construction for the renovation of the Yates Building on schedule, and within budget. On January 13, 2014, following completion of the renovation, all 762 Washington 

Office located employees apart from International Programs were finally located in 

the same building. Beside these benefits, this move is expected to save $5 million 

annually in leasing costs. 

FUTURE OUTLOOK

For more than a century, the Forest Service has served the American people by 

making sure that their forests and grasslands deliver a full range of values and benefits. America receives enormous value from our programs and activities, including 

hundreds of thousands of jobs and annual contributions to the economy worth many 

times more than our entire annual discretionary budget. Especially in these tough 

economic times, Americans benefit tremendously from investing in Forest Service 

programs and activities. 

Now we are facing some of the greatest challenges in our history. Invasive species, 

climate change effects, regional drought and watershed degradation, fuel buildups 

and severe wildfires, habitat fragmentation and loss of open space, and devastating 

outbreaks of insects and disease all threaten the ability of America’s forests and 

grasslands to continue delivering the ecosystem services that Americans want and 

need. In response, the Forest Service is increasing the pace and scale of ecological 

restoration. We are working to create healthy, resilient forest and grassland ecosystems capable of sustaining and delivering clean air and water, habitat for wildlife, opportunities for outdoor recreation, and many other benefits. 

Our budget request focuses on the public’s highest priorities for restoring resilient 

landscapes, building thriving communities, and safely managing wildland fire while 

providing an effective emergency response. Our requested budget will enable us to 

address the growing extent and magnitude of our management challenges and the 

mix of values and benefits that the public expects from the national forests and 

grasslands. We will continue to lead the way in improving our administrative operations for greater efficiency and effectiveness in mission delivery. Our research will 

continue to solve complex problems by creating innovative science and technology 

for the protection, sustainable management, and use of all forests, both public and 

private, for the benefit of the American people. Moreover, we are working ever more 

effectively to optimize our response to cross-cutting issues by integrating our programs and activities. 

We can achieve these priorities through partnerships and collaboration. Our budget priorities highlight the need to strengthen service through cooperation, collaboration, and public-private partnerships that leverage our investments to reach shared 

goals. Through strategic partnerships, we can accomplish more work while also 

yielding more benefits for all Americans, for the sake of all generations to come. 

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any 

questions that you or the subcommittee members have for me. 

WILDLAND FIRE

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Chief. 

Mr. Dixon, do you have any comment? Thank you very much. 

Every year, Chief, we sit down at this moment, which is, coincidentally, before the fire season and we anticipate what it will be 

like, and it would help us if you could give us your sense of what 
141 

you expect going forward, particularly as we are all aware of, 

droughts in many parts of the West. 

Can you give us a sense of what you expect? And even with the 

significant resources you are asking for, do you think they will be 

adequate? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are anticipating a very active fire season this 

year, especially in the southwest. 

In California, if you are watching the news, it has a record 

drought, some of the driest conditions, and this follows the driest 

year on record in California and last year, but it is just one of the 

areas. We have had to bring on additional resources earlier this 

year to be prepositioned to be able to deal with that in California. 

So we do have the resources that we need to be able to deal with 

the suppression issue. 

BUDGET CHALLENGES

However, we do expect that the cost of this fire season is going 

to exceed the funding that we have available this year. You can anticipate that I will be informing the subcommittee of the need to 

be able to transfer money. That is based on the information that 

we have this year at this point in time. So it is going to be very 

similar to what we had last year, and some indications, it is going 

to be even more active than the fire season we had last year. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

Senator REED. Thank you. 

In terms of the approach that you are taking which, in a very 

simplified way, would put some of the funding into the emergency 

category and the bulk of it remaining under our purview, and has 

to be offset by other programs. That requires coordination with several committees, including the budget committee since it is a budget issue here, the authorizing committees, and obviously our committee. 

Can you tell us what you have been doing to reach out to these 

other committees and try to make the case? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Mr. Chairman, we have been meeting with the 

staffs and members of all three of these committees that you have 

mentioned over the last 3 or 4 months now, to be able to help them 

understand the problem, and then in addition, how this solution 

would work. 

I need to stress that this would not increase spending for fire 

suppression by shifting a portion of our fires into the natural disaster category. It would allow us to access the disaster fund that 

has already been appropriated. All it does is stop the transfer. It 

does not increase costs. It does not score. 

This is one of the reasons that we feel very strongly that this is 

a good approach. We definitely want to work with this subcommittee, the authorizing committees and, of course, the Budget 

Committee on ways to even improve what is being proposed at this 

time in the introduced legislation. 

But we feel it is a very good starting place. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

And Chief, I understand that the $954 million requested within 

the disaster cap is made up of two parts. It is 30 percent of the 
142 

regular 10-year average and the second part is to project an 

amount above the 10-year average that would be necessary based 

on a new 2-year forecast. 

Can you tell us how you arrived at the 30 percent level? And 

also, how you developed the new 2-year forecasting model? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, we have always had the 2-year forecasting 

model since we have been responding to Congress on the FLAME 

Report, where we send up our forecast every quarter. What it is 

based on is just looking at data from the last 30-some years, and 

it is a regression model that our scientists use to do the best job 

to actually predict what we can expect this coming year. 

The problem with it is when it is 2 years out, for fiscal year 

2015, that model shows that we are 90 percent confident that the 

suppression costs will be somewhere between $770 million and $1.9 

billion. Now, as we move closer into 2015, we will definitely be able 

to have a much better forecast. But that is the challenge that we 

have had. 

The 10-year average was something we all agreed to. It has proven not to work out because 11 of the last 14 years, we have exceeded the 10-year average in our funding. Even with the forecasts 2 

years out, it is just so difficult because there are so many weather 

patterns that can shift for next year. That is what makes this so 

difficult. 

That is why we feel that if this is a better approach, to set up 

so that there is a certain type of fire, we are talking about the 

large, complex fires, the fires that threaten communities, we would 

be able to access this disaster funding. When we exhaust all the 

appropriated funds, then anything after that would still be able to 

access the disaster fund. 

But those are the challenges that we have. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Chief. 

Senator Murkowski. 

ROADLESS RULE

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, as you know, due to your visit with me to the State last 

summer, and I appreciate you taking the time. I know Alaskans 

appreciated the opportunity to show you on the ground what we 

are dealing with there in the southeast, in the Tongass. 

But as you know, most of the mills there in the southeast have 

closed due to lack of timber supply. Energy projects whether it is 

hydroelectric or potential geothermal projects, could really make a 

difference in a region that struggles with high energy costs. In 

some of our smaller village communities, you are paying 40 cents 

to 50 cents a kilowatt hour and yet, we are surrounded with amazing hydropower potential, and in certain areas, geothermal potential. But opportunities are tied up because of red tape, whether it 

is policies coming out of the Federal Government or the impact of 

the roadless rule. 

You have indicated to me that you think that there is some flexibility that you have to act and you have got to avoid some of those 

areas that are so impacted by the roadless. But I am passing a 

map out to my colleagues here that details the roadless area inven-
143 

tory within the Tongass. 91 percent of the Tongass is considered 

roadless; 9.6 million acres is roadless. So we are bound. 

We cannot access an area to put in a hydro facility, whether it 

is small hydro, lake tap, whatever it is we are trying to do, geothermal opportunities. We are all talking about the great policies 

that this Administration is trying to advance when it comes to renewables. But if you cannot build the project because the roadless 

rule does not allow you to put a road there, the only way you can 

do it is by helicopter. Well, colleagues, figure that one out. Pretty 

danged expensive to build a hydro facility or do anything if you are 

operating completely by helicopter. So we are trying to figure this 

out. 

BIG THORNE SALE

You know, Chief, that last year was not a good year for Region 

10. It was the worst performing region, just 16.8 percent of the target was accomplished. Region 10 has only sold about 30 million 

board feet per year since 2008. 

So, again, in my opening statement, I mentioned Big Thorne. We 

are all hoping and praying that Big Thorne comes through and Big 

Thorne has been sitting since September. You have indicated to me 

that that is how we are going to get to this transition is second 

growth. 

So can you give me some update on when we may see the Big 

Thorne Sale offered? How much volume of the original 150 million 

board feet will be offered? And really, from a broader perspective, 

how are you going to overcome this decline? Is it just done? Is it 

just over in the Tongass, that we will not be able to see any aspect 

of a timber industry anymore? Is it done? Because if you say that 

it is, we are going to have a timber war here all over again. 

We cannot give up on this region. We cannot give up on a region 

that has opportunity and has potential, but is being denied because 

of policies from our own Federal Government. 

So first, Big Thorne and then, second, how are we going to arrest 

this decline? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, Senator, we are committed to completing the 

Big Thorne project. We are in the process, with the region finishing 

up their draft Supplemental Information Report. They are going to 

be sitting down with the appellants to share that additional information around their concerns. I am optimistic that they will be 

able to address that. 

They may have to, as part of addressing the appeals, drop a unit 

or two. That is always something we can look at. But I am confident that the majority of that project will go through. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you know when? Give me an estimate 

because I am not sure we can hold on. I am not sure we can hold 

on much longer. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, they are completing the Supplemental Information Report and they are working with the State to provide 

some information about the wolf species, that is of a concern up 

there. I think they are close to completing that. 

They will be sitting down with the appellants, and then, hopefully we will be able to resolve it, and then be able to go forward. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What if we cannot? 
144 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are planning on doing it this year along with 

the other timber sales that we have planned. So the target this 

year is 70 million plus the Big Thorne project. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. 70 million plus Big Thorne. You anticipate 

that Big Thorne is going to be 150 million board feet. But realistically, I mean, we have not seen, we sold 30 million board feet per 

year since 2008. 

How are we going to get to the numbers that you are talking 

about? I mean, are they just numbers on paper? 

Mr. TIDWELL. No, they are not on paper. Senator, with Big 

Thorne, the staff have worked so hard on that project. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I know. 

Mr. TIDWELL. It will not be 150, but it should be in the range 

of 100 million, plus what we plan to go forward with. As you have 

pointed out, this is essential that we provide this bridge timber for 

our plan to transition to second growth. 

I think that is still the right plan, but we need to be able to do 

projects like Big Thorne. We need to be able to do the projects like 

Wrangell this year. To be able to have that amount of timber and 

to be able to bridge during the times until we are ready to move 

into the second growth as being the predominant harvest up there; 

to be able to sustain the wood products industry for all the reasons 

that you have mentioned; and to be able to provide jobs. It needs 

to be part of the economic activity in that State. 

The other part of it is hydro. We are working on the hydro 

projects. They are a great benefit, especially in the Southeast. But 

as you also know, we are having to ship wood pellets, either out 

of Seattle to bring them up to Ketchikan to convert using the biomass for electricity. When we see all that and the trees there, the 

idea that we cannot have a pellet plant right there, to be able to 

provide renewable energy for those facilities and not ship it out. 

But that is another reason it is just essential for us to be able to 

maintain the industry. 

So you have my commitment that we are going to get Big Thorne 

done. We are going to move forward on the sales this year. And at 

the same time, still continue to move forward with the transition. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, Chief, my time has expired. I will 

have more questions in the second round. 

But you keep talking about these sales that will be the bridge, 

but in order for a bridge to work, it has to be anchored to something on either side. Right now, there is not much to anchor within 

the southeastern timber economy because we cannot get any sales 

moving. We cannot get any product at all. 

And so, when we talk about transition, when we talk about 

bridges, we still have to have an anchor, and you are not giving 

us that anchor yet. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Senator Tester. 

AIRTANKERS

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, again, for 

being here, fellows. 

Chief Tidwell, you and I have talked about the recent struggles 

the Forest Service has faced in putting together a next generation 
145 

air tanker fleet, and I do appreciate the attention the Forest Service has given to the matter. 

I am concerned about reports that some of the contractors that 

were not ready to go last year may not be ready to go this year. 

We are 3 years into this gig and I do not know that we have gotten 

a lot out of it. 

That being said, can you give me an update of where folks stand 

in terms of getting the planes in the air to combat wildfires? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we will have an adequate number of air 

tankers again this year to be able to deal with the projected fire 

season. It will be a combination of the legacy aircraft that are 

under contract, and then we are expecting to have seven of the 

next generation aircraft also flying this year. 

We are also working closely with the Air Force and the Air Force 

Reserve to have the Modular Airborne FireFighting System 

(MAFFs) units. They have already started their training to be 

ready, and then we also have our agreement with Canada to bring 

down their planes if we need to, to get through this year, and then 

hopefully, we will be in a better position in 2015 to have more of 

the next generation aircraft online. 

Senator TESTER. So what I heard you just say, and correct me 

if I am wrong, you are going to have seven next generation planes 

ready to be up in the air this year? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is what we are hearing from the contractors. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is what they said they will deliver. 

Senator TESTER. And so, come July 1, there will be seven next 

generation ready to go. 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is what they have told us. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Last year, they were not, and I think 

they might have told you the same thing. Were there any ramifications/repercussions for those folks who failed to meet those deadlines? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We followed our contract procedures to send them 

cure notices. They respond to that. We are working with these contractors because we need the planes, and as you saw last year, it 

became more difficult for them to be able to make the modifications 

to the aircraft that they bought to be able to meet our tests and, 

at the same time, be safe aircraft that the FAA will certify after 

they have made the modifications to the aircraft. It is a year later, 

and they are making progress. 

Senator TESTER. I would just say this, Chief, I mean, I would 

hold their feet to the fire. This is not nuclear physics; this kind of 

stuff is not that complicated and, quite frankly, I think they knew 

exactly what they were getting into when they were awarded the 

contracts. And I personally do not think they had any—I think 

they fully knew that they were not going to be able to get those 

planes up in the air; let us just put it that way. And they knew 

we would be very forgiving too. 

And so, I do not point the finger at you. I just think that this 

is a common practice across Government. People contract with us 

and then they say, ‘‘Well, it costs much more money,’’ and we cut 

them a check, and I think that kind of stuff needs to stop. If they 
146 

do not provide the service, they ought not have the contract. That 

is my soapbox for you. 

Last year, we kind of heard the same thing, and I just want to 

point out that the Forest Service, I think, their dates for next generation are not certain. They are to be determined, TBD. Is that 

correct? 

Senator TESTER. For the next generation. 

Mr. TIDWELL. For this year? 

Senator TESTER. Yes. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We have asked the contractors that the planes 

need to be flying, passed all the tests by July 1st, and we have a 

schedule of the dates that they will be bringing those on. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. So thank you for that. So you are telling 

me that you have dates certain from these contractors when these 

planes are going to be up. 

Mr. TIDWELL. They have provided us dates, yes. 

Senator TESTER. And what happens if they do not meet those 

dates? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will send them a cure notice and they have to 

explain then what steps they are going to take to be able to bring 

the planes on. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Is there anything you can do if they do 

not meet those dates? I know we need planes, but they also need 

our business too. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. We are working with these contractors because if we cancel these contracts, then we do not have any planes 

for sure. Even though it is taking them longer, late last year, we 

got another one of the planes flying. There is one of the companies 

that indicated they will have two of their planes ready. We know 

that there are two more planes that will pass the tests, and we can 

be flying those. 

So it has been frustrating, and I share your frustration. I have 

to deal with it. 

Senator TESTER. And I would just say, I get it, but if they know 

that they do not have to play by the rules, and yet, they are still 

going to get the contract, that is crazy. I mean, that is just flat 

crazy. I still believe that competition will fill that void and so, I 

think they need to be held accountable. I think the taxpayers expect that, quite frankly and I think everybody on this panel does 

too. 

I am going to stick around for the next round of questions, so I 

will let my 30 seconds go. But once again, thank you for your work, 

Chief. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator REED. Senator Blunt. 

COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chief Tidwell, our State, Missouri, is ranked No. 3 by the Forest 

Service in terms of economic impact of forestry on the economy. I 

want to talk a little bit about the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Project. 

I met with the regional forester, Kathleen Atkinson, in December, a year ago, and I had been to the site where you were doing 

a large burn, I think it was a 10,000 acre burn. Looked like, to the 
147 

farm boy in me, that there was lots of damage to the tall trees you 

were trying to save and lots of potential erosion on the ground. 

I asked for a couple of things then, one of which I have not gotten yet. One was any proof that we felt that this would really work. 

I believe the goal was to restore the forest to some moment that 

the Service has decided was exactly the right balance of trees in 

the forest which, I think, we could probably argue about. And 

whether or not the forest industry could go in and mark trees and 

harvest those trees before you burnt them. I did not receive much 

in specifics on that. On marking the trees, I think the answer was, 

no. You did not think that was possible. 

But there was a meeting recently with the local Forest Service 

with Congressman Smith and Congressman Luetkemeyer and my 

staff in the State. And my understanding now is that those funds 

will not be used for burns, but will be used to hire new personnel 

to help with harvesting in the coming fiscal year. Is that right? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, with the Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program there is always a mix of activities. Yes, this 

coming year, there is going to be more mechanical treatment, more 

timber harvest that will be coming off of there. 

The purpose of the prescribed fire is to create a much more resilient forest that can deal with concerns with insect and disease, et 

cetera. When there are merchantable trees, we always want to get 

in there and harvest those trees that need to be removed. A prescribed fire is to just provide more of the ecological system that we 

have, so that it is more resilient. So it is usually a combination, 

and often, we do a timber harvest and then follow that with a prescribed burn to reduce some of the residual material and reduce 

the concern for potential fire. It takes both. But this coming year, 

I do know that on that project, they are going to be focused on 

doing timber harvest and not the prescribed burning. 

Senator BLUNT. Okay. Well, that is helpful. And then there is a 

University of Missouri study on the impact of that program and 

forestry generally. Are you aware of that and are you all cooperating in that? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I am not aware of that specific study. 

Senator BLUNT. Would you follow up on that? I think your people 

on the ground said that they were beginning to work with the University of Missouri to talk about the impact there. 

And I think the estimate is we lose 50 million board feet of timber in the Mark Twain Forest every year, and we harvest about 38 

million. Doing a better job of harvesting the trees that are going 

to be lost would be something that, I know, you care about and I 

do too, and I hope we do that. 

Do you have some information there, Mr. Dixon, on the study I 

asked about? 

Mr. DIXON. Our northern research station is working with the 

University of Missouri to detail the socioeconomic modeling related 

to the impacts of our Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program. So we are working in conjunction with the University. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, since both of those things have been 

verified, I feel better about the year we are going into. 

I do think on the greater issue of the burning program, what I 

would like to see, and maybe we have a year now to see if you 
148 

could produce that for me, any evidence that that really is going 

to work in restoring the forest area you are burning to where you 

think it is. 

It seems to me having visited there, that the trees coming back 

up are the same trees you burned down, as opposed to some different look that tries to capture a moment in time which, I think, 

is pretty arguable too; that that was the perfect moment for the 

forest, and we go to all this effort to make that happen. And you 

do have, when you remove all of the groundcover, obviously, erosion and other things are a problem that would not be otherwise. 

I may have had my two biggest questions answered here. 

Personnel-wise are you using the new personnel that you are hiring to try to identify the timber that can be harvested? Is that 

what I understood you to say? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well Senator, each year, staff put together the program of work, and we get a lot of our work done with our seasonal 

workforce. So as we move into a year, we are going to be doing 

more timber harvest, we are going to be hiring more seasonals to 

do the marking, et cetera, versus maybe a prescribed burn. 

But the thing I need to stress is that with the reduction of our 

staffing over the last decade, it has just really limited our ability 

to be able to manage these forests. To be able to do the work where 

there is now strong support across the country, especially in these 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration projects where people 

understand what needs to be done on the landscape. 

But I will tell you, we are just so limited in what we are able 

to do. Our staff are doing a great job to be able to produce as much 

as they are. But with this budget request, where we are asking for 

additional money to do more forest restoration, do more hazardous 

fuels funding, and this is the first time that I have been up here 

in quite a few years in a position to be able to ask for that increase. 

That is what will really make a difference. 

So we have the collaboratives in place, folks understand what 

work needs to be done. Now is the time for us to add some additional capacity into the system so that we can get more work done. 

And Senator, we will share with you the monitoring information 

from that project, and also the research that we have that guides 

the type of projects that we are putting on the ground. We have 

been doing this work for many years, and we will provide that information. 

Not every project accomplishes every objective we set out. That 

is why we monitor these. But just like in our hazardous fuels 

projects, 90 percent of those meet their objectives to reduce the 

threat of fire and reduce the severity of fire. 

So we will provide you with that additional information. 

Senator BLUNT. I may have some other questions later, Chairman. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator Blunt. 

Senator Merkley, please. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION CAP ADJUSTMENT

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

thank you, Chief Tidwell and Mr. Dixon. Appreciate your testimony. 
149 

First I just want to thank you very much for your support and 

advocacy of changing the way that we address funding of fighting 

forest fires in a regular budget, the 70 percent rolling average over 

a 10-year period, and then doing the rest under emergency. It 

makes a great deal of sense. We have just been putting all our resources in the firefighting end and failing to treat emergencies as 

emergencies, and draining the Forest Service, and then trying to 

refund the Forest Service to do your regular work, which is so critical, whether it is planning for timber sales or maintaining the forest parks. 

So anything I can do to work in partnership with you all, and 

with this committee, and with the Energy and Natural Resources 

committee, we are certainly happy to do. 

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

I wanted to mention that one community in Oregon, the community of Ashland, would be a great candidate for further hazardous 

fuels funding in their Wildland Urban Interface, and I will certainly follow up. They have partially completed their forest resiliency project, and just have a ways to go, and very important to 

their watershed for their area. 

TIMBER SALES

I wanted to turn to timber sales that are done by dealing with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning backlog 

and just the challenge of having the interdisciplinary teams necessary to complete the planning. The backlog in NEPA planning 

work in Oregon has presented itself as a concern to me. Perhaps 

you are aware of it, and the addition of more technical experts to 

those teams would be helpful. 

But are you aware of this challenge, and any particular thoughts 

about it? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator, we are, and it is one of the challenges we face, not only in your State, but across the country, to 

be able to have the necessary capacity to be able to increase the 

pace and scale of restoring our forests. 

We do have a great example, in the eastern part of your State, 

on the Malheur National Forest where we have been able to put 

that 10-year project together, and we are doing more and more 

work now where we are looking at large landscapes. 

Instead of looking at 1,000 acres at a time, we are now looking 

at tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of acres at a time 

and doing one Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and we are 

finding this to be much more efficient and more effective. It lays 

out a program of work for the next 10 years and provides a certainty to the industry, and it actually is saving us a lot of money 

and a lot of time in our NEPA process. 

We are to the point where for us to really go to where we need 

to be, and I use the project in eastern Oregon, for us to change the 

fire regime, we need to double the number of acres we have been 

treating in the last couple of years, and we need to do that for over 

a decade to really make a difference. 

That is just an example of the challenge that we have, and we 

do not need to double our budget to be able to do that work, but 
150 

we do need to be able to increase our capacity so that we can expand. And that is one of the reasons that I feel so strongly about 

our budget request this year because we are asking for some modest increases to be able to do forest management work using Integrated Resource Restoration funds and then, of course, a significant 

increase with hazardous fuels which often accomplishes two objectives: reduces fuels and at the same time produces saw timber for 

mills. 

COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION

Senator MERKLEY. I must say, there is an ecstatic community in 

John Day, Oregon and the Forest Service was instrumental in developing the innovation of using a service contract rather than a 

harvest contract to have that 10-year plan. That mill has hired, I 

believe, it is about 50 additional full time workers, living wage jobs, 

huge, huge for a small mill community and certainly a model to be 

replicated. 

And in that regard, I did want to praise the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program, the major part of that, the issues, 

the frame up with NEPA, all involved in that. We are seeking additional funding. You are seeking additional funding for it. I certainly 

am very supportive of that. 

But if we are able to maintain at least the 40 million; I do not 

know if we will make it to the 60 million. I would love it if we can. 

But will we be able to continue those projects that are already underway, like those three projects? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. We will be able to continue the 

projects that are underway, but what we found at the CFLR programs to be so effective, and it has so much support behind it. That 

is why we are asking for that increase to be able to expand that 

work. 

WILDFIRE DISASTER FUNDING ACT

And Senator, I do want to thank you for being a cosponsor on 

the Wildfire Disaster Fund because that is key to a lot of things 

that we are talking about, so I really appreciate your support and 

work on that. 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

Senator MERKLEY. Two more things I would like to mention in 

my 1 minute left. One is the Columbia River Gorge Economic Development Fund. 

At a time that that scenic area was established, there was a commitment from the Federal Government to fund $10 million of economic development in the Gorge. Some of that has been funded, 

but there is a balance left on it of approximately $2 million. I want 

to encourage the Forest Service to find a way to complete that commitment to the community. We are 28 years later and they could 

benefit from that. 

And second, just to put in a note that in terms of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), there are a lot of projects in Oregon that would merit from their attention and look forward to following up on that conversation. 
151 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will work on both of those efforts, and we will 

get back to you on the LWCF projects. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator REED. Senator Begich. 

BIG THORNE SALE

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know my colleague, Senator Murkowski, asked you several 

questions on the Big Thorne Timber Sale. So can I just ask, these 

might be very quick, just so I get the understanding. 

I know it is delayed. I know you are under an administrative appeal process. So I have two questions, maybe three. Is there any 

information, I know there was, at one point, the State of Alaska 

had to get some information for your administrative appeal. 

Has everyone supplied the information you need that is external 

to your operation to deal with that appeal? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, Senator. It is my understanding the State has 

provided that information. It is going to be put into that Supplemental Information Report and then shared with the appellates. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. So you have everything external that you 

need? 

Mr. TIDWELL. That is my understanding. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. 

Second, do you have the necessary staffing levels to ensure that 

you can move forward with resolving the appeal issue, but also, let 

us assume that it moves the right direction, to then make the sale 

happen? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes, we do. We have the staffing to be able to finish and implement Big Thorne, and at the same time, move forward with this year’s program of work. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. And this led me, I thought I just had two, 

or three, on this one. 

And that is, can you put in more specific terms—not right now, 

but in a memo back to myself and my colleague and the rest of the 

committee if they have any interest in that—is just a range of 

timetable that you think, based on the appeal and where we you 

might end up at the final here? Because obviously, this is a pretty 

big issue, as you know. It is important for the mill to have this contract resolved sooner than later. 

But can you give us something more definitive in dates or ranges 

of dates that you think you can get down this ladder? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We can provide that to you and the rest of the 

committee, if they are interested in that. 

[The information follows:] 

The Big Thorne Record of Decision received a number of administrative appeals. 

Upon review of those appeals, the Regional Forester upheld the Forest Supervisor’s 

decision, with direction to address whether the information and conclusions contained in the August 2013 statement of retired State of Alaska wildlife biologist Dr. 

David Person, is consistent with the analysis in the Big Thorne Final Environmental Statement and Record of Decision. 

The work necessary to address Dr. Person’s Statement has been ongoing since the 

Regional Forester issued her appeal decision on September 30, 2014. The Wolf Task 

Force, comprised of State and Federal wildlife biologists, is reviewing the information and conclusions contained in Dr. Person’s Statement. Additionally, the Forest 
152 

Supervisor is also reviewing the Tongass Forest Plan’s legacy and old growth reserves standards and guidelines to ensure the Big Thorne Record of Decision is consistent with Forest Plan direction. 

Once these reviews are completed, the findings will be summarized in a draft 

Supplemental Information Report (SIR), which will be provided to appellants and 

appropriate State and Federal agencies for a 30-day review and comment period. 

Any comments received will be considered prior to issuance of a final SIR by the 

Forest Supervisor. It is unknown what additional issues may be raised by the appellants or agencies in comments submitted on the draft SIR; any new information that 

is submitted could require additional analysis to be completed by the Tongass National Forest prior to issuing the final SIR. 

With this in mind, the following is the current schedule for the remaining administrative processes for the Big Thorne timber sale project: 

May 31 ................ Draft Supplemental Information Statement (SIR) released to the Appellants and appropriate State and 

Federal agencies for 30-day review period. 

June 30 ............... End of Review period for Draft SIR, start of review and response to comments. 

August 20 ........... Final Decision and SIR completed and released. 

August 30 ........... If no units dropped, final appraisal completed and Sale advertised. 

September 30 ..... If units dropped, prepare final cruise, final appraisal completed and Sale advertised. 

Senator BEGICH. Okay. Fantastic. If you would do that, that 

would be great. 

RECREATION AND TOURISM

Second, I want to move to the tourism recreation budgets, and 

this is of grave concern to me. I know there is a leader’s document 

on the regional level that indicates that they will be substantially 

reducing its support or dropping its support for recreational tourism within your operations. 

And as you know, the Alaska travel industry, or maybe you do 

not know, but the Alaska travel industry has brought forward a 

resolution concerned about this too. As you know, it is big business 

for us, especially in the southeast where there is an enormous 

amount of travelers. We get about 800,000 cruise ship industry 

travelers, 1.9 million overall travelers to the State. And, of course, 

our forests are incredible. It supports our tourism business in 

southeast alone, about 10,000 jobs and about $1 billion in annual 

spending. So pretty, as you know, pretty significant and I am concerned about this leader’s document indicating this. 

So the question I have is, one, is that moving forward in full 

force, what your leadership document has? Or is there a number 

that you are still trying to struggle with to put into the budget to 

keep it level, at least for the funding regarding tourism and recreation, in regards to your budget? Is there a number that you need 

to put back in to make it whole, or is just now the policy that this 

is no longer a priority, and money or not, we are not interested? 

Can you give me a—obviously from my perspective, you are a 

huge landowner along with many other Federal agencies, and when 

you decide not to use it for something like this that is an economic 

driver, that is a diversifier of economy, especially in southeast, it 

is very problematic. 

BUDGET CHALLENGES

Mr. TIDWELL. Senator, we are not shifting our priority about how 

important recreation is. It provides more economic activity, sup-
153 

ports more jobs than all the other activities on the national forest 

put together. 

What you are seeing in Alaska is just the result of what has been 

happening to our budget over the years of having to put more and 

more of our budget into dealing with fire suppression. Under a constrained budget, we keep having to reduce all these other programs. Recreation is another key one. 

So the regions have to make some really tough choices based on 

the realities of the budgets that we see right now, to be able to 

prioritize what work they can do, where is the best place to put 

their limited recreation money to be able to provide for the most 

economic benefit. Those are just an example of how difficult these 

choices are. 

RECREATION AND TOURISM

Senator BEGICH. But let me, I appreciate that. I understand that, 

but as you indicated, you had some incremental movements in the 

budget this year, and I understand why. Fire suppression is a critical piece and what you have done is a smart move, actually planning for what really is going to happen, which I give you a lot of 

credit for that, and commend the agency. 

But what is the amount, or can you get to me, what the amount 

of resource you would need to put it back into being held harmless 

or, at least, flat compared to last year? Can you get me that information so I understand what this increment is that is lacking for 

this promotion, this activity around tourism and recreation? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I will tell you that the region is dealing with about 

a 30 percent reduction in the recreation funding from what they received a few years ago. It is not quite at that level nationally. It 

is more about 15 percent down. 

But I can tell you—there is not any fewer people wanting to 

come to see the national forests. And especially in your State, it is 

such a big economic driver. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes, I mean, you are making my argument. So 

give me those numbers and especially if nationally it is 15 percent 

and in our region it is 30 percent, then we are not being treated 

fairly. That is a whole other debate, which, you kind of opened that 

door, but I will just leave that over here for a second. 

If you can get me that information, I want to know what it will 

take to get that, at least a reasonable approach because as you just 

said, the biggest use of the Forest Service is recreation and tourism. And for Alaska, it is, again, your lands, the Bureau of Land 

Management lands, and other lands are huge to the promotion of 

our business. So if you could get me that, I would greatly appreciate that. 

ROADLESS RULE

Then last, I will not take any more time. I will not be able to 

be here for a second round, but I know you are working on some 

issues around roadless rules, and we can have a different conversation at a later time. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for everything you guys 

are doing. 
154 

AIRTANKERS

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. 

Chief, last year through the Defense bill, you received C–130 aircraft and the Air Force is in the process of modifying them at this 

moment. 

Do you have any money in this year’s budget for costs associated 

with that modification? Will you be able to take these aircraft and 

incorporate them quickly without additional resources? 

Mr. TIDWELL. The funding that is necessary to basically replace 

the wing boxes on those planes, plus to retrofit them for retardant 

delivery is actually part of the Defense Authorization Act. The Air 

Force has the adequate funding to be able to do the work on those 

planes. 

So it is not in our budget, but it is in theirs and those planes 

have to be put into the line up with everything else the Air Force 

is working on. They also have some of their own C–130s that they 

need to do the same modifications on. 

They have told us that we should receive the first plane next 

year, and then the other planes will be coming in the years after 

that. 

Senator REED. Very good. 

In 2012, you were talking about your Modernization Strategy, 

and you were calling for between 18 and 28 large airtankers, and 

you are getting new aircraft and leasing aircraft. You have the C– 

130s coming online. 

Are you on your trajectory to have your capacity, your adequate 

capacity? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are. I would say we are probably a year behind 

where we wanted to be at this time. But with these C–130 planes 

that we will have in the next few years that will add to that. So 

if you add those planes to where we plan to be with the next generation aircraft that we are on the right trajectory. 

The other thing is we also have to factor in the P–2s that are 

being flown under our legacy contract. We are expecting to have 

those planes for 4 years and they will probably be done. That is 

why it is essential that we move forward with the next generation, 

and at the same time, the C–130 planes. That will provide seven 

aircraft. We will contract for the operation and maintenance of 

those aircraft, but it will be a key part of our future fleet. 

Senator REED. Just finally, you have a $145 million item within 

the fire preparedness budget and it is designated ‘‘Air Modernization.’’ 

If it is not for aircraft physical modification, what is it for? 

Mr. TIDWELL. It reflects the cost of the next generation 

airtankers. They will cost us, based on what we saw last year with 

the ones that we flew last year, about 2.8 times as much as the 

legacy aircraft. However, they are faster. They are safer. They can 

deliver more retardant. But that is just a reflection of, as we move 

into these more modern aircraft, that it is going to be a significant 

increase in the cost. 

Senator REED. Essentially, it is a contracting cost. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Yes. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Chief. 
155 

Senator Murkowski. 

ROADLESS RULE

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief, talking about the situation with the roadless rule right 

now following the Ninth Circuit decision, as I mentioned, I think 

we know that there is still more legal wrangling and procedure before the exemption will definitively apply on the Tongass. 

Once that is complete, and I would hope that the Forest Service 

would defend the exemption in any subsequent proceedings, I think 

it will give you that flexibility that you and I have talked about. 

But can you explain to me this morning how the Ninth Circuit 

ruling will impact—whether it is future timber sales; I mentioned 

the renewable projects, whether it is our hydro projects; possible 

transmission lines; mining roads such as those that we looked at 

when we were flying over Prince of Wales, the Bokan Road, the 

Niblack projects—can you speak to how this roadless exemption 

will impact effectively what you are doing within the Tongass right 

now? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, what we have planned for this year in the 

Tongass, with or without the exemption, it will have no effect. All 

the projects that we have planned to go forward with, the mining 

projects that you just mentioned, the timber sale, the Big Thorne, 

the Wrangell sales, those will all go forward with or without any 

exemption. 

We will have to wait and see. As you mentioned, I think there 

is still some lengthy court time in front of us before we actually see 

where we end up, if the exemption will be reinstated or not. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is the Forest Service going to defend the 

exemption? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I am not going to comment on litigation until I actually see what comes out of this process. 

I will make the commitment that I want to resolve the issue with 

roadless. I spent 37 years, my entire career, dealing with this and 

I can at least, in most places now, see we have resolved the issue. 

Alaska is the last place. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we thought we had resolved it. You 

and I both know, we thought we had resolved that back in 2003. 

I, too, want to finally and fully get this done. I, too, want to see 

us be able to access an area whether it is for energy resources, for 

access to road projects, transmissions, but we have got to get this 

roadless issue resolved, and we need that flexibility that you have 

been talking about. 

TIMBER HARVEST

Let me ask a couple of other questions here in this same vein. 

This past winter, you announced that you are appointing this public advisory council under the Federal Advisory Council Act 

(FACA), to consider these changes within the Tongass policy, particularly implementation of how you move towards second growth. 

Can you give me a quick status here on when this 15-member 

group will be announced, when it is going to start meeting, and 

then the composition? Because what I want to make sure is that 

you are going to have members that would be part of this, that re-
156 

flect a diversity of views and not just necessarily one part of the 

community there. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We are in the process. Shortly, we will be starting 

to review the applicants that have submitted their request to be 

considered. I am hoping by the end of May, we can actually announce the 15 people that will be on this. 

I can guarantee it will have a diverse set of interests. It is essential for us to do that. And based on our past success, when we have 

taken the time with these formal—these FACA committees, to me, 

are formalized collaborative effort—to get that diverse set of interests. It has been remarkable what they have been able to reach 

agreement on and to be able to deal with some of the more difficult 

issues. 

We saw it with the Idaho roadless of Senator Risch, who was 

with the other committee, if he was here, he would be talking 

about that. The work that we are seeing with the FACA committee 

we have on our planning rule to put the directives together. They 

have taken on the most difficult issues and actually, I have been 

so impressed. They have been able to resolve those and be able to 

make recommendations that we can move forward to implement. 

So based on my personal experience, this FACA group that we 

are putting together, it is absolutely essential that it provides that 

diverse set of interests so that we can be able to use that group’s 

recommendations and be able to move forward with making the adjustments to the Tongass plan. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask about the adjustments, then, if 

you will. I have mentioned several times here this morning my concern for the limitations that we place on our ability to move out 

our renewable energy resources. This has been a key priority of 

this administration, has moved towards renewables, and yet it is 

our own Federal policies here that are limiting any ability in southeast to access, whether it is hydro, whether it is geothermal, or 

other renewable energy. 

So the question this morning is whether or not there is a renewable energy plan for the Tongass. And if so, whether it would be 

included in the Forest Plan Amendment as we move forward with 

this process? 

And also, I have queried different members of the Cabinet as 

they have come before other committees to just make sure that we 

are in agreement here, that hydropower is considered a renewable 

resource. 

So question to you about the broader renewable energy plan and 

whether within Forest Service you consider hydropower to be a renewable energy resource that would meet with the definition and 

the goals of this administration. 

Mr. TIDWELL. I consider hydro to be renewable energy and it is 

essential there in southeast, especially, for us to be able to take advantage of that energy source and to replace the barging of diesel 

to those communities; which, I feel, is just a matter of time before 

we have an accident where we will then be doing a major clean up. 

And not only will it reduce the cost, but it also reduces the impact, 

the potential impact, to the environment. And that is why I think 
157 

you are seeing the levels of support from some of the conservation 

communities and environmental groups about moving forward with 

the hydro projects. 

I know that as we have talked before, there is a long list of proposals, and we are working very closely with the State to be able 

to take those on. Last year, we dealt with like 29 different projects, 

22 of them were Federal Energy Regulatory Commission projects; 

three of them are now under construction. This year, there are 30 

proposals, 24 of them are FERC projects, and we expect to have 

five of those start construction this year. So we are making headway. 

As we have talked, when it comes to the FERC projects, the access that is needed to be able to develop that proposal is provided 

with, or without, roadless. So it is one of the things that we have 

to really understand is the flexibility that is within the 2001 

roadless rule; that is what we are focused on this year. We will see 

how everything plays out in the courts for the future. So we are 

going to be focused on that. 

PLAN REVISION

Your other question about what we will consider with this 

amendment to the forest plan. We want to take a focused effort to 

be able to, at a minimum, deal with making some, potential 

changes to facilitate the transition to second growth, provide the 

bridge. And we will look at other opportunities. We will want to be 

very strategic in being able to see what we really need to consider. 

When it comes to the hydro potential, we have the projects, so 

we have a good idea of where they are located. It is something we 

can take a look at before we even make the decision of what we 

are going to be needing to address. So it is going to be part of the 

initial assessment that will be done before we get started. 

But it is just essential that we move forward and amend the 

Tongass plan. It is also, Senator, essential that your Sealaska bill 

gets through. I mean, not only is that important for the communities, but it is essential for some key changes for our transition 

plan. It is another key part of this that needs to be in conjunction 

as we move forward with our plan revision. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I would appreciate your support of 

Sealaska. It was kind of a long and tortured process. I would like 

to see that through. 

I do want to make sure though that, again, as we are talking 

about renewable energy projects, we remember that it is more than 

just the list that is in play today where a blessing has been given 

to those specific projects. 

Because if we are limited to just that, how will a community— 

whether it is Ketchikan or Kake—be able to grow and evolve in the 

future if they do not have the ability to expand out their energy 

needs? And as you have pointed out, their energy needs can best 

be met through the addition of hydropower resources. We do not 

want to go back to the bad old days of diesel; that is not the future 

for this region. 

So as we are looking to the forest plan amendments, I think it 

is key, I think it is absolutely critical that there be a renewable energy plan that not only incorporates our opportunity and potential 
158 

for hydropower, but also the geothermal resources that we have 

there. 

And you had mentioned, you know, biomass. There is abundance 

there, but I think it needs to be incorporated as part of the amended plan going forward. And quite honestly if it is not—if a renewable energy plan is not incorporated—I think that that is very, very 

inconsistent with, again, this administration’s push toward, movement towards renewables. And so, how we balance that, I think, 

is going to be critical going forward. 

But to just suggest that it is just these particular projects that 

have been identified that meet that criteria, does not allow for a 

future for the Tongass. So we need to be working with you on really building out that renewable energy plan. 

I have gone well over my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Senator REED. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

FOREST JOBS AND RECREATION ACT

I appreciate the administration’s increased target on timber cuts. 

I think it is critical that we get that number up, and I am sure 

you do too. 

Over the past three decades, Montana is not like any other State. 

I think we have lost over two dozen mills. These mills are partners 

of the Forest Service. They are partners of the taxpayers. They do 

a very, very good job in allowing us to be able to manage forests 

in a way that will ensure forest health. 

Without an increase in timber coming out of the Forest Service 

lands, I think it is an obvious conclusion: we are going to lose more 

mills. So, and once they are gone, they are gone. They are not coming back. It is one of the reasons that I have tried to push the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which is a ground up approach, a 

Montana-made bill, supporting mills, creating jobs, supporting our 

Forest Service and our forests, and the breathtaking landscapes 

that are in those. And I want to thank you for the Forest Service 

support of that bill. 

I know that you face challenges in carrying out the projects. I am 

proud that Congress came together with the reauthorization of the 

Stewardship Contracting Authority and gave the Forest Service 

some more tools through the Farm bill. 

So the question is, what is the process that you are going to use 

to evaluate the recommendations put forth by the governors? 

FARM BILL

Mr. TIDWELL. For the recommendations that we received from 

the new authority in the Farm Bill, we have 36 Governors who 

have submitted their recommendations. We have a team in my office that is actually going through those, all those different areas 

and I expect that in the middle of May or no later than late May, 

but probably closer to middle of May, we will be able to respond 

to each Governor about which projects, which areas that they recommended that we will be able to apply the authority. 

So all we are doing is checking about areas they recommended 

versus what the criteria is in the law. And I can tell you that we 

have worked very closely with all the State foresters. It is my ex-
159 

pectation that the majority of the recommendations are going to be 

approved and will allow us to be able to move forward and design 

projects in those areas and use the new Farm Bill authorities. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. So when would we expect the first batch 

of projects to move forward? 

Mr. TIDWELL. Well, the projects themselves will probably be next 

year. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We have identified these areas, and we have the 

program to work for 2014 in place today. We will be looking at 

these areas and factor that into our planning for 2015. 

AIRTANKERS

Senator TESTER. Good. I want to go back to a question the chairman asked you on the $145 million for additional contracting costs 

for next generation. Is that what I heard you say for the next generation air tankers? That is what the $145 million was for. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Part of our request is to have an adequate number, 

an adequate funding to deal with the additional costs; 2.8 times as 

expensive as what we used to have with the legacy aircraft. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. And I am not going to argue with that. 

And Mr. Dixon, if you want to join in on this, you can, because you 

are fidgeting there a little, so you can jump in. 

What kind of metrics did you use to determine the cost effectiveness in that additional 2.8 times? Now, I know you talked about 

safety, and I know you talked about timeliness of delivery, and 

those can save money. 

So it would seem to me, and I appreciate the $145 million and 

I am not going to argue that figure with you. But I just want to 

make sure that there was some consideration of the effectiveness 

of these next generation planes and the cost savings that could be 

associated with their effectiveness. 

Mr. TIDWELL. When we put out the contract, we wanted to have 

aircraft that were safer, faster, and a larger capacity because based 

on the fire activity that we are seeing today, we needed to be able 

to provide a larger load of retardant to deal with this. 

So we put out those specs and received the bids, and then we 

awarded the contracts. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. The costs just reflect the market. 

Senator TESTER. I got you. But was there any account for the fact 

that the tankers, that they are going to be delivering a bigger payload? That, in fact, they are going to be more cost-effective in that 

way per hour of flight time? 

Mr. TIDWELL. We do expect they will be more cost effective because they are faster. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We can get you the information about the cost of 

a gallon delivered. But the reality is that when we have these exclusive use contracts, there is a set amount that is the cost of the 

plane for the year—— 

Senator TESTER. I got you. 

Mr. TIDWELL. Plus the flight hours. 
160 

Senator TESTER. Maybe this is the wrong correlation, but I will 

make it anyway. I can haul grain to market in a single axle truck 

that costs me $20,000 or I can haul grain in a semi that costs me 

$100,000. Over time, the cost per bushel actually is cheaper for the 

more expensive rig. 

And I just want to make sure you have taken those metrics into 

account because it would seem to me that the effectiveness of these 

planes are going to be better. Like you said, they are going to be 

safer. They are going to be more timely and they are going to be 

able to deliver the payload to where it needs to be delivered in a 

much more time-effective way. It is going to save money. 

Mr. TIDWELL. We will provide you with the analysis that we have 

done.—NOTE: This information was provided directly to Senator 

Tester. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Senator TESTER. Good, good. I just want to comment. I really 

support the administration’s Land and Water Conservation request, and I am going to work with my colleagues to provide adequate funding because we have some great projects in Montana 

that will be done, and I appreciate your support of that fund. 

And the last thing, on a personal note, how is your ticker? 

Mr. TIDWELL. I woke up this morning, so it is a great day. 

Senator TESTER. All right. Well, thank you very much for your 

work, Chief. Thank you. 

Senator REED. Thank you, Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator 

Murkowski. Gentleman, thank you for your testimony and for your 

service. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

The record will remain open until May 7 for any of my colleagues 

who may wish to submit statements or questions. And Chief, we 

would ask you to respond as quickly as possible on any written 

questions that we deliver to you. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

Question. How does the proposed disaster cap amendment benefit the Forest Service and get the agency ahead of the curve on fire spending? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget proposes a new and fiscally responsible funding strategy for wildland fire. To solve the fire problem, we need a 

comprehensive approach that will restore fire-adapted ecosystems; build fire-adapted human communities; and respond appropriately to wildfire. Wildfire funding has 

grown from 21 percent of the Forest Service budget in 2000 to over half of the agency budget in 2014. Fire transfers deplete the budget by up to $500 million annually, 

which disrupts the momentum of critical restoration work. The impact is felt across 

critical programs nationwide and exacerbates the frequency and intensity of fires in 

future years. The suppression cap adjustment would provide a stable source of fire 

funding and enable greater investment in restoration and fire risk reduction programs. 

Question. Please elaborate on the modifications that the Air Force is making to 

ensure that the C–130Hs are mission-ready for the Forest Service. 

What physical work needs to be done by the Forest Service once an aircraft is 

transferred in order to make it ready to fly? 
161 

Answer. The Air Force will complete the Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) 

as well as the Center Wing Box (CWB) and Outer Wing Box (OWB) replacement. 

The Air Force will also contract for and oversee the installation of the gravity retardant delivery system. After the aircraft is transferred, the Forest Service will 

need to install avionics and other equipment specific to the airtanker mission. 

Question. Is there any funding in the fiscal year 2015 budget associated with delivery of the C–130s? What will be required of the Forest Service above the $130 million provided by 

the Air Force to get these planes in the air, not including the contracting for operation and maintenance 

Answer. The Forest Service estimates that approximately $4.3 million will be required for one C–130H in fiscal year 2015. That cost includes operating costs, pilot 

and maintenance contracts, required payments into the Working Capital Fund, and 

minor modifications specified in the question above. 

Question. Is it correct that the Forest Service will hit within the target of 18–28 

large air tankers in fiscal year 2015? 

What level of confidence does the Forest Service have that all of these planes will 

actually be flying? 

Answer. Yes, the Forest Service expects up to 25 airtankers in fiscal year 2015. 

More specifically, the Forest Service is planning for: 8 legacy airtankers, 16 next 

generation airtankers, and 1 Forest Service owned/contractor operated excess U.S. 

Coast Guard C–130H converted into an airtanker. Our confidence is high that all 

of these planes will be flying in fiscal year 2015. 

Question. What accounts for the continued decrease in Urban & Community Forestry? 

Are these activities not a priority, or are they being delivered through some other 

mechanism? 

Answer. The Urban and Community Forestry activities remain a high priority for 

the Forest Service. In the past, a percentage of Urban and Community Forestry 

(U&CF) Program funds were used to fund competitive, landscape-scale ‘‘Redesign’’ 

projects, which was essentially formalized in fiscal year 2014 as the Landscape 

Scale Restoration (LSR) budget line item. With the proposed $9 million increase in 

LSR funds in fiscal year 2015, it is anticipated that Urban and Community Forestry 

work and communities served as part of the LSR Program will be on a similar scale 

to previous year’s U&CF representation or equivalent to the $4.4 million reduction 

in the fiscal year 2015 budget. In addition, the Urban and Community Forestry program is part of the President’s proposed new $1 billion Climate Resilience Fund presented as part of the fiscal year 2015 budget. Through this Fund, the President proposes that we: 

—Invest in research and unlock data and information to better understand the 

projected impacts of climate change and how we can better prepare our communities and infrastructure. 

—Help communities plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change and encourage local measures to reduce future risk. 

—Fund breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure that will make us 

more resilient in the face of changing climate. The Urban and Community Forestry program is part of this, as improving community trees and forests helps 

remove carbon from the air, reduce the need for stormwater treatment, mitigate 

flooding and provide other ecosystem services. 

Question. Please describe what will be accomplished in the Landscape Scale Restoration program with the funding provided in fiscal year 2014, and why it is proposed for a more than 50 percent increase in fiscal year 2015. 

Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) program will 

fund over 50 projects in the South, Northeast and West focused on addressing priorities and needs identified in State Forest Action Plans. These projects cover an expansive range of issues—from expanding forest markets, to invasive species management, to agroforestry, to watershed enhancements to urban forestry outreach— 

all focusing on restoring healthy and resilient landscapes and communities in priority areas within and across States. The LSR budget line item makes it even easier 

for States and their partners to propose innovative, cross-boundary work that spans 

multiple State and Private Forestry program areas. In fiscal year 2015, the program 

will continue to focus on funding innovative projects across boundaries and across 

jurisdictions to address States’ priorities—and best target and leverage the Federal 

dollar. This level of funding will also allow the agency to leverage approximately $6 

to $8 million more in partner contributions and provide the ability to fund approximately 15 to 20 additional projects. The proposed funding level in fiscal year 2015, 

while 68 percent higher than the fiscal year 2014 enacted, is only 18 percent higher 

than the President’s fiscal year 2014 request of $20 million. 
162 

Question. Does the evidence in the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot regions 

show that the flexibility Congress has provided is resulting in more work being accomplished? 

What objective measures will demonstrate success? 

Answer. The evidence suggests that IRR is allowing the pilots to focus on and accomplish more priority work related to our goal of restoring National Forest System 

lands. The pilot authority has provided preliminary validation of the benefits that 

would be derived from nationwide Integrated Resource Restoration authority including: 

—increased ability to achieve integrated outcomes at the landscape scale; 

—reduced administrative burden; 

—previously separate program employees working together to achieve shared restoration goals; 

—clear direction and focus for integrated resource restoration within priority 

landscapes; 

—streamlined prioritization processes; 

—realization of mutual benefits through integrated planning across multiple resource areas; and 

—improved operational efficiencies. 

Occasionally, the highest priority work does not produce more outputs, e.g., miles, 

acres; but addresses areas that are deemed to make the most significant contributions to restoration. Therefore, we are using a combination of objective outcome and 

output measures to evaluate our progress with restoration. The key outcome associated with the Forest Service’s restoration effort is: 

—Moving watersheds to an improved condition class as per the agency’s Watershed Condition Framework. 

The pilot program was able to move six watersheds to an improved condition class 

in fiscal year 2013 (double the number that was accomplished in fiscal year 12). 

We are also tracking the following longstanding output measures under IRR: 

—Acres treated annually to sustain or restore watershed function and resilience; 

—Miles of stream habitat restored or enhanced; 

—Volume of timber sold; and 

—Miles of roads decommissioned. 

In fiscal year 2013 the IRR pilot exceeded planned targets for acres treated (133 

percent) and miles of stream habitat restored (135 percent). The program nearly 

met the volume of timber sold target at 96 percent, and did not meet the road decommissioning target at 85 percent. Three of the four output measures (acres treated, miles of stream habitat restored, and timber sold) increased over the fiscal year 

2012 accomplishment levels (by 11.0 percent, 5.9 percent. and 12.9 percent respectively). 

Planned targets were not met primarily due to litigation, market conditions (no 

bid on a sale), staffing vacancies, fire season, and NEPA appeals and litigation. 

Many of these conditions would exist regardless of IRR. 

We will continue to both monitor the performance results from the three regions 

under the IRR pilot authority and submit the IRR Pilot Annual Report to Congress. 

Question. After years of flat or declining budget proposals for Forest and Rangeland Research, the fiscal year 2014 request included a $15 million dollar increase. 

The fiscal year 2015 request asks for an almost equivalent decrease of $17.5 million. 

Why such a significant decrease proposed, especially during a time when the Forest 

Service is trying to implement the new planning rule, which will rely on the science 

performed within the research division? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget requests funding for the highest 

priority research needs. Recognizing that research is a critical component of the 

agency, the administration also proposes to provide funding through the combination of the Budget Line Item for Forest and Rangeland Research and the fiscal year 

2015 Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. 

Question. How is the Forest Service fulfilling the instructions included with the 

$5 million increase for biomass utilization grants provided in fiscal year 2014, to use 

these funds to develop new high value markets for low value wood? 

Where is the increased funding in fiscal year 2014 being focused? 

Answer. The increased funding is focused on two critical needs: (1) expanding renewable wood energy use near National Forest System lands in need of hazardous 

fuels treatments, and (2) promoting wood as a construction material in the commercial building sector. This work helps to create high value markets by expanding the 

use of woody biomass for energy as well as expanding the demand for engineered 

wood and other wood products in the institutional/commercial building sector. 

Question. What areas would be expanded if Congress provides the budget request’s increase of another $5 million in fiscal year 2015? 
163 

Answer. The expanded areas would be to: 

—increase grant opportunities to assist with the final phases of wood energy 

projects; 

—stimulate woody biomass utilization in geographic areas with high wildfire 

risks; and 

—promote more widespread use of wood in commercial building construction. 

Question. How are the $2 million in funds provided for Restoration Partnerships 

being used in fiscal year 2014? 

Answer. In March 2014, we issued a field unit request within select program networks, including watershed restoration and utility corridor maintenance networks, 

to determine project and program needs. We received a total of 33 proposals, representing each region within the Forest Service, with a total request of $8.8 million. 

We are currently determining if there are options for additional private-sector leverage of Restoration Partnership funds, and we anticipate the final decisions on the 

allocation of Restoration Partnership funds to occur in June 2014. 

Question. Will this program be continued in fiscal year 2015 without a specific 

line-item? 

Answer. We did not request a separate line-item to fund this program in the fiscal 

year 2015 President’s Budget. We feel the program can be carried out through partnerships under the proposed Integrated Resource Restoration budget line item and 

existing authorities. 

Question. Will the partnerships developed in fiscal year 2014 be continued without 

new funds? 

Answer. Yes, we hope that any partnerships we develop in fiscal year 2014, 

through the Partnership Restoration funding opportunities, will continue in fiscal 

year 2015. Our ability to continue those partnerships will be based on need, priority, 

and funding availability. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Question. As you know, California is facing a historic drought. For the first time 

in 15 years, 100 percent of California is in moderate to exceptional drought according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. This year, the State received only about 50 percent 

of normal precipitation, and snowpack levels are down to just 16 percent of normal. 

California’s Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE) reports that 

since January 1, California has had 1,108 fires on State lands. During the same period last year, the State saw only 697 fires on State lands. This is an almost 60 

percent increase. 

Clearly, we are facing the likelihood of a particularly severe wildfire season this 

year that will significantly threaten public safety and infrastructure throughout 

California and other Western States. 

Chief Tidwell, what specifically is the Forest Service doing to prepare for this 

year’s drought-enhanced fire season? 

Answer. Due to the drought throughout California and other States, we continue 

to maintain heightened staffing levels, including organizing trained firefighters from 

other geographic areas who can pre-position or quickly respond when needed. We’ve 

developed short and long-term strategies that include hiring additional agency personnel, utilizing contract resources under existing contracts, creating new contracts, 

extending options on aviation assets and utilizing assets from other regions on a 

long-term basis. We escalate and decrease staffing levels commensurate with weather conditions and resource drawdown. In addition to crews, engines, dozers and prevention assets, we maintain aerial firefighting capability with helicopters, air tankers and smokejumpers. Many of the forests have 7 day staffing, as well as 24 hour 

coverage in some cases. We are also establishing mobilization centers in areas 

where increased fire activity is predicted, to efficiently manage an influx of fire suppression resources and we are working with our partners and reaching out to the 

public with focused fire prevention messaging using Fire Prevention Teams and 

Public Information Officers located in our Geographic Area Coordination Centers. 

We have also increased patrols and signage, and are providing one united message 

to the public with regard to the uncharacteristic fire danger levels that exist, especially in California. We are also coordinating with our partners, including Federal, 

State and local, to ensure information is being shared and that local and geographical area agreements are up to date. 

Question. What actions are you taking to have firefighting aircraft (including 

tankers and helicopters) and fire crews staged in drought stricken states like California? 
164 

Answer. As fire danger and risk increase in California, firefighting aircraft will 

be pre-positioned to respond to fires. Currently, there are four Type I heavy helicopters and nine Type II helicopters, five airtankers and several aerial supervision 

aircraft in Southern California, ready to respond. Additional aircraft will be moved, 

if needed. The Forest Service is in the second year of night air operations in Southern California. A night air operation includes a type-2 helicopter and an infrared 

equipped twin engine fixed wing. Both aircraft started on June 1. 

Question. Do you expect the 2015 budget request to adequately cover the costs for 

this year’s fire season? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President’s Budget request covers our forecasted 

funding needs for the fiscal year 2015 fire season. Together the request for Suppression and the proposed cap adjustment would fund the 10-year average and anything 

above the 10-year average equal to the high end of the 90 percent confidence interval predicted by the outyear forecast. For fiscal year 2014, however, any costs above 

the 10-year average will be covered by fire transfer. The May (median) forecast for 

suppression spending predicts that the Forest Service will spend $1.55 billion this 

fire season, and we were appropriated $995 million. Therefore, we expect to have 

to enter into fire transfers again this fire season. 

Question. Last summer, the Rim Fire burned over 270,000 acres, including 

154,000 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest. While ecological recovery will take 

many years, there may be only 18 to 24 months from the time of the fire before 

the downed timber rots and is no longer salvageable. 

It is my understanding that the Forest Service has been able to expedite timber 

salvage along roads and utility corridors on an emergency basis and is currently 

working on completing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that may allow 

for an estimated 30,000 acres of timber salvage in the Stanislaus. 

Chief Tidwell, can you please provide an update regarding the status of both the 

emergency timber salvage work as well as the status of the EIS for the larger salvage project? 

Answer. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for hazard tree removal along 194 

miles of high-use Forest Service roads, administrative and recreation facilities, and 

areas adjacent to private infrastructure was completed and the Decision Notice 

signed on April 25, 2014. The hazard trees will be removed through the use of four 

competitive salvage timber sales, in addition to two settlement sales that were 

awarded to affected utility companies. All four competitive sales have been sold. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to reduce the potential for future catastrophic fire by reducing the fuel loading and to capture the perishable economic value of the fire-killed trees has been completed. The Draft EIS analyzed over 

44,000 acres of National Forest System lands for potential treatment, including an 

estimated 30,000 acres of timber salvage. The 30-day public comment period on the 

Draft EIS is scheduled to start on May 16, 2014. A Final EIS is scheduled for completion in August 2014. 

Question. When do you expect the Forest Service will be able to award salvage 

contracts, and when will that allow timber harvesters to get on the ground to begin 

that work? 

Answer. As mentioned above, two settlement sales have been awarded and all 

four competitive sales have been sold. Now that the projects are awarded, operations 

can begin immediately. 

Projects approved under the larger EIS are scheduled to be advertised for sale 

shortly after the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed, with a minimum seven-day advertisement period. Operations are expected to begin in early September. 

Question. Does the Forest Service have any additional administrative options or 

legislative recommendations that would help expedite the process? 

Answer. An Emergency Situation Determination (ESD) has been granted by the 

Chief for the hazard tree EA and the larger EIS project. Both projects are under 

the Section 218 Objection Process. With an approved ESD, there is no objection period (60 days) or objection resolution period (30 plus days). The decision is signed 

immediately after the public is notified that the decision will be signed, saving 90 

days in the process. Since there is no objection process, the public has the option 

to pursue remedy in the Courts. 

We have been successful in requesting and receiving alternative arrangements 

from the Council on Environmental Quality on the Rim Fire EIS. The approved alternative arrangements allow for the comment period on the Draft EIS to be reduced by 15 days and eliminating the 45-day period between release of the Final 

EIS and the issuance of the ROD. 

Timber salvage volume from the Rim Fire is expected to significantly exceed the 

capacity of the local manufacturing infrastructure. Hauling costs to manufacturing 

facilities outside the local working circle is prohibitively expensive. The Forest Serv-
165 

ice is exploring all options within our authorities to enable the woods products industry in California to economically utilize the salvage material available from the 

Rim Fire. 

Question. The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision that 

I worked on with my colleague Senator McCain to transfer 7 C–130 air tankers from 

the Coast Guard to the Forest Service. These planes would also receive maintenance 

and new wing boxes from the Air Force. 

I believe these seven planes are only the first step necessary to provide the Forest 

Service with the fleet it needs to protect our nation. It is my understanding that 

at least one or two planes will be transferred from the Coast Guard during this calendar year. 

Can you give me a precise update on when the Forest Service expects to begin 

receiving these planes? 

Answer. A transfer strategy and timeline for the planes has been developed and 

is being implemented. We expect the first aircraft to be transferred in late 2014 or 

early 2015 and be available for limited operations in 2015, after the Air Force completes their retrofitting work. The C–130H aircraft will be Forest Service owned and 

contractor operated and maintained. We expect three additional aircraft to be transferred in fiscal year 2017 and the remaining three to be transferred in fiscal year 

2018. 

Question. California’s Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CALFIRE) has 

long had a cooperative agreement with the Forest Service to efficiently provide fire 

protection to all of California. Specifically, this agreement allows California to protect Federal lands and for the Forest Service to protect state lands when it is clearly 

economically efficient. 

In recent years, the Forest Service has faced challenges in fulfilling this agreement. If the Forest Service does not uphold its end of the bargain, it will result in 

increased costs for both California and the Federal Government. 

In this year of heightened fire risk, do I have your commitment to provide California with adequate firefighting resources as required by this agreement? 

Answer. Yes, I am committed to provide California with adequate firefighting resources as required in the agreement. 

Question. The 2014 Farm Bill contained a provision that directed States to identify forest areas that need treatment for pests and diseases, and the Bill further allowed for expedited environmental reviews. 

California has identified and requested three areas that need critical pest and disease treatment to safeguard forest health. These are the McCloud Watershed, the 

Southfork American Watershed, and the Santa Ana Watershed. All of these watersheds are experiencing a troubling decline in forest health based on annual surveys 

and are at risk of substantial tree death in the next 15 years according to the California Department of Forestry & Fire (CALFIRE). 

Can you provide a status update on California’s request for three priority treatment areas? 

Answer. On May 20, 2014 USDA Secretary Vilsack announced the designation of 

over 45 million acres of National Forest System lands across 94 national forests in 

35 States to address insect and disease threats. Approximately 1.5 million acres 

were designated in California within the McCloud/Pit River Watershed, the South 

Fork American River Watershed, and the Santa Ana Watersheds. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

Question. As you know, the current approach to funding wildfire suppression is 

unsustainable and hurts many important programs that address fire prevention and 

support critical resources that we expect from National Forest System lands, including timber, water, recreation, wildlife, and range. I applaud the Forest Service and 

the administration for including in the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget a solution 

to this problem based upon the Wyden-Crapo Wildfire Disaster Funding Act that 

I have cosponsored. This new approach to funding large fires as natural disasters 

under the existing disaster cap should free up substantial resources that would have 

otherwise been slated to go to wildfire suppression under the current funding formula. This provides an opportunity both to sustain key programs that would have 

been cut and to provide substantial additional investment in fire prevention activities, including hazardous fuels and pest and disease treatment and mitigation. In 

the proposed budget, what programs were sustained and what programs received 

additional investment with the funding not allocated to fire suppression due to the 

proposed change in suppression funding? 
166 

Answer. The President’s budget invests in programs that help us get ahead of the 

fire problem by restoring landscapes and protecting communities. Compared to fiscal 

year 2013 and fiscal year 2014 the budget proposes significant increases for Hazardous Fuels ($52 million above fiscal year 2014 enacted), Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) ($63 million above the fiscal year 2014 President’s budget), Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) ($20 million above fiscal 

year 2014 enacted) and Landscape Scale Restoration ($10 million above fiscal year 

2014 enacted). Over $50 million of the money freed up by the fire cap funds Preparedness and Suppression to cover the reality of our fire operations costs. 

Question. I would like to congratulate the efforts of the Forest Service in the 

Black Hills to work with a broad coalition of partners to respond to the mountain 

pine beetle infestation. Through the work of these partners, including the forest 

products industry, the State, counties, conservation districts, and others, tens of 

thousands of acres have been treated, slowing the spread of the beetles and improving the resiliency and long-term sustainability of the forest. With the interspersed 

FS and private lands throughout much of western South Dakota, I was intrigued 

to hear about the effort to coordinate actions between the FS and NRCS to address 

watershed-scale treatment and restoration across Federal and non-Federal lands. It 

seems to me that the approach described in the Chief’s Joint Partnership would benefit the ongoing effort in the Black Hills. How do you see the Partnership working 

at this juncture? What do you see as the opportunities and timing for adding additional projects that could increase the pace and scale of critical treatment on nonFederal lands in the Black Hills? 

Answer. Through the Chiefs’ Joint Landscape Restoration Partnership, the Forest 

Service is investing $13 million in 13 projects in 12 States across the country to help 

reduce wildfire threats to communities and landowners, protect water quality and 

supply, and improve wildlife habitat for at-risk species. Those projects are still in 

the early stages of implementation and accomplishments will be summarized at the 

end of fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2015 (pending available funding), the Chief 

expects to continue to support those 13 projects as well as to consider additional 

projects that meet the goals of the Partnership. Additional projects would be considered via recommendations from Regional Foresters in partnership with their Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) counterparts. As both the Forest Service and NRCS work with private landowners, there could be opportunity in the 

Black Hills to consider a recommendation for funding. 

Question. The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board was established in 2003 

to improve cooperation and understanding among Forest stakeholders. The Board 

was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to consist of 16 members 

and 16 alternates appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture with the recommendation of the Forest Service. Regular meetings of the Board have proven to provide 

an important avenue of communication between stakeholders and the agency. Unfortunately, it continues to be challenging to keep the Board chartered and to fill 

all vacancies so that the Board is able to maintain a quorum for each meeting. What 

is the Forest Service doing to work with USDA to help ensure that the Board’s charter does not expire and that new members are formally appointed as efficiently as 

possible? 

Answer. The Forest Service and USDA want robust Boards, representing the 

American people, assembled to carry out the mission in a timely fashion. The Forest 

Service recognizes the evolving workload and time requirements to evaluate and approve members and charters. We are committed to meeting the timelines to avoid 

unnecessary delays. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

TONGASS

Question. As I mentioned in the hearing, it was another subpar year in Region 

10. The most recent 5-year schedule projects only about 82 million board feet per 

year in the future, well below the ASQ for the forest. 

How are you going to overcome the ongoing decline in timber sales and ensure 

that the various timber targets are achieved? 

Answer. The Region was on track to meet or exceed all assigned targets in fiscal 

year 2013; however, the Big Thorne Project received seven appeals. The decision 

was affirmed, but the Tongass prepared a draft Supplemental Information Report 

(SIR) that was released May 23, 2014 for a 30-day review by appellants, with the 

goal of issuing a final SIR later in the summer and offering in late September, 2014. 

Saddle Lakes Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected in 2014 
167 

with the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and draft Record of Decision (ROD) in June 2015, and final ROD in October 2015. The Wrangell Island 

DEIS is expected late in 2014, with the FEIS and ROD in 2015, and a sale offer 

in fiscal year 2016. The Kosciusko (first large young growth sale) project is underway. The environmental documentation for this project is expected to be completed 

by February 2015. Field work will continue in the operating season of 2015 with 

a sale offer in early 2016. 

Question. Have you requested adequate funding to restore the timber sale program to what was projected in your 2008 Land Management Plan? If not, why not? 

Answer. Funding for the Region 10 timber sale program on the Tongass has been 

adequate to prepare and offer the assigned program of work. The assigned volume 

sold targets for the Region have been lower than the allowable sale quantity (ASQ) 

envisioned in the 2008 Plan. The ASQ represents a maximum annual average harvest from a given National Forest over a ten-year period as determined in the forest 

planning process. 

Question. Why is the current 5-year plan targeting such a low volume of timber? 

What is needed to increase the volume in the current 5-year plan? 

Answer. The current 5-year plan targets an average of 101 million board feet 

(mmbf) per year for the next 5 years. This level of volume is consistent with the 

funding provided for the program and the available land base to work with for old 

growth ‘‘bridge timber’’ sales. The 5-year plan includes the reallocation of staff and 

finances to planning efforts that incorporate viable and available young growth 

stands into the targeted program of work. 

Question. For years we have heard the Forest Service blame litigation for failure 

to achieve timber targets on the Tongass. It seems after dealing with these legal 

challenges for such a long time that there would be some strategy to better address 

these claims. Do you have a plan to address this issue? 

Answer. The Tongass continues to address legal challenges to timber sale projects 

by improving collaboration with all stakeholders and presenting well-planned 

projects utilizing planning documents that are clear, concise and based upon the latest science. Implementing our transition strategy to second growth is a key element 

to reduce litigation and provide a sustainable flow of timber to support the wood 

products industry in Southeast Alaska. In addition, USDA efforts to assist in converting mills to handle smaller logs and developing additional markets, including 

biomass, will increase the economic viability of processing wood products in Alaska 

and reduce the need to export logs. Where export is often required to make projects 

economically viable, the more jobs that can be supported in Southeast will increase 

the support for the benefits of an integrated wood products industry needed for community sustainability. 

Question. At the hearing, we briefly discussed the status of the Federal Advisory 

(FACA) Committee that you are assembling to provide advice on the Amendment 

you are proposing to the 2008 Amended Tongass Forest Plan. 

Will you commit to me to balance the FACA Committee with Alaska Native Corporation and pro-development Southeast Alaskans? 

To what extent will you commit to me to include Southeast Alaskan representatives from the renewable energy and hydropower sectors on the FACA Committee? 

Answer. The Federal Advisory Committee Act has been announced and membership represents a diverse mix of viewpoints, with members from the Alaska Native 

community, national or regional environmental and/or conservation organizations, 

the timber industry, Federal, State and local government representatives, and other 

commercial users. 

Question. Will the Forest Service consider adding a Mineral and Strategic Mineral 

Land Use Designation (LUD) in the Amendment to the 2008 Forest Plan to promote 

and support mineral and strategic mineral development and related access roads 

consistent with National Security and National Strategic Mineral Policies? 

Answer. The Tongass Forest Plan, in its current form, contains a ‘‘Minerals Overlay’’ Land Use Designation (LUD) which states: ‘‘To encourage the prospecting, exploration, development, mining, and processing of locatable minerals in areas with 

the highest potential for minerals development; and, To ensure minerals are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and other high-valued resources are 

considered when mineral developments occur.’’ We will evaluate whether changes to 

the Plan are necessary during the amendment process. 

Question. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 found that ‘‘accelerated development and use of renewable energy technologies provide numerous benefits to the United States, including improved national security, improved balance of 

payments, healthier rural economies, improved environmental quality, and abundant, reliable and affordable energy for all citizens of the United States,’’ and set 

a goal that by 2025 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States 
168 

come from renewable resources. Additionally, this administration has placed a high 

priority on development of renewable energy on public lands. 

How is the failure of the Tongass National Forest to have a renewable energy 

plan consistent with these goals? 

Answer. Hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authority granted by the Federal Power Act. When 

projects are located on National Forest System (NFS) lands, FERC determines if the 

project is consistent with purposes of the NFS lands. The Forest Service submits 

license conditions to FERC necessary for the protection and utilization of NFS lands 

and resources. The Forest Service does not propose or plan renewable energy 

projects, but responds to proposed projects. Under the Federal Power Act, project 

proponents apply for a preliminary permit and FERC withdraws the land to allow 

the proponent to study the feasibility of a project. The Forest Service does not predetermine where the best locations are as that is up to project proponents through 

FERC’s procedures. Section 24 of the Federal Water Power Act of June 10, 1920, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 818), provides that any lands of the United States included 

in an application for power development under that Act shall, from the date of filing 

of an application therefore, subject to valid existing rights, be reserved from entry, 

location, or other disposal under the laws of the United States until otherwise directed by the FERC or by Congress. Therefore, the Forest Service responds to 

project proposals rather than identify potential areas for development. 

Question. Alaska is home to a vast amount of energy resources. What is the Forest Service doing to help make this energy available and accessible for the greater 

public benefit of citizens of Alaska and America, so that we can ‘‘home source’’ our 

energy supply, recapturing a greater portion of U.S. energy expenditures and job 

creation benefits that would otherwise occur overseas? 

Answer. The national forests in the Alaska Region are committed to responding 

to interests in developing energy sources in a timely fashion, consistent with forest 

plan direction. Currently neither national forest is in receipt of any proposals to develop any leasable (oil and gas, coal, geothermal) resources. Both national forests 

in the Alaska Region address leasable minerals, such as the energy-focused oil and 

gas, coal, and geothermal, in their forest plans. The Tongass Forest Plan states, as 

a Forest-Wide goal to, ‘‘Provide for environmentally sound mineral exploration, development, and reclamation.’’ Minerals Standards and Guides in the Tongass Forest 

Plan direct that ‘‘leasing may occur on a case-by-case basis following site-specific 

analysis.’’ The Chugach Forest Plan states as a Forest-Wide goal, to ‘‘Provide opportunities to develop minerals for personal and commercial uses.’’ 

Question. In 1947, the United States Forest Service (USFS) published a report titled ‘‘Water Powers Southeast Alaska,’’ which identified over 200 hydropower resources in watersheds across Alaska. The study summary states: 

The report indicates that it is possible to create dependable blocks of power by 

coordinating many of the power sites into an integrated utility system. There 

appear to be sites for communities not too far from the general concentration 

of power and natural transmission patterns. 

With the hydropower resources of Southeast Alaska so well understood as evidenced by a body of work assembled by Federal agencies which dates back nearly 

a century, why is it that the availability of these resources within the Tongass are 

being ignored and excluded from the Tongass Land Management Plan at a time in 

our Nation’s history when new, clean, renewable energy resources are most needed? 

Answer. Hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) authority granted by the Federal Power Act. When 

projects are located on National Forest System (NFS) lands, FERC determines if the 

project is consistent with the purposes of the NFS land. The Forest Service responds 

to project proposals in accordance with FERC-administered regulations and 

timelines. After extensive review and coordination with project proponents, the Forest Service submits license conditions to FERC necessary for the protection and utilization of NFS lands and resources. The Forest Service does not propose or plan 

renewable energy projects, but responds to proposed projects. 

Question. Does the Forest Service intend to include a renewable energy plan in 

the Forest Plan Amendment to the 2008 Amended Tongass Forest Plan? 

Answer. The Tongass responds to renewable energy proposals in accordance with 

applicable Federal law. The Forest Service does not, per se, propose or plan renewable energy projects, but responds to proposed projects. The current Tongass Forest 

Plan states, as a Forest-Wide goal to, ‘‘Provide for environmentally sound mineral 

exploration, development, and reclamation.’’ Minerals Standards and Guides in the 

Tongass Forest Plan direct that ‘‘leasing may occur on a case-by-case basis following 

site-specific analysis.’’ We will evaluate whether changes to the Plan are necessary 

during the amendment process. 
169 

Question. Do you agree with the Executive Summary of a 2011, Region 10, Forest 

Service document entitled ‘‘Roadmap to Rural Wealth in Southeast Alaska: Restoration and Timber in Context’’ in which Region 10 of the Forest Service asserted: 

Low-cost energy is critical. The high cost of electric power impedes economic development in the region, yet the region is rich in hydropower potential. The 

most promising opportunities lie in developing hydroelectric power and building 

transmission lines to connect Southeast Alaska’s communities to each other and 

to Canada’s grid, generating electric power for potential export. Such projects 

would create new jobs through constructing, operating and maintaining hydroelectric and transmission facilities. Previous work by the Forest Service has estimated job creation by this type of work at 10 jobs for every million dollars 

invested. 

Answer. The Alaska Region continues to support the policy of encouraging hydropower production to reduce the high cost of energy while ensuring such development 

is compatible with national forest purposes and ensuring that the planning, construction, and operation of hydropower projects protect and effectively utilize National Forest System lands and resources. 

Question. What has the Forest Service done to resolve the ‘‘minimum development’’ and ‘‘no roads’’ requirements within the 9.6 million acres of Roadless Areas 

of the Tongass with Congress’s and the Obama administration’s renewable energy 

policies? 

Answer. The Roadless Rule prohibits road construction and the removal of timber 

in inventoried roadless areas, except under limited circumstances. For example, the 

Rule permits road construction where a road is needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or treaty. Renewable energy hydropower projects are permitted through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s 

authority granted by the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act directs the Secretary of Agriculture to include conditions that ensure that projects are constructed 

and operated as ‘‘deem[ed] necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of 

such [national forest lands.]’’ The Alaska Region works with the proponents of hydropower projects to identify needed infrastructure for the proposed project and how 

those requirements can be met under the requirements of the Roadless Rule and 

the Federal Power Act. 

Question. The Forest Service acknowledged in a July 20, 2009 letter to Alaska 

Power & Telephone that a renewable energy project, specifically a hydropower 

project, sited in a Remote Recreation Transportation and Utility System (TUS) 

Avoidance Area could not meet the management direction for that LUD consistent 

with the National Environmental Policy Act, thereby requiring the Forest Plan to 

be amended. Notwithstanding that the commitment was made to do so nearly 5 

years ago, the Forest Service has not amended the Forest Plan, thereby precluding 

hydropower and other renewable energy projects in TUS Avoidance LUDs. Will the 

Forest Service correct this problem as part of the amendment process? 

Answer. As part of the proposed action in the amendment process, the Forest will 

consider whether changes are needed to the Tongass Forest Plan to provide for renewable energy project development. 

Question. The Draft Southeast Integrated Resources Plan (SEIRP) requires access 

to hydropower sites to promote hydropower development. The Draft SEIRP identified some, potential hydropower sites in Southeast Alaska. Further, the 1947 Water 

Powers of Southeast Alaska Report, conducted in part with the Forest Service, identified over 200 such potential sites, many of which lay in the 2008 Forest Plan TUS 

avoidance LUDs. Such access is severely restricted by Remote Recreation LUDs. 

What actions do you plan to take in the upcoming amendment to the 2008 Tongass 

Forest Plan to resolve this problem? 

Answer. This will be considered as the Tongass determines what issues may need 

to be included for updating in the amendment process. 

Question. Will the Forest Service consider a Renewable Energy LUD as part of 

the 2008 Amended Forest Plan amendment process, the purpose of which would be 

to promote and support all forms of renewable energy development (including geothermal) and related transmission lines within the Tongass consistent with Public 

Laws and national security and national energy policies? 

Answer. This will be considered as the Tongass determines what issues may need 

to be included for updating in the amendment process. 

Question. Would you agree that a Renewable Energy Development LUD would 

take precedence over any underlying LUD (subject to applicable laws) regardless of 

whether the underlying LUD is an ‘‘Avoidance LUD’’ or not. And as such, it would 

represent a ‘‘window’’ through the underlying LUD through which renewable resources could be accessed and developed? 
170 

Answer. These types of resource development priority decisions will be considered 

as the Tongass determines what may be included in the amendment process. 

Question. Will the Forest Service consider allowing geothermal leasing in the 

Tongass as part of the amendment process? 

Answer. The national forests in the Alaska Region are committed to responding 

to interests in developing energy sources in a timely fashion, consistent with forest 

plan direction. Three geothermal leases at Bell Island have been issued by the Bureau of Land Management, but no development is currently taking place at the site. 

The Tongass is not currently in receipt of any proposals to develop any leasable (oil 

and gas, coal, geothermal) resources. Minerals Standards and Guides in the current 

Tongass Forest Plan already directs that ‘‘leasing may occur on a case-by-case basis 

following site-specific analysis.’’ 

Question. While ‘‘reasonable access’’ is technically permitted in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas, cutting trees associated with mining exploration and development 

does not appear to be allowed. 36 C.F.R. § 294.13(b)(2) authorizes the cutting of timber ‘‘incidental to implementation of a management activity not otherwise prohibited by this subpart.’’ However, there is no mention of mining in the examples provided in the 2001 Rule and Record of Decision (ROD) of what this section authorizes. Moreover, in describing this section the 2001 Rule and ROD states: ‘‘Such management activities are expected to be rare and to focus on small diameter trees.’’ 

Will you commit to me to allow a less restrictive form of ‘‘reasonable access’’ for mining exploration and development as part of the 2008 Amended Forest Plan process? 

Answer. If an inventoried roadless area on the Tongass is open to mineral entry, 

locatable mineral mining, including certain activities ancillary to the mining, such 

as the incidental cutting of timber, may be approved. The 1872 Mining Law gives 

a statutory right of reasonable and necessary access related to the exploration and 

development of mineral properties. The statutory right is subject to reasonable regulation for the protection of surface resources. 

Question. Will the 2010 Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska Report be updated 

as part of the 2008 Forest Plan amendment process? 

Are you familiar with what the 2010 report prepared said about the volume of 

timber that could be produced from second growth stands in the next 10–15 years? 

Is there a sufficient volume of second-growth for harvest (subject to the National 

Forest Management Act’s (NFMA) non-declining, even flow requirement, the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act’s (TTRA) stream buffer strip requirement’s and Tongass 

Land Management Plan’s (TLMP) 1000-foot beach buffer zone requirement) to warrant the risk (by bank or operator) to justify putting in a mill, even if there were 

a market? 

If your answer is ‘‘yes,’’ how do you explain the point made, at page 23 the 2010 

Economic Analysis of Southeast Alaska that states ‘‘young growth management is 

not currently economically viable without substantial public investments to pay for 

thinning?’’ 

Answer. The referenced report was prepared by the Alaska Region to explore 

ways to accelerate the transition of the timber management program on the Tongass 

National Forest—and the timber industry in Southeast Alaska that is dependent on 

that program—away from its historical reliance on harvesting old growth forest 

stands, and towards a program and industry based on the harvest of young growth 

stands. The forest plan amendment process will analyze the economics of the transition to young growth management. 

The report stated that about 8 percent of the forest land on the Tongass National 

Forest—400,000 acres—is in young growth, half of which is available for harvest 

under the existing forest plan. As part of the plan amendment process, the Tongass 

will evaluate which lands should be available for timber harvest to provide economically sustainable young growth, and any proposed changes to standards and guidelines and other management direction to promote and speed the transition to young 

growth management while maintaining a viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska. Investments in commercial thinning may allow young growth volume to be 

available more rapidly. 

Question. At the hearing, we discussed my concerns about the steady march towards losing what remains of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska and what 

we can do to reverse this trend. 

Please state the current objectives of the Transition Plan. 

Answer. As described in Secretary Vilsack’s July 2, 2013 Memorandum, the objective is to transition over the next 10 to 15 years to a more ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable forest management program on the Tongass National Forest, so that by the end of those 15 years, the vast majority of timber sold by the 

Tongass will be young growth. 
171 

Question. Is the Forest Service required to adopt Secretary Vilsack’s July 2nd 

Transition Plan as the Purpose and Need of the Amendment to the 2008 Amended 

Forest Plan? Is its selection as the preferred alternative pre-ordained? 

Answer. The proposed action will be to amend the Tongass Forest Plan as needed 

to accomplish the transition to young growth management over the next 10 to 15 

years while retaining the expertise and infrastructure of a viable timber industry 

in Southeast Alaska, as outlined by the Secretary in his Memorandum. The purpose 

and need and any preferred alternative will be identified during the amendment 

process. 

Question. Is one of the Transition Plan’s objectives to prevent the harvest of old 

growth in Roadless Areas? If so, explain how the Plan would be consistent with the 

2003 Tongass Exemption. 

Answer. Secretary Vilsack’s July 2, 2013 Memorandum describes the objective of 

the transition; the Memorandum does not address roadless areas. There is no immediate change in the application of the 2001 Roadless Rule to the Tongass. As may 

be appropriate as a result of litigation, the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process 

may address the Tongass Exemption. 

Question. Will the Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan allow harvest 

in beach buffer zones and change stream buffer standards and guidelines to increase 

the inventory of second-growth on the Tongass suitable for harvest? 

Answer. The amendment process will identify areas suitable and not suitable for 

timber harvest to achieve the transition to young growth management. As part of 

the Plan amendment process, the Tongass will evaluate which lands should be 

available for timber harvest to provide economically sustainable young growth, and 

any proposed changes to standards and guidelines and other management direction 

to promote and speed the transition to young growth management while maintaining a viable timber industry in Southeast Alaska. 

Question. Does the recent 9th Circuit’s decision upholding the 2003 Tongass 

Roadless Rule Exemption impact the Forest Service’s continuing its transition plan 

to second-growth timber on the Tongass as set out by Secretary Vilsack’s Transition 

Plan? 

Answer. There is no immediate change in the application of the 2001 Roadless 

Rule to the Tongass National Forest resulting from the 9th Circuit’s decision, and 

there is no current impact to the transition from old growth to young growth timber 

harvest, as described in Secretary Vilsack’s Memorandum. 

Question. Is the Transition to second-growth within 10–15 years, as proposed by 

the Secretary, dependent upon a Congressional amendment to the culmination of 

mean annual increment (CMAI) requirement set out in the NFMA? 

Answer. Commercial thinning in young growth stands can occur without Congressional action, so long as procedural requirements set forth in the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) are met. Those procedural requirements will be addressed 

in the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process. 

Question. If so, what happens to the Transition Plan if Congress fails to act? 

Answer. If the procedural requirements of NFMA are not addressed in the 

Tongass Forest Plan amendment process, the transition to a young growth based 

industry will proceed, but at a slower, more measured pace. 

Question. How do you assess the Forest Service’s political chances of getting a 

Congressional waiver from CMAI, which the Secretary’s Memorandum acknowledges is needed, given that CMAI was a key demand of environmental groups for 

agreeing to clear-cutting in the NFMA after they won the Monongahela suit in 1973 

and Zieske case in 1974? 

Answer. Culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements are part of 

every land management plan. The National Forest Management Act specifically allows exceptions to CMAI requirements ‘‘. . . after consideration has been given to 

the multiple uses of the forest including, but not limited to, recreation, wildlife habitat, and range, and after completion of public participation processes . . .’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1604(m)) 

Question. Does the Forest Service plan to wait for Congress to act on CMAI before 

implementing the Transition to second-growth? What will be the status of the 

Amendment to the 2008 Amended Forest Plan while the Forest Service waits? 

Answer. The transition to young growth would be accelerated with an exemption 

to the CMAI provisions of NFMA, but the Forest Service does not plan to wait for 

Congressional action and will address the NFMA requirements in the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process. 

Question. If a waiver from CMAI is not achieved with the USFS seek to pursue 

a transition to 2nd Growth through commercial thinning? Forest Service experience 

with commercial thinning has cost approximately $6,000 per acre. What level of investment would be required to implement the Secretary’s Transition Plan? 
172 

Answer. A waiver from CMAI is not necessary for the transition to young growth management. The $6,000 per acre commercial thinning costs were the result of test 

contracts to determine the validity of commercial thinning in young growth and included additional costs associated with getting appropriate mechanized equipment 

mobilized into Southeast Alaska. With those contracts, the Region has successfully 

offered and sold a 7.4 million board feet (mmbf) young growth stewardship contract 

(Heceta) without supplemental appropriated funds necessary to complete the 

project. Heceta was appraised for 100 percent export and appraising for export in 

the future will be a key component of the transition in order to obtain the value 

necessary to be able to offer the projects for bid. 

Question. To what extent will the Forest Service allow export of 2nd Growth logs 

to achieve the goals laid out in the Secretary’s Transition Plan? 

Answer. The Forest Service will allow export of second growth logs, to the extent 

necessary to achieve a positive appraisal value to offer the project for sale. As domestic processing facilities convert or come on-line to deal with the smaller diameter 

trees in a young growth sale, the actual export of logs is expected to decrease. 

Question. The Forest Service faces a large backlog of pre-commercial thinning and 

other treatments calculated to benefit timber quality and wildlife habitat. What 

level of finding will the Forest Service request for these activities? 

Answer. Based on the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget, Alaska could expect to see a 6 percent (approx. $1 million) overall increase in appropriated dollars that 

could be used to help address the backlog of young stands needing for pre-commercial thinning. 

Question. The Secretary’s July 2, 2013 Transition Memorandum does not propose 

a departure from the NFMA requirement that national forest timber be harvested 

on a sustained yield basis. Nor does the Secretary’s Memorandum propose to modify 

the TLMP’s 1000 foot beach set back rule or the stream buffer rules set out in 

TTRA. It thus appears that there is no profitable domestic or export market for second-growth timber from the Tongass National Forest that is subject to the management constraints of the NFMA and TLMP. How does the Forest Service propose to 

provide an assured supply of second-growth timber sufficient to justify mills and 

banks providing the financing needed to purchase the equipment and make the mill 

modifications required to handle second growth timber? 

Answer. All of these factors will be considered as part of the Tongass Plan amendment process to achieve the transition as described in the Secretary’s Memorandum. 

Question. According to the Secretary’s Memorandum, the Transition Plan is dependent on Congressional appropriations for ‘‘increasing investments in young 

growth.’’ The Secretary’s Memorandum does not explain the level of investment that 

is needed or how in the face of decreasing Forest Service budgets such additional 

funds will be obtained and retained. What level of funding is the Forest Service requesting for this specifically and how much volume is it projected to produce? 

Answer. The Alaska Region would refocus the existing workforce into planning 

and executing young growth projects at an increasing pace and scale as old growth 

‘‘bridge timber’’ sales are prepared and offered. Annual appropriations at or near the 

fiscal year 2014 budget level of $339 million for Forest Products will be adequate 

for the immediate future. 

It is currently uncertain what volume of young growth will be attainable as a result of the forest plan amendment. The proposed plan amendment will be designed 

to evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young 

growth timber, which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to promote and speed the transition to young growth management.’’ There are about 

450,000 acres of harvested acres on the Tongass to be evaluated to provide new economic opportunities in future decades, when the trees will be large enough to yield 

marketable products. Outputs will be dependent upon the characteristics of the 

stands selected for harvest, the prescriptions applied and the economic viability of 

the selected treatments. 

Question. The Secretary’s Memorandum, which results in a timber harvest level 

of 30–50 MMBF, does not explain what has changed since the 2008 Amended Forest 

Plan that would allow it to meet the Market Demand requirement of the TTRA 

which the 2008 Amended Forest Plan ROD said was 200 MMBF. Why does the Forest Service believe it has discretion to nullify the TTRA by so encumbering the suitable land base to surrender its ability to meet market demand? 

Answer. The Secretary of Agriculture monitors and reports on timber supply and 

demand in Southeast Alaska, consistent with ANILCA. As part of the Alaska Region’s current program of work, an updated timber demand study will be completed, 

which will be considered in the Tongass Forest Plan amendment process. 

Question. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits communities such as Craig and 

Klawock from accessing mines with a road on Prince of Wales Island, thereby deny-
173 

ing access to jobs to the residents of those communities and a local workforce to 

Prince of Wales’ mines, such as Niblack and Bokan Mountain. 

What actions does the Forest Service plan to take to resolve this problem? 

Answer. The 2001 Roadless Rule explicitly allows road construction if ‘‘A road is 

needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights, or as provided for by statute or 

treaty.’’ This includes roads needed under valid existing rights established under the 

1872 Mining Law. A determination whether a road is needed for these mines will 

be made upon submission by the mining companies involved of a proposed Plan of 

Operations that includes construction of such a road. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Question. I have received reports that some of the Regions have been told to shift 

as much of their commercial timber sale program to stewardship contracting as possible. 

If so, why the focus on generating excess receipts by converting what would have 

been commercial timber sale projects to stewardship contracts? 

Answer. The Forest Service Washington Office has not directed the Regional Offices to shift timber sales into stewardship contracts. While we view stewardship 

contracting as an important tool, it is not our only tool in the toolbox. Both timber 

sale contracts and stewardship contracts are important tools to accomplish our 

work. 

Question. I have also been told that Forest Supervisors have been telling members 

of the public that the reason for shifting away from commercial timber sales to 

stewardship contracting is to allow the Forest Service to keep the excess receipts 

to use for salaries and road maintenance and under the discretion of the individual 

forest supervisor. 

The original concept of stewardship contracting was that the value of the timber 

volume would be equal to value of the service contract work to be accomplished. Is 

that not correct? 

Answer. The initial concept of stewardship contracting was and remains including 

timber volume and service work in roughly equal amounts within a stewardship 

contract. However, due to restoration needs and contractor capability, there are 

stewardship contracts where the value of the timber exceeds the value of the service 

work (producing retained receipts deposited into the Stewardship Contracting Fund) 

and there are stewardship contracts where the value of service work exceeds the 

value of the timber (requiring the addition of appropriated funds to the contract). 

Question. As I recall, the original premise of the stewardship contracting pilot 

projects was that the excess receipts were to be used to develop new stewardship 

contracts. Is that correct? 

Answer. Stewardship contracting retained receipts may be spent on new stewardship projects or on accomplishing additional restoration work within an existing 

stewardship project. 

Question. Please provide a table that shows by National Forest the percent of all 

saw timber sold through stewardship contracting versus commercial timber sale 

contracts. 

Answer. See the table below. Only National Forests with Sawtimber volume sold 

in fiscal year 2013 are included. 

PERCENT OF ALL SAWTIMBER SOLD UNDER STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2013 

Region Forest 

Total Sawtimber 

Volume Sold in 

thousand board 

feet (MBF) 

Sawtimber Volume Sold under 

Stewardship in 

thousand board 

feet (MBF) 

Percent of Total 

Sawtimber Volume Sold under 

Stewardship 

(%) 

01 Northern Rockies .......... 02 Beaverhead-Deerlodge ................... 127 0 0.0 

03 Bitterroot ....................................... 4,692 4,557 97.1 

04 Idaho Panhandle ........................... 27,601 675 2.4 

05 Clearwater ..................................... 24,329 21,879 89.9 

08 Custer ............................................ 131 0 0.0 

10 Flathead ........................................ 6,295 578 9.2 

11 Gallatin .......................................... 191 0 0.0 

12 Helena ........................................... 4 0 0.0 

14 Kootenai ......................................... 20,990 3,819 18.2 

16 Lolo ................................................ 1,896 130 6.9 

17 Nez Perce ....................................... 6,427 10 0.2 

02 Rocky Mountain ............ 02 Bighorn .......................................... 13,349 0 0.0 

03 Black Hills ..................................... 116,610 2,490 2.1 
174 

PERCENT OF ALL SAWTIMBER SOLD UNDER STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2013— 

Continued 

Region Forest 

Total Sawtimber 

Volume Sold in 

thousand board 

feet (MBF) 

Sawtimber Volume 

Sold under 

Stewardship in 

thousand board 

feet (MBF) 

Percent of Total 

Sawtimber Volume 

Sold under 

Stewardship 

(%) 

04 GMUG ............................................. 15,813 513 3.2 

06 MedBow-Routt ............................... 26,186 2,957 11.3 

09 Rio Grande .................................... 8,491 0 0.0 

10 Arapahoe-Roosevelt ....................... 8,908 4,122 46.3 

12 Pike-San Isabel ............................. 4,243 1,544 36.4 

13 San Juan ....................................... 7,737 3,865 50.0 

14 Shoshone ....................................... 2,799 0 0.0 

15 White River .................................... 17,413 5,512 31.7 

03 Southwestern ................ 01 Apache-Sitgreaves ......................... 39,206 36,020 91.9 

03 Cibola ............................................ 6,081 5,787 95.2 

04 Coconino ........................................ 45,931 36,094 78.6 

06 Gila ................................................ 692 0 0.0 

07 Kaibab ........................................... 19,562 18,351 93.8 

08 Lincoln ........................................... 680 0 0.0 

09 Prescott ......................................... 1,554 1,554 100.0 

10 Santa Fe ........................................ 1,049 507 48.3 

12 Tonto .............................................. 3,865 2,353 60.9 

04 Intermountain ............... 01 Ashley ............................................ 465 0 0.0 

02 Boise .............................................. 27,526 24,638 89.5 

03 Bridger-Teton ................................. 3,289 0 0.0 

07 Dixie ............................................... 7,549 4,755 63.0 

08 Fishlake ......................................... 3,904 0 0.0 

12 Payette ........................................... 10,591 10,572 99.8 

13 Salmon-Challis .............................. 3,921 3,447 87.9 

14 Sawtooth ........................................ 1,528 0 0.0 

15 Caribou-Targhee ............................ 53 16 30.2 

19 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache ................... 4,971 307 6.2 

05 Pacific Southwest ........ 03 Eldorado ........................................ 26,054 25,415 97.5 

05 Klamath ......................................... 21,369 5,808 27.2 

06 Lassen ........................................... 43,609 0 0.0 

08 Mendocino ..................................... 11,868 8,036 67.7 

09 Modoc ............................................ 15,986 0 0.0 

10 Six Rivers ...................................... 16,393 16,201 98.8 

11 Plumas .......................................... 44,114 2,888 6.5 

13 Sequoia .......................................... 4,265 4,016 94.2 

14 Shasta-Trinity ................................ 7,826 954 12.2 

15 Sierra ............................................. 17,784 3,152 17.7 

16 Stanislaus ..................................... 3,194 44 1.4 

17 Tahoe ............................................. 16,257 9,952 61.2 

19 Lake Tahoe Basin .......................... 336 0 0.0 

06 Pacific Northwest ......... 01 Deschutes ...................................... 41,066 14,628 35.6 

02 Fremont-Winema ........................... 25,004 23,493 94.0 

03 Gifford Pinchot .............................. 28,565 21,750 76.1 

04 Malhuer ......................................... 38,785 28,619 73.8 

05 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie ................... 11,731 0 0.0 

06 Mt. Hood ........................................ 32,727 32,120 98.1 

07 Ochoco ........................................... 11,440 1,873 16.4 

09 Olympic .......................................... 24,000 0 0.0 

10 Rogue River-Siskiyou ..................... 29,271 1,761 6.0 

12 Siuslaw .......................................... 38,990 22,105 56.7 

14 Umatilla ......................................... 16,615 0 0.0 

15 Umpqua ......................................... 29,751 1,661 5.6 

16 Wallowa-Whitman .......................... 27,733 2,875 10.4 

17 Okanogan-Wenatchee .................... 22,566 34 0.2 

18 Willamette ..................................... 82,692 0 0.0 

21 Colville ........................................... 33,444 29,020 86.8 

08 Southern ....................... 0NFs in AL .......................................... 22,686 5,698 25.1 

02 Daniel Boone ................................. 3,310 0 0.0 

03 Chattahoochee-Oconee .................. 2,263 1,162 51.3 

04 Cherokee ........................................ 6,241 13 0.2 
175 

PERCENT OF ALL SAWTIMBER SOLD UNDER STEWARDSHIP AUTHORITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2013— 

Continued 

Region Forest 

Total Sawtimber 

Volume Sold in 

thousand board 

feet (MBF) 

Sawtimber Volume Sold under 

Stewardship in 

thousand board 

feet (MBF) 

Percent of Total 

Sawtimber Volume Sold under 

Stewardship 

(%) 

05 NFs in FL ....................................... 5,889 5,486 93.2 

06 Kisatchie ........................................ 22,807 0 0.0 

07 NFs in MS ...................................... 30,060 4,070 13.5 

08 George Washington-Jefferson ........ 6,214 0 0.0 

09 Oachita .......................................... 40,166 0 0.0 

10 Ozark-St. Francis ........................... 34,233 11,632 34.0 

11 NFs in NC ...................................... 11,816 1,469 12.4 

12 Francis Marion .............................. 22,713 0 0.0 

13 NFs in TX ....................................... 18,370 13,294 72.4 

60 Land Between the Lakes ............... 1,059 0 0.0 

09 Northern ....................... 03 Chippewa ....................................... 7,404 2,095 28.3 

04 Huron-Manistee ............................. 14,268 2,770 19.4 

05 Mark Twain .................................... 31,264 5,634 18.0 

07 Ottawa ........................................... 7,024 518 7.4 

08 Shawnee ........................................ 2,023 0 0.0 

09 Superior ......................................... 7,908 358 4.5 

10 Hiawatha ....................................... 13,631 3,273 24.0 

12 Hoosier ........................................... 2,426 0 0.0 

13 Chiquamegon-Nicolet .................... 14,075 1,233 8.8 

14 Wayne ............................................ 1,515 0 0.0 

19 Allegheny ....................................... 14,647 4,513 30.8 

20 Green Mountain ............................. 2,451 2,451 100.0 

21 Monongahela ................................. 3,760 116 3.1 

22 White Mountain ............................. 4,924 1,559 31.7 

10 Alaska .......................... 05 Tongass ......................................... 13,572 1 0.0 

Total ..................... ............................................................. 1,588,803 520,802 32.8 

Question. Please also provide by National Forest a table that show how much excess receipts were generated through the stewardship contracts for each of the last 

5 years, as well as a detailed accounting of how those excess receipts were expended 

and whether any of those excess receipts went to pay for salaries or other employee 

expenses. 

Answer. The table in Attachment A lists stewardship contracting collections and 

spending for fiscal year 2009 to 2013. Collections equal the sale value of the forest 

products in excess of the cost of the service work obtained under an integrated resource contract. Stewardship contracting funds are available until expended for 

other authorized stewardship projects and may be used for: 

—road and trail maintenance or decommissioning to restore or maintain water 

quality; 

—work to improve soil productivity, or other resource values; 

—prescribed fires to improve the composition, structure, condition, and health of 

forest stands or to improve wildlife habitat; 

—removal of vegetation or other activities to promote healthy forests, reduce fire 

hazards, or achieve other land management objectives; 

—restoration and maintenance of watersheds; 

—restoration and maintenance of wildlife and fish habitat; and 

—control of noxious and invasive weeds, and re-establishment of native plant species. 

The initial concept of stewardship contracting was and remains including timber 

volume and service work in roughly equal amounts within a stewardship contract. 

However, due to restoration needs and contractor capability, there are stewardship 

contracts where the value of the timber exceeds the value of the service work (producing retained receipts deposited into the Stewardship Contracting Fund (SSCC)). 

Unused balances in SSCC carry-over into the next fiscal year. This can create a situation where we may plan to spend more SSCC funds than we collect in the current 

fiscal year. 
176 

ATTACHMENT A 

FISCAL YEAR 2009–2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal Year Forest Name Total Collections 

Total Spending 

Other * Salary * 

2009 ........................................... APACHE-SITGREAVES .................................................... 0 

2009 ........................................... ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT ................................................... 0 

2009 ........................................... BITTERROOT .................................................................. ................ ¥12 

2009 ........................................... BOISE ............................................................................ ................ 103 

2009 ........................................... CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET .............................................. 213 94 

2009 ........................................... CHEROKEE .................................................................... ................ 10 

2009 ........................................... CLEARWATER ................................................................ 243 237 

2009 ........................................... COLVILLE ...................................................................... 293 84 58 

2009 ........................................... DIXIE ............................................................................. 0 

2009 ........................................... ELDORADO .................................................................... 1,300 200 

2009 ........................................... FLATHEAD ..................................................................... 257 20 0 

2009 ........................................... FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER ....................................... 4 92 

2009 ........................................... GIFFORD PINCHOT ........................................................ 81 

2009 ........................................... HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE ..................................................... 1 

2009 ........................................... HURON MANISTEE ......................................................... 45 44 

2009 ........................................... IDAHO PANHANDLE ....................................................... 417 38 

2009 ........................................... KISATCHIE ..................................................................... 256 194 

2009 ........................................... KLAMATH ....................................................................... 6 

2009 ........................................... KOOTENAI ...................................................................... 229 

2009 ........................................... LOLO ............................................................................. 0 

2009 ........................................... MANTI-LASAL ................................................................ 0 

2009 ........................................... MENDOCINO .................................................................. 2 2 

2009 ........................................... MONONGAHELA ............................................................. ................ 82 

2009 ........................................... MT HOOD ...................................................................... ................ ¥1 

2009 ........................................... NEZPERCE .................................................................... 94 7

2009 ........................................... NFS IN ALABAMA .......................................................... ................ 62 

2009 ........................................... NFS IN FLORIDA ............................................................ 1 ¥57 

2009 ........................................... NFS IN MISSISSIPPI ...................................................... 200 

2009 ........................................... NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA ............................................. ................ 3 

2009 ........................................... NFS IN TEXAS ............................................................... 18 

2009 ........................................... OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE ............................................... 3 

2009 ........................................... OLYMPIC ....................................................................... 45 44 

2009 ........................................... PAYETTE ........................................................................ 16 

2009 ........................................... PIKE-SAN ISABEL .......................................................... 0 

2009 ........................................... RIO GRANDE ................................................................. 0 

2009 ........................................... SIUSLAW ....................................................................... 340 364 

2009 ........................................... UMATILLA ...................................................................... 1,323 1,153 

2009 ........................................... UMPQUA ........................................................................ 92 23 80 

2009 ........................................... WALLOWA WHITMAN ...................................................... 203 266 1 

2009 ........................................... WHITE MOUNTAIN ......................................................... 22 

2009 ........................................... WHITE RIVER ................................................................ 3 

2009 Totals ** .............. ....................................................................................... 5,707 3,052 139 

2010 ........................................... ALLEGHENY ................................................................... 247 56 

2010 ........................................... ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT ................................................... 80 25 

2010 ........................................... ASHLEY ......................................................................... 8

2010 ........................................... BIGHORN ....................................................................... 59

2010 ........................................... BITTERROOT .................................................................. 40 55 

2010 ........................................... BLACK HILLS ................................................................. ................ 51 

2010 ........................................... BOISE ............................................................................ 0 5 

2010 ........................................... CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET .............................................. 84 4 

2010 ........................................... CHEROKEE .................................................................... 4 0 

2010 ........................................... CHIPPEWA ..................................................................... 1 

2010 ........................................... CLEARWATER ................................................................ ................ 0 

2010 ........................................... COCONINO .................................................................... ................ 0 

2010 ........................................... COLVILLE ...................................................................... 0 47 64 

2010 ........................................... DANIEL BOONE ............................................................. 3 

2010 ........................................... ELDORADO .................................................................... 243 540 
177 

FISCAL YEAR 2009–2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal Year Forest Name Total 

Collections 

Total Spending 

Other * Salary * 

2010 ........................................... FLATHEAD ..................................................................... 735 41 0 

2010 ........................................... FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER ....................................... 145 131 

2010 ........................................... GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES ................................ 16 5 

2010 ........................................... HIAWATHA ..................................................................... 96 19 

2010 ........................................... HURON MANISTEE ......................................................... 24 0 

2010 ........................................... IDAHO PANHANDLE ....................................................... ................ 32 

2010 ........................................... KISATCHIE ..................................................................... ................ 0 

2010 ........................................... KOOTENAI ...................................................................... 2 140 

2010 ........................................... LOLO ............................................................................. 38 

2010 ........................................... MALHEUR ...................................................................... 350 20 

2010 ........................................... MARK TWAIN ................................................................. 47 28

2010 ........................................... MENDOCINO .................................................................. ................ 0 

2010 ........................................... MT HOOD ...................................................................... 480 285 

2010 ........................................... NEZPERCE .................................................................... ................ 47 

2010 ........................................... NFS IN ALABAMA .......................................................... 48 4 

2010 ........................................... NFS IN FLORIDA ............................................................ ................ 58 

2010 ........................................... NFS IN MISSISSIPPI ...................................................... 631 350 

2010 ........................................... NFS IN TEXAS ............................................................... 585 378 0 

2010 ........................................... OLYMPIC ....................................................................... 3 0 

2010 ........................................... OTTAWA ......................................................................... 0

2010 ........................................... OZARK-ST FRANCIS ...................................................... ................ 7 

2010 ........................................... PIKE-SAN ISABEL .......................................................... 1 

2010 ........................................... SHASTA TRINITY ............................................................ 1 

2010 ........................................... SIUSLAW ....................................................................... ................ 314 

2010 ........................................... STANISLAUS .................................................................. 4 

2010 ........................................... SUPERIOR ..................................................................... ................ 0 

2010 ........................................... TAHOE ........................................................................... 44 

2010 ........................................... UMATILLA ...................................................................... 3,445 1,416 

2010 ........................................... UMPQUA ........................................................................ 173 0 23 

2010 ........................................... WALLOWA WHITMAN ...................................................... 57 0 ¥1 

2010 ........................................... WHITE MOUNTAIN ......................................................... 4 

2010 Totals ** .............. ....................................................................................... 7,698 4,058 86 

2011 ........................................... ALLEGHENY ................................................................... ................ 73 

2011 ........................................... APACHE-SITGREAVES .................................................... 0 0 

2011 ........................................... ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT ................................................... 2 0 

2011 ........................................... BITTERROOT .................................................................. 8 ¥5 

2011 ........................................... BLACK HILLS ................................................................. ................ 1 

2011 ........................................... BOISE ............................................................................ ................ 40 

2011 ........................................... CHATT-OCONEE ............................................................. 0 

2011 ........................................... CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET .............................................. 112 52 

2011 ........................................... CHIPPEWA ..................................................................... 0 

2011 ........................................... CLEARWATER ................................................................ 593 244 

2011 ........................................... COLVILLE ...................................................................... 150 129 81 

2011 ........................................... ELDORADO .................................................................... 69 851 

2011 ........................................... FLATHEAD ..................................................................... 20 490 0 

2011 ........................................... FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER ....................................... 978 461 

2011 ........................................... FREMONT-WINEMA ........................................................ 9 

2011 ........................................... GEORGE WASHINGTON/JEFFERSON ............................... 187 

2011 ........................................... GIFFORD PINCHOT ........................................................ 43 

2011 ........................................... GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES ................................ 67 29 

2011 ........................................... HIAWATHA ..................................................................... ................ 52 

2011 ........................................... HOOSIER ....................................................................... 10

2011 ........................................... HUMBOLDT-TOIYABE ..................................................... 31 

2011 ........................................... HURON MANISTEE ......................................................... 241 ¥8 

2011 ........................................... IDAHO PANHANDLE ....................................................... ................ 0 

2011 ........................................... KISATCHIE ..................................................................... ................ 0 

2011 ........................................... KLAMATH ....................................................................... ................ 6 

2011 ........................................... LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES NRA .................................. 7 

2011 ........................................... MALHEUR ...................................................................... 1,840 2,062 
178 

FISCAL YEAR 2009–2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal Year Forest Name Total 

Collections 

Total Spending 

Other * Salary * 

2011 ........................................... MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT ................................................. 27 

2011 ........................................... MENDOCINO .................................................................. 15 

2011 ........................................... MT HOOD ...................................................................... 623 498 

2011 ........................................... NFS IN ALABAMA .......................................................... ................ 11 

2011 ........................................... NFS IN FLORIDA ............................................................ 13 ¥7 

2011 ........................................... NFS IN MISSISSIPPI ...................................................... 207 175 

2011 ........................................... NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA ............................................. ................ 5 

2011 ........................................... NFS IN TEXAS ............................................................... 165 303 1 

2011 ........................................... OUACHITA ..................................................................... 70 

2011 ........................................... OZARK-ST FRANCIS ...................................................... 292 0 

2011 ........................................... PAYETTE ........................................................................ ................ 0 

2011 ........................................... PIKE-SAN ISABEL .......................................................... 1 

2011 ........................................... SAN JUAN ...................................................................... 0 

2011 ........................................... SHASTA TRINITY ............................................................ 20 

2011 ........................................... SIUSLAW ....................................................................... 526 325 

2011 ........................................... TAHOE ........................................................................... ................ 44 

2011 ........................................... UMATILLA ...................................................................... 868 3,225 

2011 ........................................... UMPQUA ........................................................................ ................ 1 20 

2011 ........................................... WALLOWA WHITMAN ...................................................... 719 269 

2011 ........................................... WAYNE .......................................................................... 81 73 

2011 ........................................... WHITE RIVER ................................................................ 0 

2011 Totals ** .............. ....................................................................................... 7,994 9,399 102 

2012 ........................................... ALLEGHENY ................................................................... ................ 78 

2012 ........................................... ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT ................................................... 2 25 

2012 ........................................... ASHLEY ......................................................................... ................ 5 

2012 ........................................... BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE ............................................ ................ 14 

2012 ........................................... BIGHORN ....................................................................... ................ 18 

2012 ........................................... BITTERROOT .................................................................. 40 10 

2012 ........................................... BLACK HILLS ................................................................. 21 0

2012 ........................................... BOISE ............................................................................ 49 87 

2012 ........................................... BRIDGER-TETON ........................................................... 9 

2012 ........................................... CHATT-OCONEE ............................................................. ................ 18 

2012 ........................................... CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET .............................................. 524 51 

2012 ........................................... CLEARWATER ................................................................ 190 429 

2012 ........................................... COLVILLE ...................................................................... 276 14 36 

2012 ........................................... DESCHUTES .................................................................. 1 

2012 ........................................... DIXIE ............................................................................. 0 

2012 ........................................... ELDORADO .................................................................... 150 178 

2012 ........................................... FLATHEAD ..................................................................... 79 549 0 

2012 ........................................... FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER ....................................... 943 462 

2012 ........................................... GEORGE WASHINGTON/JEFFERSON ............................... ................ 64 

2012 ........................................... GIFFORD PINCHOT ........................................................ 10 41 

2012 ........................................... GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES ................................ 10 21 

2012 ........................................... HIAWATHA ..................................................................... ................ 6 

2012 ........................................... HURON MANISTEE ......................................................... 6 20 

2012 ........................................... IDAHO PANHANDLE ....................................................... ................ 189 

2012 ........................................... KISATCHIE ..................................................................... 3 ¥76 

2012 ........................................... KLAMATH ....................................................................... 1 

2012 ........................................... KOOTENAI ...................................................................... ................ 0 

2012 ........................................... LINCOLN ........................................................................ 1

2012 ........................................... MALHEUR ...................................................................... 2,313 1,406 

2012 ........................................... MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT ................................................. 3 

2012 ........................................... MENDOCINO .................................................................. 2 

2012 ........................................... MONONGAHELA ............................................................. ................ 11 

2012 ........................................... MT HOOD ...................................................................... 207 470 

2012 ........................................... NFS IN ALABAMA .......................................................... 3 11 

2012 ........................................... NFS IN FLORIDA ............................................................ 37 

2012 ........................................... NFS IN MISSISSIPPI ...................................................... 369 165 

2012 ........................................... NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA ............................................. ................ 67 
179 

FISCAL YEAR 2009–2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal Year Forest Name Total 

Collections 

Total Spending 

Other * Salary * 

2012 ........................................... NFS IN TEXAS ............................................................... 325 441 

2012 ........................................... OLYMPIC ....................................................................... 1 

2012 ........................................... OTTAWA ......................................................................... 83 40 

2012 ........................................... OUACHITA ..................................................................... 163 27 

2012 ........................................... OZARK-ST FRANCIS ...................................................... ................ 50 

2012 ........................................... PAYETTE ........................................................................ 89 50 

2012 ........................................... PIKE-SAN ISABEL .......................................................... 2 1 

2012 ........................................... PLUMAS ........................................................................ 13

2012 ........................................... SIUSLAW ....................................................................... 688 427 

2012 ........................................... TAHOE ........................................................................... ................ 0 

2012 ........................................... TONGASS ....................................................................... 13

2012 ........................................... UMATILLA ...................................................................... 2,223 0 

2012 ........................................... UMPQUA ........................................................................ ................ 51 17 

2012 ........................................... WALLOWA WHITMAN ...................................................... 277 236 

2012 ........................................... WAYNE .......................................................................... ................ 0 

2012 ........................................... WILLAMETTE .................................................................. 305 

2012 Totals ** .............. ....................................................................................... 9,431 5,656 53 

2013 ........................................... AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ................................. 0 

2013 ........................................... ALLEGHENY ................................................................... 232 79 

2013 ........................................... APACHE-SITGREAVES .................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... ARAPAHO-ROOSEVELT ................................................... 4 0 

2013 ........................................... BIGHORN ....................................................................... 0 18 

2013 ........................................... BITTERROOT .................................................................. 0 0 

2013 ........................................... BLACK HILLS ................................................................. 0 16

2013 ........................................... BOISE ............................................................................ 0 48 

2013 ........................................... CHATT-OCONEE ............................................................. 0 1 

2013 ........................................... CHEQUAMEGON-NICOLET .............................................. 68 132 

2013 ........................................... CHEROKEE .................................................................... 12 

2013 ........................................... CHIPPEWA ..................................................................... 0 0

2013 ........................................... CIBOLA .......................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... CLEARWATER ................................................................ 380 437 

2013 ........................................... COCONINO .................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... COLUMBIA RIVER GORGE NAT AREA ............................ 68 

2013 ........................................... COLVILLE ...................................................................... 755 ¥9 41 

2013 ........................................... DESCHUTES .................................................................. 500 416 

2013 ........................................... DIXIE ............................................................................. 0 

2013 ........................................... ELDORADO .................................................................... 695 136 

2013 ........................................... FLATHEAD ..................................................................... 525 346 

2013 ........................................... FRANCIS MARION & SUMTER ....................................... 1,028 1,064 

2013 ........................................... FREMONT-WINEMA ........................................................ 41 

2013 ........................................... GALLATIN ...................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... GIFFORD PINCHOT ........................................................ 38 ¥17 

2013 ........................................... GRAND MESA-UNC-GUNN ............................................. 0 

2013 ........................................... GREEN MOUNTAIN/FINGER LAKES ................................ 111 70 

2013 ........................................... HIAWATHA ..................................................................... 1 7

2013 ........................................... HOOSIER ....................................................................... 13

2013 ........................................... HURON MANISTEE ......................................................... 136 31 

2013 ........................................... IDAHO PANHANDLE ....................................................... 0 9 

2013 ........................................... INYO .............................................................................. 2 

2013 ........................................... KAIBAB .......................................................................... 1 

2013 ........................................... KISATCHIE ..................................................................... 0 7 

2013 ........................................... KLAMATH ....................................................................... 0 0 

2013 ........................................... KOOTENAI ...................................................................... 171 0 

2013 ........................................... LAND BETWEEN THE LAKES NRA .................................. 0 

2013 ........................................... LASSEN ......................................................................... 0

2013 ........................................... LEWIS AND CLARK ........................................................ 11 

2013 ........................................... LINCOLN ........................................................................ 0

2013 ........................................... LOLO ............................................................................. 70 45 

2013 ........................................... LOS PADRES ................................................................. 1 
180 

FISCAL YEAR 2009–2013 STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING COLLECTIONS AND SPENDING—Continued 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Fiscal Year Forest Name Total 

Collections 

Total Spending 

Other * Salary * 

2013 ........................................... MALHEUR ...................................................................... 1,589 2,785 

2013 ........................................... MANTI-LASAL ................................................................ 0 

2013 ........................................... MARK TWAIN ................................................................. 3 0 

2013 ........................................... MEDICINE BOW/ROUTT ................................................. 13 

2013 ........................................... MONONGAHELA ............................................................. 3 342 

2013 ........................................... MT BAKER-SNOQUALMIE ............................................... 30 

2013 ........................................... MT HOOD ...................................................................... 1,377 253 

2013 ........................................... NFS IN ALABAMA .......................................................... 0 7 

2013 ........................................... NFS IN FLORIDA ............................................................ 20 28 

2013 ........................................... NFS IN MISSISSIPPI ...................................................... 0 655 

2013 ........................................... NFS IN NORTH CAROLINA ............................................. 1 11 

2013 ........................................... NFS IN TEXAS ............................................................... 655 568 1 

2013 ........................................... OKANOGAN-WENATCHEE ............................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... OTTAWA ......................................................................... 301 270 

2013 ........................................... OUACHITA ..................................................................... 80 20 

2013 ........................................... OZARK-ST FRANCIS ...................................................... 0 46 

2013 ........................................... PAYETTE ........................................................................ 0 0 

2013 ........................................... PIKE-SAN ISABEL .......................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... PLUMAS ........................................................................ 0 

2013 ........................................... ROGUE RIVER/SISKIYOU ............................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... SALMON-CHALLIS .......................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... SAN JUAN ...................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... SIERRA .......................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... SIUSLAW ....................................................................... 1,225 1,028 

2013 ........................................... SIX RIVERS ................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... STANISLAUS .................................................................. 0 

2013 ........................................... SUPERIOR ..................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... TAHOE ........................................................................... 361 

2013 ........................................... TONGASS ....................................................................... 0 

2013 ........................................... UMATILLA ...................................................................... 770 597 

2013 ........................................... UMPQUA ........................................................................ 564 16 79 

2013 ........................................... WALLOWA WHITMAN ...................................................... 507 394 

2013 ........................................... WAYNE .......................................................................... 0

2013 ........................................... WHITE MOUNTAIN ......................................................... 0 2 

2013 ........................................... WHITE RIVER ................................................................ 3 

2013 Total ** ............... ....................................................................................... 12,365 9,858 121 

Total ** .................... ....................................................................................... 43,200 32,016 501 

* Salary is defined as all spending in Budget Object Classification (BOC) codes starting with 11 and 12, and Other is all remaining BOCs. 

** The total Costs and Spending may not exactly match the numbers in MAX because data was run at different points in year, which may 

result in some prior year adjustments. 

Question. Alaska’s timber industry predominantly consists of small businesses. In 

fact, small business purchasers have bought the majority of the timber sale volume 

offered by the Federal Government for the last 60 years. I have asked about the 

agency’s plans for applying the small business set aside requirement to stewardship 

contracting sales and you indicated that there were ‘‘issues’’ that were being considered. 

What are those ‘‘issues’’ being considered? 

Answer. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has requested inclusion of the 

Stewardship Integrated Resource Timber Contracts (IRTCs) in the Small Business 

Timber Sale Set-Aside Program. The use of IRTCs has increased to the extent that, 

on some market areas (outside of Alaska), only stewardship sales are being offered; 

thus, no sales are available to be set-aside for preferential bidding by small businesses when the Set-Aside Program is initiated (‘‘triggered’’) on a market area. 

Question. Does the administration plan to move forward with a small business 

set-aside program for stewardship contracting? 

If so, when do you expect this to occur? 

Answer. Based upon direction from Congress, any changes in Small Business Timber Sale Set-Aside Program policy or manual direction are required to go through 

a public review and comment process. The Forest Service plans to publish a Pro-
181 

posed Directive in the Federal Register for public review and comment which includes adding sawtimber volumes sold via IRTCs in the volumes used to calculate 

market shares under the Set-Aside Program and evaluating sawtimber volumes sold 

via IRSCs and their effect upon the Set-Aside Program at the end of the current 

5-year recomputation period (10/1/2010–9/30/2015). The Proposed Directive is currently being prepared for Agency and Departmental clearance. 

SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS

Question. Your agency’s proposal includes a 5-year reauthorization of Secure 

Rural Schools (SRS). It is the same proposal that has appeared in the last couple 

of budgets. What we really need is a long-term solution that gets the cut up across 

our forests so that we have both revenue and jobs. 

Approximately how much revenue does the Forest Service expect to collect and 

use to offset the SRS program cost of $251 million for fiscal year 2015? 

Answer. The proposal for the fiscal year 2015 Secure Rural Schools program includes $115 million in collections to offset the total cost of $251 million. 

Question. Does the agency have any suggested ‘‘pay for’s’’ (Offsets) to cover the 

mandatory spending proposed for this program? 

Answer. The proposal is offset within the President’s budget. 

AVIATION QUESTIONS

Question. Please provide a table with the description of each of the Next Generation tankers that you expect to be on the line fighting fire this year. In the table 

please include the name of the contractor, a description of the asset, and status of 

each contract. 

Answer. Next Generation Airtankers Fiscal Year 2014: 

Vendor Type # of Aircraft Estimated Start Date 

10-Tanker ........................................................................ DC–10 ................................ 1 05/05/14 

10-Tanker (additional equipment clause) ...................... DC–10 ................................ 1 05/19/14 

10-Tanker (additional equipment clause) ...................... DC–10 ................................ 1 07/01/14 

Aero Air ............................................................................ MD–87 ................................ 2 06/05 and 06/10/14 

Aero Air (additional equipment clause) .......................... MD–87 ................................ 1 07/01/14 

Aero Flite ......................................................................... RJ–85 ................................. 2 06/20 and 06/30/14 

Aero Flite (additional equipment clause) ....................... RJ–85 ................................. 1 07/01/14 

Coulson ............................................................................ C–130Q .............................. 1 05/13/14 

Minden ............................................................................. BAe–146 ............................. 1 Missed 04/25 Start 

Neptune (additional equipment clause) ......................... BAe–146 ............................. 1 05/16/14 

Neptune (additional equipment clause) ......................... BAe–146 ............................. 1 05/16/14 

Neptune (additional equipment clause) ......................... BAe–146 ............................. 1 06/01/14 

Question. As a result of last year’s military appropriations bill you were to receive 

seven older C–130 H models from the Coast Guard. When will those seven C–130’s 

be tanked, certified, and on the line fighting fire? 

Please provide a list of each aircraft, what work remains to be accomplished and 

the earliest and latest date that those individual aircraft will be available for firefighting. 

Answer. We expect the first aircraft to be transferred in late 2014 or early 2015 

and be available for limited operations in 2015 with a Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) II system. This aircraft would be fitted with the gravity 

tank sometime in fiscal year 2016. The C–130H aircraft will be Forest Service 

owned and contractor operated and maintained. We expect three additional aircraft 

to be transferred in fiscal year 2017 and the remaining three to be transferred in 

fiscal year 2018. 
182 

Aircraft Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2016 Fiscal Year 2017 Fiscal Year 2018 

1708 ................ CWR, PDM, OWR Delivered to USFS, 

2nd Quarter 

RDS 

1719 ................ CWR, PDM, OWR, RDS Delivered to USFS, 

1st Quarter 

1706 ................ PDM, OWR, RDS Delivered to USFS, 

3rd Quarter 

1721 ................ PDM, RDS Delivered to 

USFS,4th Quarter 

1713 ................ CWR, PDM, OWR, 

RDS 

Delivered to USFS, 

1st Quarter 

1709 ................ CWR, PDM, OWR, 

RDS 

Delivered to USFS, 

2nd Quarter 

1714 ................ PDM, OWR, RDS Delivered to USFS, 

4th Quarter 

CWR—Center Wing Box Replacement 

OWR—Outer Wing Box Replacement 

PDM—Programmed Depot Maintenance 

RDS—Retardant Delivery System Install 

Question. As part of the Farm Bill you receive authorization to contract for up 

to five new C–130 J models through a leasing scheme. 

What steps have to be undertaken before you will have those aircraft available 

to fight fires? 

Answer. The Forest Service is planning on posting a Request for Information 

(RFI) in Fed Biz Opps to allow vendors to explore innovative options for meeting 

the intent of the Farm Bill authorization. 

Once the Forest Service receives results from the RFI we will evaluate how to 

move forward in exploring use of this authority. Depending on vendor options provided, fleet needs, and other contracted and owned aircraft already obtained, we 

may pursue an RFP. 

Question. What is the estimated cost of leasing, converting, and finding private 

contractors to fly and maintain those aircraft? 

Answer. Until the proposals are evaluated from the Request for Information, the 

costs and availability of contractors cannot be determined. 

Question. When will each of those aircraft be on the line to fight fires? 

Answer. Until the proposals from a solicitation are evaluated, options and 

timelines are speculative. 

Question. During a late March Aerial Fire Fighting Conference in Sacramento, 

California the commander of the Channel Island Air National Guard base that operates several of the C–130’s they provide the Forest Service for firefighting indicated 

that the Air National Guard and the Forest Service and other would be undertaking 

a redesign of the MAFF II units because the current units were considered substandard. He went on to explain that the current units only lay-down a slurry line 

that is about 60 yards wide, far less than the 220 yard wide slurry line that is called 

for. 

Why is it that this information has not been provided to Congress by the Forest 

Service? 

Answer. The MAFFS II systems meet the minimum standards for retardant delivery systems established by the Interagency Airtanker Board. The MAFFS II line is 

narrower than the line produced by commercial large airtankers, but produces a 

more contiguous pattern. This refinement of MAFFS II will improve performance of 

the system. The MAFFS II design is over a decade old and new technology and refinement of the existing system may improve coverage levels, effectiveness and reduce overall weight of the system. MAFFS 2.5 will also take advantage of the additional capabilities of the C–130J aircraft based at Channel Island. 

Question. What will the expected cost of the redesign be? 

Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act 2013 identified $16 million in 

MAFFS funding. The Forest Service has already contributed over $1 million toward 

the MAFFS 2.5 refinement. 

Question. When will the new slurry MAFF III units be ready for use? 

Answer. The estimated delivery is 3 years. Once the first system is produced it 

will have to undergo extensive testing, field evaluation and Air Force review. 

Question. Are you concerned about greater risks to ground fire fighters because 

of this defect? 
183 

Answer. No. The MAFFS II systems have performed well since being implemented 

and continue to be an important surge capacity. 

COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE PROGRAM

Question. The Budget request includes a proposal to expand the Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Program by increasing the funding from the currently authorized 

level of $40 million per year to $60 million per year. Currently that $40 million supports 23 projects with each approved project eligible for up to $4 million per year 

for up to 10 years. This program is heavily geared to restoration in fire adapted ecosystems and is supposed to have as its focus bringing down fire suppression costs 

by working collaboratively and strategically to bring fire suppression costs down. I 

am becoming concerned that this program is becoming simply another budget line 

item to fund collaborative forest restoration work that could otherwise be accomplished through other budget line items outside of the program. There are many opportunities outside of CFLR to expand management nationwide. 

What assurances can you give me that the current and future projects selected 

will be projects suited for this program specifically that meet all its criteria and are 

not simply work that could be accomplished outside the program umbrella? 

Answer. Proposals will be prepared in response to a Request for Proposals that 

specifically calls for collaborative teams to address how their project meets the purposes of the Act. In addition, proposals will be reviewed by an interdisciplinary Federal Advisory Committee that will recommend projects for funding to the Secretary. 

This Advisory Committee will specifically be looking for projects that meet the criteria of the Act. 

Question. The CFLR program requires matching funds for projects approved 

under the program. I am receiving reports from regions with CFLR projects that 

CFLR funds are not supplementing but are actually supplanting or displacing regular funds for national forest system units that have projects. To your knowledge, 

is this occurring? 

Answer. Regions and Forests have prioritized the funding of CLFR projects 

against other initiatives or priorities. In many cases, CFLR is the primary program 

of work or a major part of their program of work. The matching funds for the program utilize appropriated Agency funds, in-kind and partner contribution as well as 

funds provided through the legislation. 

Question. What assurances can you give me that the CFLR funds are truly supplemental to regular unit funds and that concrete financial matching is occurring 

at the regions? 

Answer. We keep detailed records on the funding spent for each project. In fiscal 

year 2012, projects spent $26.2 million in CFLR funds and over $59 million in other 

funds, including $12.4 million in partner contributions. 

Question. What significant results can you report on today from the projects funded through the program that would justify a 50 percent increase in funding at this 

time? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2014, we have 23 projects funded through CFLR. Between 

fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, these 23 projects have generated more than 

838 million board feet (mmbf) of timber, established or improved forest vegetation 

on 191,000 acres, restored or enhance 936,000 acres of terrestrial habitat, and enhanced community safety through the treatment of hazardous fuels on more than 

661,200 acres. Additionally, in fiscal year 2013 alone these projects created or maintained more than 5,307 jobs and generated more than $195 million in labor income, 

supporting rural economies in 14 States. 

Note that these accomplishments are larger than what was reported in the fiscal 

year 2015 Budget Justification because they include the three additional projects 

added in fiscal year 2013, whereas the Budget Justification only reported on the accomplishments of the 20 projects that existed as of 2012. 

Question. If the program authorization were increased and funded at $60 million, 

outline specifically what/how the Forest Service would spend that additional funding? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget would expand the authority of 

the 23 existing projects and also permit the investment in up to 10 new CFLRP 

projects. New CFLRP projects will be submitted by Forest Service Regions and reviewed by the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will then submit recommendations for funding projects to the Secretary of Agriculture, who will make 

a final decision regarding which projects will receive CFLRP funds. The Secretary 

may select up to 10 new projects for funding in fiscal year 2015. As the new projects 

are selected and begin to implement treatments on the ground, we expect outputs 

to increase. The increases are primarily expected in fiscal year 2016 and beyond. 
184 

Question. Please provide the list of current projects and how much each project 

has received to date, and would be expected to receive in fiscal year 2015 if funded 

at the $40 million level? If funded at the $60 million level? 

Answer. The table below displays the funding to date by project and planned 

project funding for fiscal year 2015 at the $40 and $60 million levels. We plan to 

allocate approximately $13.4 million of the additional $20 million requested in fiscal 

year 2015 to existing projects and use the remaining to begin work on new projects 

that would be identified and selected in fiscal year 2015. 

Project Name Reg. Forest(s) 

Total Funds 

(Fiscal Year 

2010 to Fiscal 

Year 2014) 

Fiscal Year 

2015 CFLRP 

funded at $40 

million level 

Fiscal Year 

2015 CFLRP 

funded at $60 

million level 

Southwestern Crown of the Continent ........ 1 Lolo, Flathead, Helena .. $16,366,292 $2,996,206 $4,000,000 

Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater Project ....... 1 Nez Perce, Clearwater ... 16,209,079 2,996,206 4,000,000 

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative ............. 1 Idaho Panhandle ........... 2,004,265 1,002,125 1,337,859 

Uncompahgre Plateau ................................. 2 Uncompahgre ................ 4,279,120 849,724 1,134,400 

Colorado Front Range .................................. 2 Arapaho, Roosevelt, 

Pike, San Isabel.

16,339,017 2,996,206 4,000,000 

4 Forest Restoration Initiative ..................... 3 Apache-Sitgreaves, 

Kaibab, Coconino, 

Tonto.

17,337,007 2,996,206 4,000,000 

Southwest Jemez Mountains ........................ 3 Santa Fe/Valles Caldera 

Trust & National Preserve.

14,118,012 2,996,206 4,000,000 

Zuni Mountain CFLRP .................................. 3 Cibola ............................ 1,965,501 599,241 800,000 

Weiser-Little Salmon Headwaters CFLRP .... 4 Payette ........................... 9,694,537 2,883,848 3,850,000 

Dinkey Landscape Restoration Project ........ 5 Sierra ............................. 5,105,832 940,074 1,255,019 

Burney-Hat Creek Basins Project ................ 5 Lassen ........................... 2,746,110 1,057,144 1,411,310 

Amador-Calaveras Consensus Group Cornerstone Project.5 Eldorado and 

Stanislaus.

3,794,317 1,208,515 1,613,394 

Tapash ......................................................... 6 Okanagan–Wenatchee ... 10,364,010 310,247 414,187 

Deschutes Skyline ........................................ 6 Deschutes ...................... 4,783,687 1,007,100 1,344,500 

Lakeview Stewardship CFLR Proposal ......... 6 Fremont-Winema ........... 10,229,507 2,172,249 2,900,000 

Southern Blues Restoration Coalition ......... 6 Malheur ......................... 7,393,067 1,872,629 2,500,000 

Northeast Washington Forest Vision 2020 .. 6 Colville ........................... 5,767,003 2,713,952 3,623,185 

Accelerating Longleaf Pine Restoration in 

Northeast Florida.

8 Florida/Osceola .............. 7,090,863 1,336,439 1,784,175 

Shortleaf-Bluestem Community ................... 8 Ouachita ........................ 5,097,110 1,789,858 2,389,500 

Grandfather Restoration Project .................. 8 Pisgah ........................... 1,588,596 359,345 479,733 

Ozark Highlands Ecosystem Restoration ..... 8 Ozark-St. Francis ........... 5,079,472 1,613,629 2,154,230 

Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration and 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction.

8 De Soto .......................... 8,161,331 2,247,154 3,000,000 

Missouri Pine-Oak Woodlands Restoration .. 9 Mark Twain .................... 2,525,831 1,055,697 1,409,379 

Total .................................. ........ ........................................ 178,039,566 40,000,000 53,400,871 

Question. The Forest Service is scheduled to report to Congress on the program 

at the five year mark to determine whether it is meeting the program goals. Are 

you on schedule to complete this report? When can Congress expect to receive it? 

Answer. We are on track to meet this request. In 2011, we began a collaborative 

process with project groups and interested partners to develop indicators to feed this 

required report. Project teams are poised to report out on these indicators at the 

close of the fiscal year. This information will be supplemented with data gathered 

through our annual reporting cycle. We are working with internal experts, partner 

groups, and collaborative projects to develop a template to best report project 

progress with the goal of completing the report in March 2015. 

WILDFIRE CAP ADJUSTMENT

Question. If budgeting and requesting 100 percent of the 10-year average isn’t 

working, and your suppression costs are exceeding those levels, has the Forest Service considered using any different method to determine your budget request that 

might be more accurate? 

Answer. Using the 10-year average is a viable method for determining funding 

need, as is the case with wildfire suppression. The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget recognizes that catastrophic fires should be considered disasters, and includes a 
185 

proposed cap adjustment that is designed to budget for the likely worst case scenario. 

Question. Instead of requesting 100 percent of the 10-year rolling average, your 

budget proposal requests just 70 percent of it. This departs from the longstanding 

practice of the agency requesting the 10-year average and this committee providing 

that amount. How did you arrive at the 70 percent number? 

Answer. We are requesting 70 percent of the 10-year average because Forest Service and the Department of the Interior analysis has shown that 1 percent of fires 

represent 30 percent of Suppression costs. These are the most difficult, most costly 

fires—truly outside the norm and akin to ‘‘disasters.’’ The other 70 percent represent costs of 99 percent of fires—those ‘‘normal’’ fires that should be paid for within the agencies’ budgets. The remaining 30 percent and anything above the 10-year 

average would be paid for like Congress pays for other disasters—through a cap adjustment. 

Question. Is it the position of the Forest Service that simply exceeding 70 percent 

of the 10-year rolling average of suppression costs equals an emergency or as you 

are calling it a ‘‘disaster?’’ Please explain. 

Answer. No. The administration recommends that funds within the budget cap 

adjustment be accessible only for wildland fire suppression operations if one or more 

of the following criteria are met and a declaration has been issued by the Secretary 

of Agriculture (or the Department of the Interior): 

—a fire has required an emergency Federal response based on significant complexity, severity, or threat posed by the fire to human life, property, or resources; or 

—the fire covers 1,000 acres or more; or 

—the fire is within 10 miles of a major urban area (defined as 50,000 inhabitants 

or more); and 

—the cumulative costs of wildfire suppression operations will exceed all of the 

amounts previously appropriated within 30 days. 

Question. One of the arguments being made in support of this proposal is that 

it will allow the agencies to fund in its program budget more fire prevention activities including hazardous fuel reduction and forest restoration, because now you 

must only ask for 70 percent of the 10-year average instead of 100 percent? Can 

you outline for me specifically how much of these newly freed up funds have been 

made available to the Forest Service through the cap adjustment and how you intend to spend it? 

Answer. Compared to the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, over $160 million 

would be ‘‘freed up’’ in the Forest Service to invest in prevention and preparedness 

programs with this proposal. Those funds would go towards Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR), Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLRP), Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR), Hazardous Fuels, Suppression and Preparedness in fiscal 

year 2015 (the fiscal year 2015 Forest Service proposed budget is $125 million less 

than the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, due to continued efforts to reduce the deficit). When the fiscal year 2015 budget request was being prepared, the fiscal year 

2014 budget was not enacted. As such, comparisons were made to the fiscal year 

2014 President’s budget. When doing so, over $300 million in additional funding was 

allocated to LSR, CFLRP, IRR, Hazardous Fuels, Suppression, Preparedness, and 

State and Volunteer Fire Assistance. 

Question. What is your legislative strategy to enact the cap adjustment? 

Answer. The Administration is working with Congress and stakeholders to support and explain this proposal, especially the effects the fire funding problem is having on the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior programs. Given that 

a similar approach was proposed in bi-partisan bills in both the Senate and House, 

the administration is looking forward to working with congressional leaders in both 

Chambers to educate fellow members and encourage support, especially in the 

Budget Committees. 

ROADLESS RULE

Question. Last month’s Ninth Circuit Court Decision upheld the rulemaking by 

which the USDA promulgated the 2003 Tongass Exemption. In promulgating the 

2003 Exemption rule the USDA relied upon the 2000 Roadless Rule Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). The case was remanded to the United States District Court 

for the District of Alaska to decide whether or not a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) should have been prepared to support the 2003 Exemption 

rule. If the District Court determines that a Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (SEIS) should have been prepared will the Forest Service prepare an 

SEIS in support of the 2003 rulemaking? 
186 

Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the District Court’s 

judgment at the time that it is issued. 

Question. If the District Court determines that a SEIS was not required will the 

Forest Service appeal that decision to the 9th Circuit. 

Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the District Court’s 

judgment at the time that it is issued. 

Question. If the District Court determines that a SEIS was not required and an 

appeal, if any, agrees that a SEIS is not required will the USDA engage in new 

rulemaking to extinguish the 2003 Exemption? 

Answer. The Forest Service will comply with the terms of the District Court’s 

judgment at the time that it is issued. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN HOEVEN

Question. As you mention in your testimony, one of the three key areas the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget focuses on is managing wildland fires. As you know, 

wildfires have always been common and widespread in North Dakota. On a broader 

scale, there are more than 70,000 communities that we know are at risk from wildfire. 

Specifically, the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance Programs 

are primary Federal programs that assist communities to prepare for, and States 

and local fire departments to respond to, wildfires. We know that State and local 

resources are often the first to arrive at wildland fires, regardless of where they 

start—national forests, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), private or State 

lands. How is your department focusing on helping communities prepare for 

wildfires in advance and bolstering state and local initial attack resources to help 

keep unwanted fires, and their costs, as low as possible? 

Answer. Our Cooperative Fire programs—State and Volunteer Fire Assistance— 

provide funding for training and equipping State and local firefighters, to build capacity to provide effective initial attack response to wildfire. These State and local 

firefighters are often the Nation’s first line of defense against wildland fires—almost 

75 percent of wildland fires are first responded to by State and local fire departments. We will continue to provide funding that is level with fiscal year 2014 

amounts in the fiscal year 2015 budget for these important programs. We are also 

focusing our hazardous fuels treatments in and around communities to help reduce 

the risk of wildfires. In particular the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget contains 

a proposal to provide $38 million in competitive funding for projects that reduce the 

risk to communities, targeted to areas of high risk near communities actively working on becoming fire adapted. 

Question. As you know, I was a member of the Senate and House conference committee which worked to pass a long-term Farm Bill. Included in the bill are several 

important authorities for the Forest Service which I hope will help reduce the cost 

of managing forests. Specifically, we included authority for stewardship contracting, 

the Good Neighbor Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation provision. 

Can you speak to the role of each of these authorities in helping the Forest Service get more work done on the ground, work that is urgently needed to ensure longterm ecological, economic and social health of our forests, communities, and economies? 

Answer. The Forest Service expects that the authorities included in the Farm 

Bill—permanent reauthorization for stewardship contracting, the Good Neighbor 

Authority, and the Insect & Disease Infestation provision will help us to more effectively restore our national forests while also benefiting local communities. 

Stewardship contracting helps the Forest Service achieve land and natural resource management goals while promoting closer public-private working relationships by using the value of forest products to offset the cost of services. Improved 

economic conditions and expanded markets for products have contributed to the expanded use of this tool. Overall, during the past 6 fiscal years, stewardship contracting acreage has nearly tripled. In addition to improved economic conditions, a 

better understanding of how to best use the tool has led to the increased size of 

projects. In fiscal year 2013 the Forest Service: established over 3,300 acres of forest 

vegetation, improved over 72,000 acres of wildlife habitat, treated over 130,000 

acres of hazardous fuels, and treated over 2,700 acres of noxious weeds and invasive 

plants through stewardship contracting. 

The Forest Service is very interested in the recently expanded Good Neighbor Authority. We believe it will provide an important new tool to allow us to work more 

effectively with States implementing needed watershed restoration activities. 
187 

The Farm Bill provided the opportunity for Governors to request areas to be designated in their State that are experiencing, or at risk of an insect or disease epidemic. Based on the Governor’s recommendations, the Forest Service has designated 

over 45 million acres of National Forest System lands across 94 national forests in 

35 States to address insect and disease threats. The Forest Service will collaboratively work with States, tribes, partners, stakeholders and the public to implement landscape scale restoration projects within these designated areas that reduce 

the risk of insect and disease infestations. The ability to use the expedited National 

Environmental Policy Act procedures found in section 104 of the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act for environmental analyses along with the new categorical exclusion 

to implement collaborative restoration projects within these designated areas will 

help to provide for more efficient decisionmaking and project implementation. 

Question. Could you please provide me with an update on the science you are 

using for the determination of management practices for the grasslands? Specifically, what science was used to develop the Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the 

North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions? 

Answer. After signing the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan in 2002, the Regional 

Forester empanelled an independent group of scientists to review the parts of the 

plan related to livestock grazing. The resulting Scientific Review Team (SRT) consisted of eight members. Team members were selected based on recommendations 

of the North Dakota Governor’s office, conservation and industry groups, state and 

Federal natural resource agencies, and county representatives. Recommendations 

from the SRT were incorporated into the Draft Record of Decision. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and North Dakota State University (NDSU) 

also contributed numerous data. 

Question. When will the Forest Service formalize the final document? 

Answer. The North Billings County Allotment Management Plan Revisions are 

subject to the new pre-decisional objection process for NEPA decisions. Review of 

the eight objections received from seven Objectors began in May 2014. Objection resolution meetings were held on June 2, 2015 and objection letters were signed on 

June 10, 2014. A final decision is expected after June 12, 2014. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator REED. And with that, and with no further business, I 

will adjourn the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Wednesday, April 30, the hearings 

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(189) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

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

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLANDS ASSOCIATION

The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) for the fiscal year 

2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows: —Amend the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act to appropriate $100.4 

million for reconstruction of the Unalaska Hospital and the Atka Island clinic, 

both of which were destroyed during World War II. —Allocate an additional $8.5 million to the IHS to fully fund Village Built Clinic 

(VBC) Leases, and direct the IHS to use its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to 

fully fund the VBC leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian Health 

Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). 

—Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by moving the 

program to mandatory spending. 

—Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis. 

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association is a regional non-profit tribal organization with members consisting of the 13 federally recognized tribes of the Aleutian 

Chain and Pribilof Islands Region of Alaska. APIA provides healthcare services to 

the Alaska Natives in six of the tribal communities of this region through funding 

received from the IHS under title V of the Indian Self-Determination & Education 

Assistance Act (ISDEAA). We also provide health-related services to all 13 tribes 

through various non-IHS grants and agreements. 

Funding for Reconstruction of Two Health Care Facilities Destroyed During World 

War II.—During World War II, communities within the APIA region suffered historic losses, not only to their populations due to deaths arising from inadequate 

healthcare and poor living conditions during removal by the U.S. Government to 

camps in southeast Alaska, but also to two healthcare facilities that were destroyed 

and never rebuilt or accounted for in prior restitution made to the Aleutian and 

Pribilof tribal communities. 

On June 4, 1942, the Japanese bombed the 24-bed hospital operated at that time 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Unalaska, Alaska. Since that time, the closest 

hospital is located in Anchorage, Alaska—800 air miles away, and not accessible by 

roads. Ten days later and 350 miles to the east, on June 14, 1942, the residents 

of Atka Island were forcibly evacuated from the island by the United States for their 

‘‘safety,’’ and the U.S. Navy burned all of the structures on the island to the ground, 

including the island’s health clinic, to prevent their use by the Japanese. 

Congress passed the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Act in 1988 (Public 

Law 100–383), which led to creation of the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution 

Trust to administer funds appropriated under the Restitution Act on behalf of the 

St. Paul, St. George, Unalaska, Atka, Akutan, Nikolski, Biorka, Kashega and 

Makushin communities. The Restitution Act provided very limited appropriations to 

partially address losses suffered by these communities during evacuations from 
190 

1942 to 1945. During that time, the treatment of the Aleut people in the evacuation 

camps lacked even the most basic attention to health and human safety matters, 

in extremely crowded, unheated, abandoned buildings with very poor sanitation conditions. Ten percent of the Aleuts who were evacuated died in the camps. For those 

who returned to their communities, many found their homes and community facilities destroyed, possessions taken, and churches stripped of religious icons by the 

U.S. military. 

The time is now to replace the Unalaska hospital and the Atka Island Clinic. The 

Aleutian and Pribilof tribal communities are the most remote within Alaska. The 

next level of referred specialty and inpatient care is in Anchorage. To say that our 

patients suffer from a lack of access to basic healthcare services is an understatement. Patients have died en route to Anchorage for emergency care; patients have 

died due to inability to receive timely screening of cancer; patients must leave their 

families for months at a time when receiving care 800 miles away in Anchorage. 

Mothers must leave their families for 4 months to deliver their babies in Anchorage. 

This is unacceptable care, by any standard. The replacement hospital facility would 

directly serve the 5,000 year-round residents of Atka, Dutch Harbor, Nikolski and 

Unalaska, in addition to the typically hundreds of seasonal fishery workers requiring immediate emergency or primary care. Having a hospital would eliminate the 

need to send referrals to Anchorage at an average airfare cost of $1,400, not to mention the cost of lodging, meals and the personal hardship of having to leave the community for days at a time. Atka lies 350 miles away from Unalaska, so until its 

clinic has sufficient capacity to meet local need, that population is at severe risk 

due to its isolated, weather challenged location. 

Based upon APIA budget estimates derived from the IHS Facility Budget Estimating System (FBES), the Unalaska hospital facility project cost for design, construction and equipping the total facility is $96,900,000. Based upon a 2003 Health 

Clinic Design Report funded by the Denali Commission, construction of a health 

clinic sufficient to meet the needs in Atka, and adjusting from 2003 for current inflation, will cost $3,500,000. APIA thus requests $100.4 million in funding for reconstruction of these facilities. 

APIA is ranked near the top in the IHS’s joint venture program, however we are 

unable to move forward without identified construction resources. For facilities subject to the IHS joint venture program, construction must be accomplished with nonIHS money. The Restitution Act offers the best legislative framework for an appropriation from Congress. We recommend that the Restitution Act be amended to add 

a new section 1989C–4(b)(1)(D) to 50 U.S.C., to state as follows: ‘‘(D) One account 

for the construction, operation, and maintenance of an inpatient hospital facility in 

Unalaska and health clinic in Atka with a direct appropriation of $100,400,000 for 

those purposes.’’ We ask for the subcommittee’s support of such an amendment and 

the related appropriation of funds. 

If we are to successfully receive this non-IHS construction project funding, the 

joint venture program would allow APIA to enter into a no-cost lease with the IHS 

for a period of 20 years; the IHS would in turn provide staff, equipment and supplies for the operations and maintenance of the facilities. The joint venture program 

is a competitive program and funding is limited. According to the IHS’s budget justification for fiscal year 2014, the IHS signed 17 agreements for joint ventures between 2001 and 2012, but received 55 ‘‘positive responses’’ to a solicitation for joint 

ventures during the fiscal years 2010–2012 cycle. Yet, the IHS has indicated it does 

not have adequate resources to fund even those programs ranked highest on its list 

of joint venture projects, such as APIA’s Unalaska Hospital. Tribes in Alaska support the IHS joint venture program as one of the best solutions to immediately address critical healthcare needs in our communities. The National Congress of American Indians has also supported APIA’s request for assistance with both Unalaska 

and Atka facility construction, via resolution. We ask that the subcommittee appropriate additional funds for staffing and operations of new facilities; doing so will 

allow IHS to partner with tribes like APIA who are anxious to move their projects 

forward under this successful joint venture model in fiscal year 2015. 

Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.—For the last several years, APIA has 

submitted testimony to this subcommittee on the need to address chronic underfunding of Village Built Clinics (VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs, which are clinic facilities 

leased by the IHS from other entities, are a vital component of the provision of basic 

healthcare services in rural Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) under the IHCIA. The CHAP utilizes a network 

of community health aides and practitioners to provide primary healthcare services 

in rural and isolated areas where access to those services might not otherwise exist. 

In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs in Alaska and 

provided approximately $3 million in funding for the program for that year. Since 
191 

then, Congress has not provided amounts specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. IHS has needlessly treated the $3 million level as a cap, and has refused to 

increase funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace with inflation 

or the rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated areas. In fact, the chronic 

underfunding over decades has resulted in deterioration and in some cases closure 

of VBC facilities, threatening the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly maintained VBC space. Our facilities in Atka and Nikolski have been cited for numerous 

patient Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and 

safety issues including no patient privacy and holes in the floor. In any other community, these clinics would be condemned, yet the IHS expects us to continue to 

provide care with no remedy at hand. It is no wonder that we have a difficult time 

recruiting and retaining providers to serve our communities. Unfortunately, we are 

not alone in our predicament. 

According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska Native Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million is needed to fully fund 

the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need. APIA therefore urges that Congress appropriate 

at least an additional $8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed 

to use its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases. It would be helpful if 

Congress would also direct the IHS to use its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to fully 

fund VBC leases in accordance with § 804 of the IHCIA. It is a matter of patient 

safety that this be addressed immediately. 

Ensure Contract Support Costs Are a Mandatory Appropriation.—We are pleased 

that Congress chose to fully fund contract support costs (CSC) under the ISDEAA 

in fiscal year 2014, and we are glad the administration has supported that effort 

in fiscal year 2015. CSC fund vital administrative functions that allow us to operate 

programs that provide critical services to our members. If contract support costs are 

not fully funded, however, our programs and services are adversely affected because 

we are forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses 

instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that 

it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. However, full funding for CSC 

must not come with a penalty—tribes should not have to see a reduction in program 

funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. Without any 

permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of CSC remains subject to 

agency discretion from year to year, even though tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed 

the agencies to consult with tribes on a permanent solution. 

There is a logical permanent solution Congress can implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of 

CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Yet the budget for CSC is currently funded and controlled through appropriation acts—as if it were a discretionary program. Congress, in the Joint Explanatory 

Statement for the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations, recognized that the 

current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current approach leaves the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the 

‘‘untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.’’ Congress also noted that ‘‘[t]ypically obligations of this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to appropriate funding for 

CSC on a mandatory basis. 

IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.—We support legislation that would 

place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The goal is for the IHS 

and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of 

Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of 

late funding and short-term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is 

for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS 

advance appropriations has been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Young 

and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request to support funding for the reconstruction of the Unalaska Hospital and Atka Island Clinic with associated staffing 

and operating costs. Reconstruction of these facilities will right a huge wrong in our 

history and will significantly improve healthcare for the Aleutian and Pribilof tribal 

communities. We also appreciate your consideration of other requests outlined in 
192 

this testimony. On behalf of APIA and the people we serve, I am happy to help provide any additional information desired by the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY TREES

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service: —Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Program at $31.3 million. 

—Forest and Rangeland Research at $298 million, including $72 million for Forest Inventory and Analysis. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 

—Recognize the Urban Waters Federal Partnership in funding for EPA clean 

water initiatives 

Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Dave Forsell 

and I am the president of Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, a non-profit organization 

whose mission is to engage diverse communities and create vibrant public places, 

helping people and nature thrive in our community, often helping people plant and 

care for trees. 

I am here today to testify on behalf of the Alliance for Community Trees 

(ACTrees), for whom I serve as president of the board of directors. ACTrees is a 

501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1993 by leaders of local tree organizations to establish a national voice for urban and community forestry. ACTrees’ 

founders shared a vision of urban trees and ecosystems nurtured by a broad base 

of community stewards. Through the efforts of 200 member and program partner 

organizations in 44 States, over 5 million volunteers have been inspired to plant and 

care for 15 million trees across our Nation, in cities and towns where 83 percent 

of Americans live. 

My testimony will focus on the critical role of the USDA Forest Service in providing Federal leadership for and assistance to public and private partners at the 

national, State and local levels through its Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) 

program and urban forestry research. 

WHY THE FOREST SERVICE’S U&CF PROGRAM AND URBAN FORESTRY RESEARCH ARE

IMPORTANT TO ACTREES

The Forest Service’s U&CF program and urban forestry research projects have 

been models of working with each other through an integrated approach and 

partnering with public and private organizations at the national, State and local 

levels to provide information and tools that partners need to effectively plan and 

implement urban forestry management programs. The integration between Forest 

Service program staff and researchers has been essential to address the many issues 

affecting urban trees and forests and the rapid pace of change in urban environments. In addition, the collaborative approaches of Forest Service program staff and 

researchers have been critical to open and sharing relationships with partners and 

adaptive learning and management. 

ACTrees members have benefited from both the technical and financial assistance 

provided by the U&CF program and the information and tools developed by urban 

forestry researchers. Many of our members have worked directly with Forest Service 

program staff and researchers on projects in their communities. Others have benefited from Forest Service resources provided through State forestry agencies—the 

U&CF program’s primary partner. While some ACTrees members may not receive 

assistance from the Forest Service or through State forestry agencies, all members 

benefit from the urban forestry partnerships the Forest Service has helped create. 

ACTrees members recognize the importance of broad partnerships to advance 

common goals around urban trees and forests. Partnerships among public and private organizations enable sharing of expertise, skills, and resources. Such partnerships result in substantial leveraging of Federal funding provided to local urban and 

community forestry projects. ACTrees members partner with a diverse range of 

agencies and organizations at the local level. At the national level, ACTrees works 

with public and private partners to advance urban and community forestry through 

collaborative initiatives such as the Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition and the 

Partners in Community Forestry conferences organized by the Arbor Day Foundation. 

An open and collaborative U&CF program has enabled Federal, State and local 

partners to develop a great diversity of projects around the country, recognizing the 

wide range of ecosystem types and unique social, cultural and economic contexts in 
193 

communities across the Nation. Here are a few examples of projects on which 

ACTrees member organizations have worked to add value to their communities— 

neighborhood value, environmental value, cost savings, employment and training. 

Such stories are happening in cities and towns across America thanks to broad public-private partnerships in urban and community forestry: 

—Tree Pittsburgh received a grant from the USDA Forest Service in 2011, 

through the State’s Bureau of Forestry, to create the city’s first Urban Forest 

Master Plan. It has leveraged the Federal grant and is developing the Plan, 

which includes detailed information, resources needed, and recommendations to 

proactively manage and grow a city’s tree canopy. 

—The Tennessee Urban Forestry Council established a Greenprint initiative in 

1991 to promote Federal, State and local partnerships toward a strategic goal 

of doubling the State’s urban forest canopy. The initiative continues to build on 

its vision and collaborative strategies. 

—The Sacramento Tree Foundation is engaged in cooperative research efforts 

with the U.S. Forest Service and California’s forestry agency to explore the relationships between human health and tree canopy cover. 

—The Morton Arboretum near Chicago is cooperating with the USDA Forest Service’s National Institute of Applied Science on an Urban Forest Climate Adaptation project. 

—The California Urban Forest Council and California ReLeaf are working to advance urban forestry projects through the State’s climate change legislation and 

policies, recently seeking $18 million in cap-and-trade funding for urban forestry projects in underserved communities. 

—Tree People in Los Angeles is advancing innovative projects to address drought 

impacts on trees, such as using recycled water from treatment plants to water 

trees in urban parks. 

In Indianapolis, the power of community and urban forestry is very real! Due to 

an EPA consent decree, our local water utility, Citizens Energy Group, is spending 

more than $1 billion to eliminate all but 5 percent of raw sewage overflows into our 

river and streams. My organization, Keep Indianapolis Beautiful (KIB), is 

partnering with Citizens in a pilot program in a west side neighborhood. KIB will 

be installing 34 beautiful stormwater planters up and down neighborhood streets as 

part of a stormwater sewer separation project. They’ll be planted with 10,000 native 

perennials and grasses, adding value to front yards; and 200 trees will be added to 

the landscape for their power to mitigate stormwater runoff. This 100 percent green 

solution will save Citizens considerable dollars compared to a standard gray solution. The best part? This work is supporting jobs and training for high school and 

college students who’ll plant and tend trees; they’ll also have an opportunity to work 

alongside engineers and ecological services professionals in the process. 

WHY THE U&CF PROGRAM AND URBAN FORESTRY RESEARCH ARE CRITICAL TO THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

In recent years, policymakers and natural resource managers have been calling 

attention to the increasing importance of urban areas as we look to the future. Our 

Nation’s cities, towns, and metropolitan centers present critical challenges and opportunities as our population centers grow. The Forest Service’s U&CF program and 

urban forestry research are uniquely positioned in the Federal Government to help 

address urban challenges and opportunities as they relate to environmental and 

natural resource issues—particularly those related to the roles of urban trees and 

forests as assets for: building and restoring green space and parks for recreation, 

supporting opportunities for green businesses and jobs in underserved neighborhoods, and providing environmental services essential to community well-being and 

quality of life, such as clean water, clean air, energy conservation, stormwater management, and atmospheric carbon exchange. No other Federal agency has the expertise and can provide the leadership necessary to help our Nation address urban 

challenges and opportunities with trees and forests. 

The Forest Service has recognized the U&CF program as the key program to help 

achieve one of seven priority goals in its current strategic plan. Goal 6 is ‘‘Engaging 

Urban America with Forest Service Programs.’’ Similarly, the Forest Service Research branch has identified Urban Natural Resources Research as one of seven Priority Research Areas. Looking to the future—as reflected in the agency’s ‘‘2010 Resources Planning Act Assessment and 2010 National Report on Sustainable Forests’’—urban forests will become increasingly important for providing environmental 

services to our Nation’s growing urban populations. In addition, as part of the 

USDA, the Forest Service’s U&CF program is particularly well-positioned to help 

address increasingly important urban-rural challenges, including the expansion of 
194 

urban populations into rural landscapes and the lack of opportunities for urban 

youth to connect to nature. 

ACTREES’ RECOMMENDATIONS

Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF).—There are more than 100 million acres 

of urban forest lands across the Nation, providing essential environmental, social, 

and economic services such as energy conservation, improved air and water quality, 

recreation and improved public health to the more than 83 percent of our Nation’s 

population who live in cities and communities. The Forest Service’s U&CF program 

is the primary Federal program that reaches out and provides technical and financial assistance to local communities and non-profit groups for planting, maintaining, 

protecting, and restoring these urban forests. In fiscal year 2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to 7,292 

communities and nearly 198 million people, over 60 percent of the U.S. population. 

ACTrees urges the subcommittee to provide $31.3 million for the U&CF program 

in fiscal year 2015, consistent with the level enacted in fiscal year 2012. The President’s fiscal year 2015 proposal for U&CF is $23.7 million, a further reduction from 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $28 million. While the President’s fiscal year 

2015 proposal holds promise for additional funding for urban and community forestry projects through the Forest Service’s new Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) 

program, ACTrees has much to learn about these opportunities. In addition, 

ACTrees is excited about the President’s proposal for a $1 billion Climate Resilience 

Fund, which includes $25 million for the U&CF program to advance urban forestry 

projects as measures to help communities adapt to and mitigate climate change impacts. 

Urban Forestry Research.—The Forest Service Research branch has provided essential information and tools to urban forestry groups and practitioners. It is critical 

for communities to obtain baseline information about their urban forests before they 

can plan and implement actions. There have been huge strides made in recent years 

in developing new technologies and tools, such as the ‘‘i-Tree’’ program, for mapping 

the urban forest and examining conditions and trends. Similarly, urban forestry research has been helping policymakers and practitioners to understand the environmental, economic, and social services that trees and forests provide. 

ACTrees urges the subcommittee to provide funding for Forest and Rangeland Research at $298 million for fiscal year 2015. This reflects a funding level for basic 

forest research at $226 million, consistent with fiscal year 2014, and funding for 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) at $72 million. While there is no budget line 

item for urban forestry research, the Forest Service has recognized ‘‘Urban Natural 

Resources Stewardship’’ as one of its seven Priority Research Areas. We urge the 

subcommittee to recognize the importance of urban forestry research and direct the 

agency to provide strong funding in this area, as it did in its fiscal year 2014 report 

language. With our request for $72 million for FIA, ACTrees has joined many partners in the conservation community recognizing the importance of inventory and assessment information in supporting forest policy and management decisions in all 

contexts, including urban and community forests. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Urban Waters Federal Partnership.—Launched in 2011, this Federal Partnership has expanded to 18 pilot cities 

and includes 14 Federal agencies. EPA coordinates this important and innovative 

Partnership through its Office of Water and the Forest Service participates on behalf of USDA, providing essential tree and forest expertise. The Partnership aims 

to stimulate regional and local economies, create local jobs, improve quality of life, 

and protect Americans’ health by revitalizing urban waterways in underserved communities across the Nation. ACTrees urges the subcommittee to recognize this important Federal Partnership through its fiscal year 2015 funding of EPA clean water 

initiatives. 

I appreciate your consideration, and the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 

ACTrees. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE OF MUSEUMS

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony in my capacity as president of 

the American Alliance of Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least $154.5 

million each in fiscal year 2015 (fiscal year 2015) for the National Endowment for 

the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Within the 

context of the NEA, we also urge the committee to include language revising the 
195 

Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to increase the total allowable outstanding indemnity and the limit for any single exhibition. Lastly, we support $858 million for the 

Smithsonian Institution, at least $50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices, 

$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and restored funding for the 

Save America’s Treasures and Preserve America programs. 

AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation’s museums—including 

aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children’s museums, culturally specific 

museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime museums, military museums, 

national parks, natural history museums, planetariums, presidential libraries, 

science and technology centers and zoos—along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for and with museums. AAM works on behalf of the 17,500 museums that employ 400,000 people, spend more than $2 billion annually on educational programming, receive more than 55 million visits each year from primary 

and secondary school students and directly contribute $21 billion to local economies. 

Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons: 

—Museums are key education providers.—Museums already offer educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial literacy, geography and social studies, in coordination with State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide experiential learning opportunities, STEM education, youth training and job preparedness. They reach beyond the scope of instructional programming for 

schoolchildren by also providing critical teacher training. There is a growing 

consensus that whatever the new educational era looks like, it will focus on the 

development of a core set of skills: critical thinking, the ability to synthesize information, the ability to innovate, creativity and collaboration. Museums are 

uniquely situated to help learners develop these core skills. 

—Museums create jobs and support local economies.—Museums serve as economic 

engines, bolster local infrastructure and spur tourism. Both the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors and the National Governors Association agree that cultural assets 

such as museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled workforce and 

local and international tourism. 

—Museums address community challenges.—Many museums offer programs tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs, persons with disabilities 

and more, greatly expanding their reach and impact. For example, some have 

programs designed specifically for children on the autism spectrum while others 

are teaching English as a Second Language or providing youth job training opportunities. 

—Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to underserved 

populations.—Teachers, students and researchers benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access to trustworthy information through online collections and traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need help in digitizing 

collections. 

The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal agency 

created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit educational institutions—including museums, colleges, universities, archives and libraries—for educational programming and the care of collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and exploration and keepers of our cultural, historical and scientific heritages. 

In 2013, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH’s national program divisions, 

55 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over $3.7 million dollars were awarded 

to museums, historical societies and historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and provide access to our Nation’s rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH divisions (including Preservation and Access, Research, Education, Public Programs, 

Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions received 123 awards 

totaling over $11.5 million. Demand for humanities project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far exceeds available funding. In fiscal 

year 2013, NEH received 4,701 competitive grant applications representing more 

than $441 million in requested funds, but was only able to fund 13.4 percent of 

these peer-reviewed project proposals. 

NEH also provides annual grants to State humanities councils located in every 

State and U.S. territory. In 2012, 53 State councils supported 3,046 events in museums, reaching a total audience of more than 13 million people. 

Here are two examples of how NEH funding is used to support museums: 

—The Rhode Island Historical Society received $300,000 beginning in 2011 to 

make environmental control upgrades, building improvements, and security enhancements to preserve collections documenting the history of Rhode Island 

from pre-European contact to the present. 
196 

—The Birmingham Museum of Art in Alabama received a $75,000 grant for professional development, bringing K–12 teachers together to study America’s transition from an agricultural to an industrial society as reflected in American art. 

The National Endowment for the Arts provides direct Federal funding to State 

arts agencies and to non-profit arts institutions including museums. Its mission is 

to make art accessible to all and to provide leadership in arts education. Established 

in 1965, NEA brings great art to every congressional district. Its grants to museums 

help them exhibit, preserve and interpret visual material through exhibitions, 

residencies, publications, commissions, public art works, conservation, documentation, services to the field and public programs. 

In 2013, more than 2,100 museums participated in the Blue Star Museums initiative, offering free admission to all active duty and reserve personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor Day. This particular effort served over 

700,000 people, while many other museums offered military discounts or free admission throughout the year. In 2013, NEA made more than 130 awards to museums, totaling over $4.6 million. Many museums—including art museums—continue to report economic stress 

and stretched budgets. Despite the uncertain economy, museum attendance continues to climb, increasing pressure to serve more people with limited financial and 

human resources. 

Receiving a grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported projects, strengthening museums’ ability to attract matching funds from other public and private 

funders. On average, each dollar awarded by the NEA leverages nine dollars from 

other sources. Forty percent of NEA’s grant funds are distributed to State arts agencies for re-granting. 

Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support museums: 

—Alaska’s Seward Association for the Advancement of Marine Science, in consortium with the Anchorage Museums Association received $39,000 in 2012 to support the research and development of an exhibition teaming artists and scientists to bring greater public attention to the global problem of marine debris. —The Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, Maryland received $34,000 in 2012 to 

support an exhibition showing the unexpected and multifaceted roles played by 

Africans in Renaissance Europe, as well as the challenges of stereotyping and 

racism that faced them. 

The Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act allows museums to apply for Federal in- demnity on major exhibitions, saving them roughly $30 million in insurance costs 

every year. The program, administered by the National Endowment for the Arts, operates at virtually no cost to the taxpayer; since 1975 it has paid out a total of just 

over $100,000. Strict protocols for care, restrictions on the types of work indemnified 

and high deductibles all contribute to these extraordinarily low costs. 

The program has separate limits per exhibition and an overall limit for both international and domestic exhibitions, and Congress has periodically raised these limits, 

most recently in 2007. Museums report that the current caps are making it difficult 

to obtain indemnity on objects that would have been covered in the past, exposing 

them to increased insurance costs. We believe that rising prices in the art market 

will exacerbate this problem, causing exhibitions to limit their scope or to fail to go 

forward entirely. In agreement with the Association of Art Museum Directors’, we 

urge the committee to consider language increasing both the total allowable outstanding indemnity and the limit for any single exhibition under this important program. 

The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited museums in the 

world, including the National Museum of American History, the National Air and 

Space Museum and the National Museum of Natural History. The Smithsonian 

reaches out to visitors and learners of all ages, in the Nation’s capital and across 

the country, with innovative exhibits and programs. Smithsonian museums attract 

30 million visits every year, and their content and curricula are used by teachers 

all over the country. Smithsonian exhibits and research cover vital topics in art, 

science, history and culture, including global pandemics, endangered species and the 

history of our Nation. The use of digital technology including 3–D scanning and 

printing of iconic objects such as Lincoln’s life casts, the Wright Flyer and fossil 

whales, expands access for America and America’s teachers to experts and collections and creates new knowledge. The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request 

of $858 million includes critical funding for the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which will tell this essential part of American history. 

Funding for collections care and facilities maintenance and revitalization allows the 

Smithsonian to care for the Nation’s treasures and allows greater access for all. 

We enthusiastically support this robust funding proposal, an increase, for the 

Smithsonian Institution. However, we have serious concerns about the President’s 
197 

proposed STEM consolidation plan, which would eliminate or cut important programs that support museums at the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs and THPOs) carry out the 

historic preservation work of the Federal Government on State and tribal lands. 

These duties include finding America’s historic places, making nominations to the 

National Register of Historic Places, reviewing impacts of Federal projects, providing assistance to developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit, creating alliances 

with local government preservation commissions and conducting preservation education and planning. This Federal-State-local foundation of America’s historic preservation program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act. We 

urge you to provide $50 million for SHPOs and $15 million for THPOs through the 

Historic Preservation Fund. We also urge you to restore funding of $25 million for 

Save America’s Treasures and $4.6 million for Preserve America—which have been 

instrumental in preserving some of our Nation’s most important artifacts and structures—but have not been funded in recent years. 

The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical societies and museums concluded that immediate action is needed to prevent the loss of 190 million 

artifacts that are in need of conservation treatment: 59 percent have collections 

damaged by light; 56 percent have insufficient security to protect their collections; 

80 percent do not have an emergency plan that includes collections; 71 percent need 

additional training and expertise for staff caring for collections; and only 13 percent 

have access to endowment funds for preservation. 

Historic preservation programs matter now more than ever—not only because 

they are essential to protecting our national heritage, but because they serve as economic engines and job creators in the thousands of communities they serve. Funds 

invested in building rehabilitation have been shown to create more jobs and more 

retail activity than those spent on new construction. 

Thank you once again for considering this testimony. 

FORD W. BELL, DVM, 

President. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

(ACRA) 

Request: —$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) 

—$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) 

—$500,000 for grants for survey and National Register/National Landmark nominations for underrepresented populations 

These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) (16 U.S.C. 

§ 470h). 

ACRA MEMBERS CREATE JOBS AND SUPPORT THE ECONOMY

ACRA is the trade association representing the interests of cultural resource management (CRM) firms of all sizes, types and specialties. ACRA’s member firms undertake much of the legally mandated cultural resource management studies and 

investigations in the United States. 

There are approximately 1,300 CRM firms nationwide that employ over 10,000 

cultural resource management professionals, including archaeologists, preservation 

architects, architectural historians, historians, and an increasingly diverse group of 

other specialists. These firms generated over $1 billion in revenue in 2012. ACRA 

firms create and support jobs, providing employment for American-educated and 

trained professionals. 

FUNDING SHPOs AND THPOs SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT

In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage, enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470) (NHPA), which established historic 

preservation as a Federal Government priority. Historic preservation recognizes 

that what was common and ordinary in the past is often rare and precious today, 

and what is common and ordinary today may be extraordinary in the future. 

Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opted to partner with the 

States and use SHPOs and THPOs to, among other tasks, review all Federal 
198 

projects for their impact on historic properties. CRM firms work closely with Federal, State and local government agencies, private industry and non-profit groups 

to conduct the reviews required by the NHPA. 

In order for the review process to work smoothly, SHPOs and THPOs must have 

adequate funding. Proper financial support for their work allows SHPOs and 

THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely basis, facilitating development, 

moving projects forward in a timely and efficient manner, and ensuring that CRM 

firms can get the job done. 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of its 150 member firms, ACRA would like to thank you Chairman 

Reed, and all the members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment and Related Agencies for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

ACRA also thanks the subcommittee for its commitment to historic preservation. 

ACRA members stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation’s historic heritage. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST & PAPER ASSOCIATION

Hon. JACK REED, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The American Forest & 

Paper Association (AF&PA) serves to advance a sustainable U.S. pulp, paper, packaging, and wood products manufacturing industry through fact-based public policy 

and marketplace advocacy. AF&PA member companies make products essential for 

everyday life from renewable and recyclable resources and are committed to continuous improvement through the industry’s sustainability initiative—‘‘Better Practices, Better Planet 2020’’. The forest products industry accounts for approximately 

4 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP, manufactures approximately $210 

billion in products annually, and employs nearly 900,000 men and women. The industry meets a payroll of approximately $50 billion annually and is among the top 

10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 States. 

Actions are needed to increase funding for programs that provide basic data about 

our Nation’s forests to inform industry, policymakers, and academics; and for restoring Federal timber harvests to help ensure adequate fiber supply and to address forest health priorities on both Federal and private lands. Within the jurisdiction of 

this subcommittee, we urge you to direct the United States Forest Service (USFS) 

to focus on the needs of the forest products industry and the vital jobs it supports. 

Specific recommendations follow. 

FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

Forest Inventory and Analysis.—Targeted research and data collection is needed 

to monitor forest productivity, forest health, and economic utilization of fiber. The 

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program within USFS Research and Development (R&D) is the backbone of our knowledge about the Nation’s forests, and it is 

a vital technical resource that allows assessment of the sustainability, health, and 

availability of the forest resource. FIA data is utilized by a large swath of stakeholders interested in the state of America’s forests: forest resource managers at 

mills, land managers, conservation groups, and State and Federal agencies look to 

the program for data about our Nation’s forests. 

We are concerned about the cuts to this program over recent years. With an increased focus on utilizing woody biomass for renewable energy in addition to traditional forest products, the program, which allows managers to determine the sustainability and availability of the forest resource, should not be reduced but rather 

increased. 

AF&PA opposes cuts to this valuable program, and applauds the subcommittee’s 

increase last year to $72 million. As a good starting point, AF&PA requests funding 

levels of at least $72 million for the FIA program this year, which will allow the 

USFS to cover the majority of U.S. forest lands and expedite data availability and 

analysis. This level of funding will enable the USFS to better meet the current demands of the program. 
199 

We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D program in support 

of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership with universities 

and the private sector, the Agenda 2020 program works with USFS on research to 

develop and deploy wood production systems that are ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable, and economically viable to enhance forest conservation and the 

global competitiveness of forest product manufacturing and biorefinery operations in 

the United States. In particular, we encourage greater funding for research on forest 

productivity and utilization at the Forest Products Lab and Research Stations. Innovative wood and fiber utilization research, including nanotechnology research, contributes to conservation and productivity of the forest resource. The development of 

new forest products and important research on the efficient use of wood fiber directly address forest health problems through exploration of small diameter wood 

use and bioenergy production. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST PRODUCTS

We applaud the administration for calling for an increase in timber outputs by 

15 percent. To create forest industry jobs, more Federal timber should be made 

available for sale. AF&PA requests increasing funding for the Forest Products program to put people back to work in our rural communities while improving the 

health and reducing the risk of forest fires. 

For the 6th year in a row, the administration has proposed creating the consolidated Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) line item, with proposed funding of 

$820 million. AF&PA does not believe IRR will have the benefits the administration 

claims, and in those regions where IRR has been implemented as a pilot project, 

instead of benefits, we have seen continued high costs and less accountability for 

the use of those funds by the USFS. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION

AF&PA supports the budget cap exception recommended in the President’s budget 

that mirrors H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. In the past 2 years, the 

USFS was forced to redirect over $1 billion from non-fire programs to pay fire suppression costs. The continued cycle of borrowing has a hugely detrimental effect on 

other programs, including forest management and research, damaging the ability to 

effectively implement these programs. This new approach to funding fire suppression costs is promising and we urge the subcommittee to include the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act this year. 

Hazardous fuels reduction is essential to the Federal forest health restoration effort and AF&PA supports maintaining this vital program at the fiscal year 2011 

level ($339 million). We also urge the subcommittee to instruct the USFS to implement these projects in forested stands using mechanical treatments that produce 

merchantable wood fiber for utilization by local mills. Prescribed burns and debris 

removal will not solve the hazardous fuel overload by themselves. The forest products industry can and does play a key role in reducing hazardous fuels from Federal 

lands as evidenced by the fact that mechanical hazardous fuel reduction costs frequently are significantly lower in regions with a substantial forest products industry 

presence. The agency must take advantage of these synergies. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

AF&PA applauds the subcommittee’s sustained support for USFS State and Private Forestry programs. With ongoing droughts, invasive species infestations, and 

significant forest health problems, private forest resources remain vulnerable to 

damage from threats that do not respect public/private boundary lines. 

As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the Nation’s wood fiber supply, 

while providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and supplying clean drinking 

water for millions of Americans. USFS State and Private Forestry programs protect 

these resources from threats beyond the capability of small landowners to combat 

effectively. Therefore, we urge funding at no less than their fiscal year 2012 enacted 

levels of $86 million for State Fire Assistance and $29 million for Forest Stewardship. 

INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY

AF&PA’s believes that full and effective implementation and enforcement of the 

2008 Lacey Act amendments will reduce the destructive effects of illegal logging on 

tropical forests, enable American forest product companies to compete on a level 

playing field, and contribute to cutting of global greenhouse gas emissions through 

reduced deforestation and sustainable forest management practices. A 2004 AF&PA 
200 

1Family Forest Research Center, 2014 Preliminary Data. 

2 USDA, May 2008, Who Owns America’s Forests? 

report on illegal logging found that up to 10 percent of global timber production 

could be of suspicious origin and that illegal logging depresses world prices for legally harvested wood by 7 to 16 percent on average. The report also calculated that 

the economic cost of global illegal logging to the U.S. industry is approximately $1 

billion per year in lost exports and depressed domestic prices. 

The USFS International Forestry program lends critical technical assistance for 

Lacey Act implementation and to improve sustainable forest management practices 

in developing countries, which helps reduce illegal logging overseas. AF&PA believes cuts to the International Forestry accounts could be detrimental to full Lacey 

Act compliance and enforcement efforts, and advocates funding the International 

Forestry program at fiscal year 2012 levels ($8 million). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION

Investments in the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program and the U.S. 

Forest Service Forest Health Protection Program will help family forest owners get 

ahead of increasing threats from invasive pests and pathogens, wildfire, and development pressures. Complementing these efforts, the Landscape Scale Restoration 

Program provides an innovative approach to target resources for maximum impact, 

meaning support for this program will ensure measurable outcomes on the ground. 

It is also critical that funding for U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis 

and overall Forest Service Research and Development programs are improved and 

maintained, so these programs continue to provide the information and technical resources for landowners to make informed decisions about America’s forests. The 

American Forest Foundation (AFF) urges the subcommittee to: 

—Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Stewardship Program at the fiscal year 

12 funding level of $29 million; 

—Support the U.S. Forest Service Forest Health Protection (Federal and Cooperative) at the fiscal year 12 funding level of $111 million; 

—Support the President’s funding request of $23.513 million for the Landscape 

Scale Restoration Program; 

—Support the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program at $72 million, toward providing an updated inventory of America’s forests; and 

—Support the U.S. Forest Service Research and Development Program at the fiscal year 12 funding level of $231 million. 

We also ask the subcommittee to support a solution to the wildfire funding problem. The mounting cost of wildfire suppression activities over the past few years 

have far suppressed budgeted appropriations, forcing the U.S. Forest Service to 

transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from non-fire accounts to pay for suppression. This halts other mission-critical forest health and stewardship activities from 

taking place, all of which work toward preventing the future threat of catastrophic 

fire. 

Investments in forestry programs will help strengthen rural communities, support 

rural jobs, and ensure that communities that rely on the clean water and air, wildlife habitat, and forest products from family-owned forests, don’t face additional 

costs for these goods and services. 

Unfortunately, new data suggests that by 2020, more than 18 million acres of 

family forests are threatened by housing development. Furthermore, almost 14 million acres are at risk of mortality due to insects and disease, while 29 million are 

at high or very high risk of destruction from wildfire.1 At the same time, less than 

15 percent of family forest owners have sought professional advice for the stewardship of their forests. Many are under the impression that leaving their woods alone 

is the best option. It is therefore essential we ensure these families have tools, technical information, and policy support to keep their forests as forests, for current and 

future generations. 

The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit conservation organization that 

works on the ground with more than 22 million family woodland owners through 

a variety of programs, including the American Tree Farm System®, to protect the 

values and benefits of America’s family forests, with clear ecological and economic 

impact. 

Families and individuals steward more of America’s forests than the Federal Government or corporations. Families and individuals own 35 percent of our Nation’s 

forests.2 These private forests provide myriad public benefits—clean air, clean 
201 

water, recreation, renewable resources that build our homes and communities, and 

good-paying rural jobs. 

FOREST HEALTH INVESTMENTS NEEDED

The threats are daunting. Close to 500 species of tree-damaging pests from other 

countries have become established in the country, and a new one is introduced, on 

average, every 2 to 3 years. The USFS Forest Health Protection (FHP) Program is 

a critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate dangerous 

pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. The program provides critical assistance to other Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies and private landowners. 

In fiscal year 2013, the FHP Program combated pests on over 285,000 acres of 

Federal lands and over 444,000 acres of Cooperative lands. Funding cuts meant 

321,000 fewer acres were treated on Cooperative lands in fiscal year 2013 than in 

fiscal year 2011. Any further cuts to this program will necessitate deeper reductions 

in support for communities already facing outbreaks and expose more of the Nation’s family-owned forests to the devastating and costly effects of the Asian 

Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Wooly Adelgid, Thousand Cankers 

Disease, Western Bark Beetle and other pests. 

INVEST IN A MORE FOCUSED, IMPACTFUL FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Over the last few years, there have been significant cut backs in outreach and 

technical assistance provided to woodland owners, as agency budgets have shrunk, 

and industry has cut back or eliminated their outreach foresters. This greatly concerns woodland owners across the country, who rely on programs like the Forest 

Stewardship Program and State forest agency service foresters. The Forest Stewardship Program has been the backbone of the American Tree Farm System, providing 

the support to woodland owners to ensure they have management plans for certification and can subsequently access certified wood product markets. 

These cuts are also of great concern because of the growing number of 

‘‘unengaged’’ woodland owners—those 95 percent of woodland owners who are not 

actively managing their land, and therefore have forests that are more susceptible 

to the threats mentioned above. 

To address some of this loss, AFF is currently piloting, together with several State 

forest agencies, conservation groups, and industry partners, a number of innovative 

landowner outreach tools, using micro-targeting and social marketing strategies, to 

more efficiently and effectively engage ‘‘unengaged’’ woodland owners. To date, we’ve 

seen a 12 percent response rate, compared with a 3–4 percent response rate that 

forest agencies, extension agents, and organizations typically see. 

Tools like these, combined with a more focused Forest Stewardship Program that 

concentrates on landowner outreach and assistance in priority areas like those identified in each State’s Forest Action Plan, have significant potential to leverage the 

Forest Stewardship Program further and lead to even greater impact on the ground. 

SUPPORT THE LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION PROGRAM, TARGETING OUTCOMES IN

CRITICAL AREAS

To complement the ongoing work of the Forest Stewardship Program and further 

target measurable outcomes in high-priority areas, AFF strongly urges the subcommittee to provide support for the relatively new Landscape Scale Restoration 

program. 

Partners, such as the American Forest Foundation, can leverage the work of this 

State and Private Forestry Program to maximize on-the-ground impact and engage 

landowners in targeted forest conservation activities. With this program, the USFS 

is well-positioned to address the most pressing threats, protect the many public benefits we all enjoy from forests, and leverage Federal efforts for meaningful, measurable impact. 

MAINTAINING ESSENTIAL INFORMATION FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT OF FAMILY-OWNED

WOODLANDS

All of these programs must be grounded in the sound science and sound forest 

information provided by the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis 

(FIA) Program and the Research and Development Programs (R&D). These programs provide irreplaceable data about our forests and give landowners the tools 

to know how to manage the growing threats they face. 

As our Nation’s forest census, the FIA program provides critical updates on forest 

health and market trends—better equipping forest owners nationwide to mitigate 
202 

the impact of impending threats and concerns. FIA also provides a census of the 

trends in family forest ownership, demographics, and trends, so we can better understand how to work with this significant ownership group, most of whom, as mentioned above are ‘‘unengaged’’ in active forest management. 

In particular, the USFS Research and Development Program provides the science 

to help manage invasive species in urban and rural forests. AFF believes it is vitally 

important to conduct research aimed at improving detection and control methods for 

the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, Thousand 

Cankers Disease, Gold-spotted Oak Borer and other non-native forests pests and 

diseases. 

The R&D function is not only essential for providing forest management research, 

it is also on the leading edge of providing new information about the use of wood 

products, which can help create new markets for products from family-owned woodlands. This information helps position wood in growing markets, like green building 

markets, where understanding the environmental impacts of building materials is 

key. We urge the subcommittee to call on R&D to invest an additional $3 million 

in green building research through the Forest Products Laboratory to continue this 

important work. 

SUPPORT A SOLUTION TO THE WILDFIRE FUNDING PROBLEM

Over the last decade, wildfire expenses have significantly increased, and the Federal wildfire budgets often are not sufficient to cover the costs, leading the Federal 

agencies to transfer funds from non-fire accounts to cover fire fighting expenses. In 

fiscal year 12, the USFS transferred $440 million and in fiscal year 13 the transfer 

cost was upped to $600 million. Understandably, this has caused significant disruptions in forest programs, including programs like the Forest Stewardship and Forest 

Health Protection Programs that aide family woodland owners in their stewardship. 

These disruptions clearly demonstrate the urgent need to change the Federal suppression funding model. This pattern of funding is neither efficient nor sustainable. 

The Wildfire Disaster Funding bill (S. 1875 and H.R. 3992) would provide the USFS 

and Department of the Interior with a funding structure similar to that used by 

other agencies that respond to natural disaster emergencies, which have budget cap 

exemptions for a portion of disaster funding. This important change would enable 

agencies to reinvest in core activities which have been reduced in recent years due 

to a continued shift of limited resources to fund wildfire suppression, including the 

very programs that would help to decrease wildfire costs over time. We urge the 

subcommittee to support the Wildfire Disaster Funding bill solution. 

To conclude, AFF recognizes the subcommittee must find areas to reduce spending. We ask the subcommittee to consider the impact these reductions will have on 

the country’s nearly 22 million family forest owners and every American who benefits daily from the positive externalities of well-managed, working forests. 

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some insight on these 

programs and appreciate consideration of my testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FORESTS

Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members of 

the subcommittee: American Forests appreciates the opportunity to submit public 

testimony regarding our fiscal year 2015 appropriation recommendations. We understand the continuing economic realities facing the Nation, and we thank this subcommittee for its support of key Federal conservation programs in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2014. The return on investing in our Nation’s forests is great, 

whether those forests are public or private, urban or rural. The economic, social, 

and environmental benefits healthy forests provide are clear incentives for Federal 

investment. American Forests’ funding recommendations are generally consistent 

with the President’s budget requests for the USDA Forest Service (USFS), Department of Interior (DOI), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with the 

exception of programs that merit a return to the fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. 

Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit conservation 

organization in the country with the mission to protect and restore forests. It has 

served as a catalyst for many of the most important milestones in the conservation 

movement, including the founding of the USDA Forest Service, the Conservation 

Corps, the National Park System, and thousands of forest ecosystem restoration 

projects and public education efforts. Since 1990, American Forests has planted 

more than 46 million trees in all 50 States of U.S. and 44 countries, resulting in 

cleaner air and drinking water, restored habitat for wildlife and fish, and the removal of millions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 
203 

1Southwick Associates, ‘‘The Combined Value of Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resource Conservation, and Historical Preservation, 2013,’’ April 8, 2013. 

The economic benefits of outdoor recreation and natural resource conservation 

highlight the importance of American Forests’ efforts. A recently published report 

found that the combined value of outdoor recreation and natural resource conservation annually generates at least $1.7 trillion in economic activity, supports 12.8 million jobs, and brings in $211 billion in tax revenue.1 As the report notes, ‘‘this sector 

of the U.S. economy is larger than the U.S. auto and pharmaceutical industries combined.’’ Protecting and restoring our forests will ensure on-going economic and environmental viability for our communities. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE

National Forest System 

Integrated Resource Restoration.—The administration’s proposal for an Integrated 

Resource Restoration (IRR) budget consolidation represents the USFS’s approach to 

accelerated restoration. American Forests believes that the administration’s proposals for fiscal year 2015 will help move the agency in the right direction by encouraging collaborative efforts with communities and partners to identify and address priorities at a landscape or watershed scale. American Forests supports the 

President’s request of $820 million to aid in the restoration of our Nation’s forests. 

Restoration Partnerships.—For more than two decades, American Forests has 

worked with the Forest Service restoring our national forests after a wildfire or 

other natural events. We have planted millions of trees in our national forests and 

appreciate the working relationship we have with USFS, which helps us provide 

these services. Currently, this line item is absorbed into the IRR budget reorganization. However, if this committee does not support that budget consolidation, we 

want to emphasize the importance of these efforts. American Forests supports the 

fiscal year 2015 level of $2 million in support of partnerships that restore our National Forests. 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP).—This program 

was created to promote job stability, reliable wood supply, forest health, and reduce 

emergency wildfire costs and risks. In the first 4 years of the program, projects 

funded through CFLRP have: reduced hazardous fuels on 588,000 acres to protect 

communities, generated 814 million board feet of timber, made nearly 2 million 

green tons of biomass available for bioenergy production, and enhanced habitat on 

474 miles of streams. American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $60 million; predicated on the expansion of the program through the necessary legislative action. 

Forest and Rangeland Research 

The Forest and Rangeland Research appropriations provides funds to develop and 

deliver knowledge and innovative technology to improve the health and use of the 

Nation’s forests in both public and private lands. In the last 20 years, the number 

of USFS research scientists has declined from more than 2,000 to under 500 scientists today. This significantly reduces the Forest Service’s ability to provide the 

answers it needs to sustainably manage the National Forests, as well as deliver 

technical assistance to private forest owners and urban forest managers. American 

Forests requests the fiscal year 2012-enacted level of $295.3 million for the entirety 

of Forest and Rangeland Research. 

State and Private Forestry 

Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF).—Urban forests make a significant contribution to the quality of life in communities across the country. In 2013, the 

U&CF program delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance 

to 7,292 communities and nearly 198 million people, more than 60 percent of the 

U.S. population. Urban forests are integral to any community striving to reinvest 

in itself, encourage active, healthy citizens, and create a healthier and more sustainable environment with smart green infrastructure. American Forests requests the 

fiscal year 2012-enacted levels for the Urban and Community Forestry program at 

$31.37 million. 

Forest Health Management.—Exotic pests and invasive species are among the 

greatest threats to urban and rural forests. Non-native pests already cost city governments $2 billion each year to remove and replace trees killed by pests. The substantial loss of trees in our communities impacts quality of life and property values. 

Funding for the Forest Health Program supports activities related to prevention, 

suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and plants, as well as conducting 
204 

2The Department of the Interior’s Economic Contributions fiscal year 2011 report, p.21; 2006 

Banking on Nature report. 3 ‘‘Restoring America’s Wildlife Refuges 2011: Assets for All Americans,’’ Cooperative Alliance 

for Refuge Enhancement. 

forest health monitoring. American Forests supports the President’s combined fiscal 

year 2015 request for the Forest Health Management Program on Federal and cooperative lands at $104.57 million. 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Public Domain Forest Management.—The BLM is entrusted with the management 

and ecosystem health and recovery of 58 million acres of forests and woodlands 

across 12 western States, including Alaska. According to the Department of the Interior’s 2012 Economic Impact Report, timber harvested from Public Domain forests 

supported $659 million in economic activity, and biomass from BLM forests has become part of the feedstock that meets various State and Federal renewable energy 

portfolio standards. However, 14 million acres—or 24 percent—of BLM forests are 

overstocked at increased risk of insect and disease attacks and catastrophic wildfire. 

Increased funding to address these serious risks is necessary across all land management agencies. American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request at $9.93 million. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Program.—For 40 years, the Endangered Species Act has 

helped prevent the extinction of our Nation’s treasured wildlife and plant species, 

many of which thrive in forested habitat. While the Act has made significant strides 

in protecting our most imperiled species, there are still major shortfalls. Numerous 

species in need of protection, including the whitebark pine, are precluded from the 

list because of the lack of adequate resources. American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $170.51 million. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The Refuge System, with 561 refuges of more 

than 150 million acres across the country, is vital to protecting America’s wildlife 

and ensuring that these habitats are a priority. Because refuges are visited by approximately 45 million people each year and generate more than $4.2 billion in economic output and more than 34,000 jobs in recreation spending,2 investment in the 

Refuge system is an investment in our communities. While it is well documented 

that an annual operations and maintenance budget should total at least $900 million,3 American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request for $476.40 

million. 

National Park Service (NPS) 

National Park System.—American Forests was instrumental nearly 100 years ago 

in the creation of our national parks and continues to this day supporting the service that stewards these iconic landscapes. However, many of these forested parks 

are threatened by a series of stresses. Invasive species and uncontrolled outbreaks 

of pests have left these forested treasures vulnerable. American Forests is dedicated 

to aiding in the restoration of these parks, especially those in the intermountain 

west affected by the mountain pine bark beetle. As such, American Forests supports 

the President’s fiscal year 2015 total budget request of $2.28 billion. 

Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery.—The reestablishment of this program, proposed to be funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is essential to 

bring nature to urban communities. These competitive grants focus on engaging and 

connecting communities, especially young people, to their neighborhood parks 

through projects that would revitalize and rehabilitate park and recreation opportunities. As a leader in the urban forestry field, American Forests applauds the renewed efforts of the NPS and the Department of Interior to improve park units that 

will impact urban economies and the quality of life for urban residents by creating 

open green space. American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $25 million. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Urban and rural forests offer fiscally-sound green solutions to the management 

of stormwater, water storage, groundwater recharge, and pollutant reduction. 

Green Infrastructure and Clean Water.—American Forests supports the EPA’s 

goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to further sustainability goals, 

particularly in urban, underserved and economically distressed communities by in-
205 

corporating green infrastructure and enhancing stormwater management. American 

Forests also strongly supports efforts to expand the use of green infrastructure to 

meet Clean Water Act goals, however we would like to see the targeting of 20 percent of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) increased to include a variety of green infrastructure projects. American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $5 million to strengthen green infrastructure activities, and 

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $1.449 billion for CWSRF. 

Urban Waters Federal Partnership.—This 13 interagency effort, coordinated by 

the EPA, helps stimulate local economies, create jobs, improve quality of life, and 

protect health by revitalizing urban waterways, the urban forests that protect them 

and the communities around them, focusing on underserved urban communities of 

all sizes. American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $3.49 

billion for supporting EPA’s goal of protecting America’s Waters, where this program sits within the EPA. 

LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE REQUEST

Wildfire Suppression Funding 

Funding wildfire suppression has been an ongoing struggle for the Forest Service 

and the Department of Interior. As the wildfires become more frequent and more 

severe, which they are projected to become, a new solution to how the Agencies fund 

suppression needs to occur. American Forests respectfully requests the subcommittee address the wildfire suppression funding issue by including language 

from the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA—H.R. 3992; S. 1875) in 

the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations 

bill. This language provides the structure to fund a portion of the USFS and DOI 

wildfire suppression costs through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced 

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. This would provide 

the USFS and DOI with a funding structure similar to that used by other agencies 

who respond to natural disaster emergencies. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

American Forests supports the permanent authorization of full and dedicated 

funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF programs protect natural resource lands, 

outdoor recreation opportunities and working forests at the local, State and Federal 

levels, ensuring these important lands are protected for current and future generations. American Forests supports the fiscal year 15 budget request which calls for 

permanent authorization of $900 million in mandatory funding for LWCF programs 

in the Departments of Interior and Agriculture beginning in 2016. During the transition to permanent funding in 2015, the budget proposes $350 million in discretionary and $550 million in permanent funding, shared by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. This includes level discretionary funding for State Assistance 

grants at $48.1 million, which includes $3 million for ‘‘Competitive Grants.’’ 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOSCIENCES INSTITUTE

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences Institute’s 

(AGI) perspective on fiscal year 2015 appropriations for geoscience programs within 

the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to support and sustain 

the critical geoscience work of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service, and the Smithsonian Institution. Specifically, we ask support 

for the President’s request for $1.074 billion for USGS but we request a more balanced distribution for these funds within USGS, $225 million for the National Park 

Service’s Natural Resource Stewardship and Everglades Restoration activities, and 

$850 million for the Smithsonian Institution. 

The Earth provides the energy, mineral, water, and soil resources that are essential for a thriving economy, national security, and a healthy population and environment. We emphasize the importance of understanding the Earth system, and particularly Earth’s subsurface, in order to sustain human health and safety, energy 

and water supplies, and the quality of the environment, while reducing risks from 

natural hazards. The USGS is the Nation’s only natural resource science agency 

that can provide the objective data, observations, analyses, assessments, and scientific solutions to intersecting Earth-focused issues. 

AGI is a nonprofit federation of about 50 geoscientific and professional associations that represent approximately 250,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other 

Earth scientists who work in industry, academia, and government. Founded in 1948, 

AGI provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared inter-
206 

ests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and 

strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society’s 

use of resources, resilience to natural hazards, and the health of the environment. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AGI supports the President’s request for $1.704 billion for USGS. We respectfully 

suggest that Congress should consider a balanced distribution of funds within USGS 

to allocate more resources to geoscience functions, for which USGS has unique national expertise and responsibilities. 

Need for balanced investment.—Planet Earth strongly influences human safety, 

the economy, and people’s quality of life. Earthquake, volcanic, and landslide hazards; the Earth’s groundwater, mineral, geothermal energy, and fossil fuel resource 

potential; and the Earth’s potential for waste disposal all relate to the subsurface. 

The USGS Organic Act recognizes the importance of understanding the geological 

structure of the country and unequivocally vests responsibility and authority for this 

in USGS. 

Table 1 highlights those Mission Areas and Accounts that are being cut relative 

to the overall USGS budget, and we note that they contain the majority of USGS’s 

geoscience functions. We respectfully ask Congress to recognize the importance of 

geoscience to the Nation’s safety, economy, defense, and quality of life, and to support USGS’s mandated role by funding balanced investment in USGS programs. 

TABLE 1. USGS BUDGET REQUEST, FISCAL YEAR 2015 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Mission Area or Account Fiscal year 

2013 

Fiscal year 

2014 

enacted 

Percent 

change, 

fiscal year 

2013–2014 

Fiscal year 

2015 request 

Percent 

change, 

fiscal year 

2014–2015 

Percent 

change 

fiscal year 

2013–2015 

Ecosystems ............................................. 149,086 152,811 2.5 162,025 6.0 8.7 

Climate & Land Use ............................... 133,195 131,975 ¥0.9 149,081 13.0 11.9 

Energy, Minerals ..................................... 71,901 71,901 0.0 73,247 1.9 1.9 

Environmental Health ............................. 18,614 19,614 5.4 25,826 31.7 38.8 

Natural Hazards ..................................... 123,536 128,486 4.0 128,339 ¥0.1 3.9 

Water Resources ..................................... 197,449 207,281 5.0 210,386 1.5 6.5 

Core Science Systems ............................ 107,643 108,807 1.1 109,400 0.6 1.6 

Science Support ...................................... 110,704 110,704 0.0 108,267 ¥2.2 ¥2.2 

Facilities ................................................. 100,040 100,421 0.4 106,697 6.3 6.7 

Total USGS ................................ 1,012,168 1,032,000 2.0 1,073,268 4.0 6.0 

USGS provides impartial scientific information that underpins well-informed decisionmaking by the Department of the Interior, all levels of government, industry, 

and the public. It provides vital infrastructure through mapping, baseline studies, 

monitoring, and observations, in addition to cutting-edge research and analysis. Balanced investment in USGS should support both long-term data collection and 

project-specific research. 

Mineral Resources Program.—Funding for the Mineral Resources Program (MRP) 

has been cut by more than one-third in constant dollar terms since 2003 (see figure 

below) and the President’s request continues this trend. AGI urges Congress to increase funding for MRP and to allocate new money to USGS to add forecasting capabilities to its Minerals Information functions. 
207 

Minerals Information.—USGS is the sole provider of statistics and analysis on the 

supply of, demand for, and global flow of about 100 minerals and mineral materials 

for approximately 180 countries. The Departments of the Interior, Defense, and 

State, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, as well as manufacturing companies and the 

financial sector all rely on MRP for reliable, timely, accurate data to guide economic 

and strategic decisionmaking. Production of critical products is at risk because industry depends on a constant flow of raw materials, many of which are imported 

and some of which may be subject to disruptions in supply. AGI notes the lack of 

any capacity to forecast future trends in minerals and mineral commodities, making 

the country vulnerable to avoidable disruptions in critical material supplies. AGI 

urges Congress to add new money to enable USGS to develop this strategically important expertise. 

Energy Resources Program.—AGI supports the increase in funding for geothermal 

resources studies but we do not support the proposed cut of $1.5 million to energy 

research and assessment activities. These cuts are being made when the country is 

increasing its reliance on natural gas and when it is ever more important to understand the nature and distribution of our energy resources. 

Hydraulic Fracturing.—AGI supports USGS efforts to better understand the scientific aspects of hydraulic fracturing, to reduce potential impacts, and to provide 

decision-support information. We support the allocation of $8.3 million for scientific 

research on this economically important technology. 

Water Resources Program.—The extreme drought situation in California, northern 

Texas, and surrounding areas highlights the importance of understanding the quality and quantity of our water resources. AGI is pleased to see increased investment 

in the National Groundwater Monitoring Network, streamgages, and other elements 

of the USGS Water Resources Program (WRP). We note the redistribution of funds 

within WRP to focus on selected areas and projects and we urge Congress to ensure 

that USGS continues to maintain and expand the nationwide, long-term data collection and research programs that support water planning and decisionmaking across 

all States. 

Natural Hazards Program.—USGS is world-renowned for its information and research on earthquakes, the natural hazard that poses the greatest threat to life and 

the economy. USGS work on induced seismicity is contributing crucial information 

to the decisionmaking process about regulating hydraulic fracturing and injection 

wells. AGI views the elimination of $700,000 from geodetic monitoring and activesource seismic profiling in order to fund work on induced seismicity as unwise. Both 

of these functions are important and one should not be sacrificed to fund the other. 

Hurricane Sandy, sinkhole incidents in Florida, and the recent landslide in Washington State remind us of the tragic impacts of natural hazards. But we can use 

science to guide mitigation strategies and minimize damages. AGI supports robust 

funding of the Natural Hazards Program and urges Congress to consider funding 

at more than the President’s request of $128.4 million. 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).—AGI is grateful to 

Congress for passing the reauthorization of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program in the 2009 public lands omnibus (Public Law 111–11, Sec. 11001). 

This important 20-year-old partnership between the USGS, State geological surveys, 

and universities provides the Nation with fundamental data for addressing natural 

hazard mitigation, water resource management, environmental remediation, landuse planning, and raw material resource development. AGI thanks the committee 

for its previous support for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program and 

supports the President’s request for $24.5 million in fiscal year 2015. 

Libraries and Data Preservation.—Geological and geophysical data include rock 

and ice cores, fossil, oil, and rock specimens, paper records, and computer files that 

are worth far more than the cost of preserving them. The National Geological and 

Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDP) generates more value in terms of 

economic development, environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation and fulfilling 

regulatory requirements than it costs to run. Books, maps, and specimens, many of 

which record observations of sites that no longer exist, are used extensively by geologists even in this digital age. The consolidation of USGS library space must not 

be at the expense of access to information. AGI supports the President’s request for 

$2.1 million for the NGGDP but notes with concern the reductions being implemented to USGS libraries. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History plays a dual role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections. AGI asks the subcommittee to pro-
208 

vide steady funding to cutting-edge earth science research at the Smithsonian Institution. We support the President’s request of $851 million for the Smithsonian Institution in fiscal year 2015. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

National parks are very important to the geoscience community and the public 

as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our country and 

offer unparalleled opportunities for research, education, and outdoor activities. The 

National Park Services’ Geologic Resources Division was established in 1995 to provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction with USGS and 

other partners, the division helps ensure that geoscientists are becoming part of an 

integrated approach to science-based resource management in parks. AGI supports 

the President’s request for $215 million for Natural Resource Stewardship activities 

and $10 million for Everglades Restoration so the NPS can adequately address the 

treasured geologic and hydrologic resources in the National Parks. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, I am writing regarding funding for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund in fiscal year 2015. While current enacted funding is $306 million and the administration’s budget requests $900 million, American Hiking Society believes $350 

million to be an amount that is within budgetary parameters yet can still accomplish at least some of the basic goals of this Fund. 

Among the many worthwhile projects which could be funded at this level are ones 

which would impact America’s National Scenic and Historic Trails. These trails are 

enjoyed by Americans coast-to-coast, providing a wonderful outdoor recreation experience to families and individuals. Additionally, these trails are a significant economic engine in their communities, many of which are rural in nature and rely on 

visitors to these iconic outdoor adventures to sustain them. Certainly tourism is one 

product that can’t be outsourced and deserves a solid investment. 

Among the National Scenic and Historic Trails which stand to benefit from funding the LWCF at the $350 million level are: 

—The Appalachian Trail 

—The Ice Age Trail 

—The Lewis & Clark Trail 

—The New England Trail 

—The Pacific Crest Trail 

—And others. 

Providing this LWCF funding to the National Trails System is critical to closing 

gaps in some of the trails and to preserving unique natural and cultural environs 

in others. Thank you for allowing American Hiking Society to provide our comments 

on funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Sincerely, 

GREGORY A. MILLER, PH.D., 

President. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

I. REQUEST SUMMARY

On behalf of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you 

for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2015 appropriations recommendations 

for the 30 colleges funded under various titles of the Tribally Controlled Colleges 

and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal College Act); the Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The 

Bureau of Indian Education administers these programs, save for the Institute of 
209 

American Indian Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded directly 

through the Department of the Interior. 

In fiscal year 2015, TCUs seek $78.8 million for institutional operations, an endowment building program, and technical assistance under the Tribally Controlled 

Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 or Tribal College Act; of which, 

$78.1 million for titles I & II grants (28 TCUs); $109,000 for title III (endowment 

grants), and $600,000 for increasingly needed technical assistance. TCUs are founded and chartered by our respective American Indian tribes, which hold a special 

legal relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior congressional action, and the ceding of 

more than one billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Despite the trust 

responsibility and treaty obligations, the TCUs’ primary source of basic operating 

funds has never been adequately funded. Further, our member institutions—already 

operating on shoestring budgets—now are suffering the awful impact of sequestration. Should sequestration resume in fiscal year 2016, along with across the across 

the board cuts that have become part of the regular order, the tribal colleges will 

suffer even greater annual reductions to this already underfunded program. Regrettably, the more than 30-year Federal investment in this program, which has proven 

to be a cost-effective, efficient, and transformative, may be lost as some of tribal colleges could be forced to close their doors. They simply cannot continue to operate 

on the austere budgets they receive. After 34 years, our fiscal year 2015 request 

seeks to achieve 85 percent of the authorized funding level for institutional operating grants, which is based on a per Indian student allocation; and to retain 

$600,000 to provide critically needed ever changing technical assistance. 

AIHEC’s membership also includes tribally controlled postsecondary career and 

technical institutions, a portion of whose institutional operations funding is authorized under title V of the Tribal College Act. AIHEC requests $9,372,000 for this program. For the Institute of American Indian Arts, AIHEC supports the President’s 

budget request of $11,469,000, of which $2,000,000 is to begin to forward fund the 

college. Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute are the two Bureau of Indian Education’s two postsecondary institutions. 

AIHEC supports the highest possible funding level for these valuable institutions. 

Lastly, AIHEC seeks a one-time appropriation of $22 million needed to forward 

fund the operations grants of the remaining TCUs that are not so funded. Five 

TCUs are the ONLY schools whose operations funding come from the Department 

of the Interior that are NOT forwarded funded. All other BIE/Interior schools are 

forward funded and are able to plan multi-year budgets and to start (and end) the 

school year with dependable funding. Forward funding does NOT increase the Federal budget over the long-run. It simply allows vital education programs to receive 

basic operating funds before each school year begins, which is critically important 

when the Federal Government is funded under continuing resolutions. 

II. TCU SHOESTRING BUDGETS: ‘‘DOING SO MUCH WITH SO LITTLE’’ 

Tribal Colleges and Universities are an essential component of American Indian/ 

Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, 37 TCUs operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 16 States, within whose geographic boundaries 80 percent of all 

American Indian reservations and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well over 250 federally recognized tribes, 80 percent of whom receive 

Federal financial aid. In total, the TCUs annually serve about 88,000 AIs/ANs 

through a wide variety of academic and community-based programs. TCUs are public institutions accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies and like 

all U.S. institutions of higher education must periodically undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their accreditation status. Each TCU is committed to improving the lives of its students through higher education and to moving American 

Indians toward self-sufficiency. To do this, TCUs must fulfill additional roles within 

their respective reservation communities functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting places, and child and elder care centers. 

The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and treaty obligations, has never fully funded the TCUs’ institutional operating budgets, authorized 

under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. In 

fact, TCU operating funding is far below the level received by other institutions of 

higher education. The administration requests and Congress appropriates approximately $200 million annually towards the institutional operations of Howard University (exclusive of its medical school), the only other Minority Serving Institution 

(MSI) that receives institutional operations funding from the Federal Government. 

Howard University’s current Federal operating support exceeds $22,000/student, be-
210 

cause this is the level of need as determined by the U.S. Government. In contrast, 

most TCUs receive $5,850/Indian Student (ISC) under the Tribal College Act, only 

about 73 percent of the authorized level. TCUs have proven that they need and have 

earned an investment equal to—at the very least—the congressionally authorized 

level of $8,000/Indian student. Please understand that we are by no means suggesting that our sister MSI, Howard University does not need or deserve the funding it receives, only that the TCUs also need and deserve adequate institutional operations funding; however, TCU operating budgets remain grossly underfunded. 

TCU budgets are at a further disadvantage because the colleges receive funding 

for only about 80 percent of their students. Almost every other U.S. institution of 

higher education receives institutional operations funding based on its entire student body. However, it is important to note that although approximately 20 percent 

of the TCUs’ collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in the local community, TCUs only receive Federal funding based on Indian students, defined as a 

member of a federally recognized tribe or a biological child of an enrolled tribal 

member. While many TCUs do seek funding from their respective State legislatures 

for their non-Indian State-residents students (sometimes referred to as ‘‘non-beneficiary’’ students) successes have been at best inconsistent. Yet, if a TCU’s non-beneficiary students attended any other public institution in the State, the State would 

provide the college with ongoing funding toward its day-to-day operations. Given 

their locations, often hundreds of miles from another postsecondary institution, 

TCUs remain open to all students, Indian and non-Indian, believing that education 

in general, and postsecondary education in particular is the catalyst for a better economic future for their regions. 

III. FURTHER JUSTIFICATIONS & FACTS

(a) TCUs provide access to valuable postsecondary education opportunities. Tribal 

Colleges and Universities provide access to higher education for American Indians 

and others living in some of the Nation’s most rural and economically depressed 

areas. In fact, seven of the Nation’s 10 poorest counties are home to a TCU. The 

American Community Survey/U.S. Census Bureau reported the annual per capita 

income of the U.S. population as $27,100. However, the annual per capita income 

of AI/ANs is reported to be $13,300, or less than half that of the general population. 

TCUs offer their students a high level of support and guidance to bolster their 

chances of achieving academic success. In addition to serving their student populations, these tribal institutions offer a variety of much needed community outreach 

programs. 

(b) TCUs are producing an American Indian workforce that includes highly 

trained American Indian teachers, tribal government leaders, nurses, engineers, 

computer programmers, and other much-needed professionals. By teaching the job 

skills most in demand on their reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for 

tribal economic growth, with benefits for surrounding communities and the Nation 

as a whole. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment on many reservations, 

graduates of TCUs are employed in ‘‘high demand’’ occupational areas such as Head 

Start teachers, elementary and secondary school teachers, agriculture and land 

management specialists, and nurses/healthcare providers. Just as important, the 

vast majority of tribal college graduates remains in their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are most needed. 

(c) Growing number of TCUs.—Compounding existing funding disparities is the 

fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students enrolled in them have dramatically increased since they were first funded in 1981, appropriations have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since 1981, the number of tribal colleges 

has more than quadrupled and continues to grow; the number of Indian students 

enrolled has risen over 355 percent. In the past 10 years, six additional TCUs have 

become accredited and eligible for funding under title I of the Tribal College Act, 

and there are several more colleges currently in the pipeline. TCUs are in many 

ways victims of their own successes. The growing number of tribally chartered colleges and universities and increasing enrollments have forced TCUs to slice an already inadequate annual funding pie into even smaller pieces. 

(d) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.—TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base for revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty 

rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a reservation tax base. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 70 percent. By contrast, the national unemployment rate is currently 6.7 percent. 

(e) Gaming and the TCUs.—Although several of the reservations served by TCUs 

do have gaming operations, these are not the mega-casinos located in proximity to 
211 

urban outlets and featured in the broad-based media. Only a handful of TCUs receive regular income from the chartering tribe’s gaming revenue, and the amounts 

received can vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos are small businesses that use their gaming revenue to improve the local standard of living and 

potentially diversify into other, more sustainable areas of economic development. In 

the interim, where relevant, local TCUs offer courses in casino management and 

hospitality services to formally train tribal members to work in their local tribally 

run casinos. 

Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but the Federal Government has 

not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a justification to decrease 

Federal funding to other public colleges or universities. Some have suggested that 

those tribes that operate the few enormously successful and widely publicized casinos should be financing higher education for all American Indians. And yet, no 

State is expected to share its gaming revenue with a non-gaming State. 

V. APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

As noted earlier, it has been over three decades since the Tribal College Act was 

first funded, and the TCUs have yet to receive the congressionally authorized per 

Indian student funding level. Full funding for the TCUs’ institutional operating 

grants ($8,000 per Indian student) for fiscal year 2015 would require an increase 

of approximately $24 million over the fiscal year 2014 appropriated level. However, 

we recognize the budget constraints the Nation is currently facing and consequently, 

we are not requesting that level of increase in fiscal year 2015. Rather, our goal 

is to achieve 85 percent of the authorized funding level, determined by the per Indian student allocation. This requires a modest increase of $9 million over fiscal 

year 2014. Details of the request are outlined in the Request Summary above. 

VI. CONCLUSION

AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide quality 

higher education to many thousands of American Indians and other reservation residents who might otherwise not have access to such opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great dividends in terms of 

employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this investment 

makes sound moral and fiscal sense. 

We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities and your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2015 appropriations requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates the opportunity 

to provide testimony in support of appropriations for the United States Geological 

Survey (USGS), United States Forest Service (USFS), and Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2015. AIBS encourages Congress to provide the USGS 

with $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2015, with at least $180 million for the Ecosystems 

activity. We further request that Congress provide the USFS Forest and Rangeland 

Research program with at least $310 million, and EPA’s Office of Research and Development with at least $597 million. 

The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society. AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the community of biologists have access to and use information that will guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of 

Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization in the 

1950s. Today, AIBS has more than 140 member organizations and is headquartered 

in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in Washington, DC. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and assessments that 

are needed by public and private sector decision-makers. Data generated by the 

USGS save taxpayers money by reducing economic losses from natural disasters, allowing more effective management of water and natural resources, and providing essential geospatial information that is needed for commercial activity and natural resource management. The data collected by the USGS are not available from other 

sources and our Nation cannot afford to sacrifice this information. 
212 

The Ecosystems activity within USGS underpins the agency’s other science mission areas by providing information needed for understanding the impacts of water 

use, energy exploration and production, and natural hazards on natural systems. 

The USGS conducts research on and monitoring of fish, wildlife, and vegetation— 

data that informs management decisions by other Interior bureaus regarding protected species and land use. Biological science programs within the USGS gather 

long-term data not available from other sources. The knowledge generated by USGS 

programs is used by Federal and State natural resource managers to maintain 

healthy and diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of public use. 

Examples of successful USGS Ecosystem initiatives include: 

—Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that characterize the 

risk of wildfires on all lands in the United States. These products are used to 

allocate firefighting resources and to plan fuel reduction projects. 

—Identification of white-nose syndrome, a fungus that is devastating U.S. bat 

populations and is jeopardizing the multi-billion dollar pest control services provided by bats. 

—Identification and evaluation of control measures for Asian carp, sea lamprey, 

Burmese pythons, and other invasive species that cause billions of dollars in 

economic losses. 

—Study of the impacts of solar energy and other next generation energy sources 

on wildlife and endangered species. 

The requested fiscal year 2015 budget would support several important ecosystem 

science priorities at USGS. The budget would expand detection and control of 

invasive species and improve predictive tools. USGS would also support efforts to 

further the science and integration of ecosystems services frameworks into decisionmaking and implement efforts to assess and sustain the Nation’s environmental 

capital. Additionally, USGS would be able to address disconcerting declines in native pollinators. 

The request includes additional funding for research to inform adaptive management of severe and prolonged drought. The budget would also provide an increase 

for the National Streamflow Information Program, which supports USGS’ national 

network of streamgages. 

New funding is proposed for the Cooperative Research Units to increase undergraduate and graduate student involvement in Interior research. Roughly 500 graduate students each year receive training at Cooperative Research Units. Through 

the units, the USGS and their partners address pressing issues facing natural resource managers at the local, State, and Federal levels. Examples of recent research 

initiatives include studying the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on wildlife and 

fisheries, and studying the impacts of wildfires on forest ecology. The program is 

an efficient use of resources: each Federal dollar invested in the program is leveraged more than five-fold. 

Although the proposed budget supports many USGS priorities, the requested 

funding level would result in $41.3 million in cuts to programs that support agency 

core missions. Indeed, the budget request for Ecosystems is less than the agency received in fiscal year 2002 in nominal dollars. 

In summary, the USGS is uniquely positioned to provide a scientific context for 

many of the Nation’s biological and environmental challenges, including water quality and use, energy independence, and conservation of biological diversity. This 

array of research expertise not only serves the core missions of the Department of 

the Interior, but also contributes to management decisions made by other agencies 

and private sector organizations. An investment of $1.2 billion in the USGS and at 

least $180 million in the Ecosystems activity will yield dividends. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

United States Forest Service research provides scientific information and new 

technologies to support sustainable management of the Nation’s forests and rangelands. These products and services increase the basic biological and physical knowledge of the composition, structure, and function of forest, rangeland, and aquatic 

ecosystems. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget request would cut funding for Forest Service research 

by 6 percent—well in excess of the 2.6 percent cut proposed for the entire agency. 

The Forest and Rangeland Research division would lose 114 employees as a result. 

The proposed budget cuts would impact research on wildland fires, invasive species, wildlife and fish, and resource management. USFS’ research on wildland fire 

and fuels evaluates the effectiveness of hazardous fuels treatments and helps managers as they protect life and property and restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Other 
213 

programs support key areas of scientific research, the outcomes of which inform sustainable management of the Nation’s forests and rangelands. 

We ask Congress to restore the proposed cuts and to fund the Forest and Rangeland Research program at $310 million, the same amount as in fiscal year 2010. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) supports valuable extramural and 

intramural research that is used to identify and mitigate environmental problems 

facing our Nation. ORD research informs decisions made by public health and safety 

managers, natural resource managers, businesses, and other stakeholders concerned 

about air and water pollution, human health, and land management and restoration. In short, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which EPA monitoring and 

enforcement programs are built. 

Despite the important role played by ORD, its funding has declined by 17 percent 

in nominal dollars since fiscal year 2004, when it peaked at $646.5 million. ‘‘This 

long-term decline has limited and will continue to limit the research that can be 

conducted to support the agency’s effort to protect human health and the environment,’’ according to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board. ‘‘These limitations pose a 

vulnerability for EPA at a time when the agency faces significant science questions 

with long-term implications for protecting the environment and public health.’’ 

At $537.3 million, the budget request for fiscal year 2015 falls far short of addressing past and current shortfalls. We ask that Congress restore funding for ORD 

to at least the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $596.7 million. 

The Ecosystem Services Research program within ORD is responsible for enhancing, protecting, and restoring ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, rich 

soil for crop production, pollination, and flood control. The program has been long 

underfunded, according to the EPA Science Advisory Board, with a 58 percent budget decline over the last decade. We ask that Congress address the chronic underfunding of the program. 

The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program supports valuable research on 

human health and the environment through competitively awarded research grants. 

The program enables EPA to fill information gaps that are not addressed by intramural EPA research programs or by other Federal agencies. 

Two valuable training opportunities for the next generation of scientists will be 

eliminated as part of a proposed governmentwide reorganization of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs. Funding would be zeroed 

out for EPA STAR graduate fellowships and Greater Research Opportunities undergraduate fellowships. The Science Advisory Board ‘‘considers it a priority to increase 

STAR fellowships, if possible, because support for environmental scientists at an 

early stage in their careers is a cost-effective way to advance ORD’s strategic goals.’’ 

The National Academy of Sciences called the fellowship ‘‘a valuable mechanism for 

enabling a continuing supply of graduate students in environmental sciences and 

engineering.’’ We are concerned that the elimination of these programs will be detrimental to preparation of the next generation of environmental scientists and engineers. We ask for the program to remain at EPA and to be supported at an adequate funding level. 

ORD’s Safe and Sustainable Water Resources program supports research that underpins safe drinking water for society. The program’s research also focuses on better understanding resiliency of watersheds to stressors and factors that affect watershed restoration. The budget request would allow the program to pursue research 

that will inform decisions about water safety and to ensure the sustainability of our 

wetlands. 

In conclusion, we request that Congress restore funding for the ORD to the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level. These appropriation levels would allow ORD to address a 

backlog of research needs. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

On behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute, I want to thank Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and the distinguished members of the subcommittee for 

this opportunity to submit testimony regarding funding for the agencies involved in 

white-nose syndrome research and management, as well as for other programs of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Geological 

Survey, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. 
214 

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME (WNS)

$2.5 million (President’s budget) ...... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Science Support 

Purpose: To fund research on ways to stop the development and spread of WNS, 

and the fungus that causes it, among bat populations. 

$500,000 ............................................. U.S. Geological Survey/Ecosystems 

Purpose: To conduct research into WNS management to aid in the recovery of affected species and reduce the spread of the WNS fungus. 

$3 million ........................................... National Park Service/Park Management 

Purpose: To inventory and protect NPS bat and cave resources; expand research into 

WNS management; monitor NPS resources for WNS; conduct public education about 

WNS; and standardize WNS screening procedures for visitors across park units. 

$750,000 ............................................. U.S. Forest Service/Research and Development 

Purpose: To conduct research on managing WNS per the Service’s WNS science 

strategy. 

$250,000 ............................................. U.S. Forest Service/Forest Systems 

Purpose: To inventory and monitor bat resources and manage WNS on Forest Service lands. 

$500,000 ............................................. Bureau of Land Management 

Purpose: To fund field research related to WNS in bats and the inventorying and 

monitoring of bat resources on Bureau-administered lands. 

Capitalizing on the investments and progress already made, the funds we request 

would support Federal programs to fight WNS, a disease the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service estimates has killed at least 5.7 million bats since its 2006 outbreak. Caused 

by the invasive Pseudogymn-oascus destructans (Pd) fungus, WNS is present in 25 

States and 5 Canadian provinces, and Pd in another 3 States. The disease or its 

fungus has affected 11 hibernating bat species so far, including the endangered Indiana, gray, and Virginia big-eared bats; 25 of our Nation’s 47 bat species may ultimately be at risk. Losses are so severe that FWS published a proposed rule to list 

the northern long-eared bat as endangered throughout its range, which is most of 

the eastern U.S., and is reviewing another two species for possible listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

The loss of bats from WNS will likely have serious implications for our economy 

and environment. Bats are primary predators of night-flying insects, including agricultural pests that attack corn, soybeans, cotton, and other crops. By eating these 

pests, bats save farmers an average of $22.9 billion per year by reducing the need 

for pesticides and lowering food production costs. Bats also perform ecological services for 66 plant species that produce timber. Healthy forests need healthy bats. 

The Federal Government and its State, local, tribal, and nonprofit partners continue to make progress in fighting WNS. Thanks to Federal funding from previous 

years, these institutions are conducting research in line with the priorities identified 

at the 2014 WNS symposium: understanding the nature and dynamics of remnant 

bat populations in WNS-affected areas; understanding the nature and dynamics of 

Pd infectivity and virulence factors; and other questions such as biological control 

for WNS. These research directions hold promise for solutions to slow or stop the 

spread of the disease, and to alleviate its impacts on affected bats. In one of the 

past year’s notable findings, Forest Service scientists taxonomically reclassified the 

WNS fungus from Geomyces destructans to Pseudogymnoascus destructans. A goal 

of the WNS community is to pinpoint the WNS fungus’ harmful genes and silence 

them as a means of controlling the fungus; this research furthers that effort by 

shedding light on the genetic similarities and differences between the white-nose 

fungus and its closest, benign fungi relatives. Another positive development is the 

creation of the North American Bat Monitoring Program, which will be pilot-tested 

this summer. Until now, no coordinated or standard system for monitoring bat populations has existed within North America. As a result, wildlife managers and re-
215 

searchers have lacked accurate data on which to base appropriate bat management 

actions. The program will benefit not only the WNS fight but also other bat conservation efforts. 

These developments would not have been possible without funding. We thank 

Congress for recognizing the gravity of the WNS crisis and supporting agencies’ response to the disease in past years. We have come so far in understanding WNS 

and determining directions for the fight against this devastating disease. Failing to 

adequately fund WNS response in fiscal year 2015 will undermine our hard-won 

progress, jeopardize the application of science to management, and thwart the impact of private funds leveraged to combat WNS. We recognize today’s difficult budget situation but urge you to provide funding at the levels noted above. 

Money spent on WNS is a wise investment. Preventing the spread of WNS will 

spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of massive bat die-offs. The experience gained will aid in responding to future fungal outbreaks that may affect 

human health. Finally, fighting WNS now will reduce future harm to the economy 

from insect-related losses to agriculture and forestry and the cost of listed-species 

recovery. An ounce of prevention truly is worth a pound of cure. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT—$66.737 MILLION

The administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a moderate funding increase for the FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), one of the most important 

lines of defense for America’s wildlife. OLE is tasked with enforcing over a dozen 

Federal wildlife and conservation laws that frequently impact both domestic and 

global security. Year after year, OLE protects the public against the illegal trade 

in wildlife and wildlife products—which is third only to the illicit trade in narcotics 

and weapons in terms of revenue generated globally—and the U.S. remains a source 

of, or destination for, much of this contraband. Even those who may not concern 

themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits as OLE protects against smuggling illegal substances and helps to thwart potentially devastating human health threats. 

It is critical that OLE receive adequate funding to fulfill its mission. Accordingly, we support FWS’s proposed appropriation of $66.737 million for OLE, an increase of $1.994 million over the fiscal year 2014 enacted budget, and the addition of seven full-time employees. This increase in funding and staff will provide for 

expanded forensics capability at the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, support the work of Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors, and enhance the 

Service’s ability to combat wildlife trafficking. 

National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory—$1.247 million increase ∂ 5 FTE 

The successful outcomes of enforcement cases would not be possible without the 

essential work of the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory (NFWFL), 

used by FWS agents and inspectors to gather hard evidence in wildlife crime cases. 

The lab uses state-of-the-art science, along with years of institutional knowledge, to 

identify wildlife products by species, determine the cause of death, and make other 

findings critical to a successful legal case. All 50 States and the 175 Convention on 

International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) member countries depend on 

this facility to prosecute wildlife crimes. 

It is heartening that $1.247 million of the proposed $1.994 million increase to 

OLE’s budget and 5 of the 7 additional full time employees will be allocated to the 

NFWFL’s work. This will aid in the advancement of research involving genetic 

markers and isotope analysis, which will ultimately improve investigators’ ability to 

determine the geographic origin of animals and animal parts. These funds would 

also serve to develop the laboratory’s Morphology Section, where these is a great 

need for both hiring and training of forensics experts. 

Program Activities/Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors—$247,000 increase 

The Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors who enforce 

U.S. wildlife laws play a critical role in protecting our Nation’s wildlife. Special 

Agents aid in the reduction of illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, which 

continues to imperil species in the U.S. and around the world. Wildlife Inspectors 

play a similarly valuable role, minimizing illegal contraband shipments, uncovering 

smuggled goods and illegal trade rings at the border, and thwarting national and 

global health risks associated with importing non-native species. 

In fiscal year 2013, FWS Special Agents pursued 10,422 investigations involving 

180,368 wildlife shipments, including 157,065 shipments containing foreign species. 

Agents identified 1,824 individuals/businesses conducting illegal activities involving 

migratory birds; 2,535 individuals/businesses engaged in crime involving threatened 

and endangered species; and 7,521 individuals/businesses conducting illegal activities involving foreign species. These enforcement activities resulting in $24.6 million 
216 

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement, Law Enforcement at a Glance 

(2014). 2 Id. 

3 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Budget Justifications and 

Performance Information: fiscal year 2015 (2014). 

in fines and penalties, 45.9 years of jail time for the perpetrators, and 452.7 years 

of probation.1

In the same year, FWS Wildlife Inspectors processed approximately 182,000 declared shipments of wildlife products worth over $6.2 billion.2 This impressive 

record merits proper funding and staffing adequate to fulfill OLE’s mission. 

Wildlife Trafficking—$500,000 increase ∂ 2 FTE 

FWS’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU) works to address complex wildlife trafficking cases, including cases involving critically endangered species. Poaching is on 

the rise internationally, and SIU’s investigation and enforcement work is of critical 

importance to making the United States a part of the solution. Both the Administration’s National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking and the President’s Executive Order on combating wildlife trafficking highlight the prevention of wildlife 

crime as a national priority. 

Increasing its staff from 6 to 8 agents will provide SIU with the capacity to undertake a national investigation of the trade in ivory, including both importation and 

smuggling within the United States, while continuing its national and international 

efforts to investigate rhino horn trafficking. We support FWS’s request for $500,000 

(of the total $1.994 million requested increase) and 2 additional full time employee 

positions (of the 7 total FTE requested for law enforcement). 

WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS ACT

The wild horse is as much a symbol of our American heritage as the image of 

Uncle Sam and baseball. Currently, America’s wild horses are subjected to gross 

mismanagement and mistreatment by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

which uses a significant portion of its budget to round up and warehouse wild 

horses and burros without credible evidence supporting the need for such removals 

as recently documented by a National Academy of Science study. Furthermore, since 

2004, wild horses have been at risk of being sold to killer-buyers who make a profit 

by sending horses to slaughter for human consumption—in fact, in recent years, 

hundreds of wild horses were sold to at least one known killer-buyer. 

In 1971, Congress acted to protect these wild animals and their natural habitat. 

For the last few years, this subcommittee has also called on the BLM to find humane solutions, but they ignore options and fail to act responsibly. It is now time 

for Congress to act decisively to ensure these animals are neither sent into holding 

facilities nor sentenced to slaughter. BLM’s proposed budget includes a program increase of $2.8 million for wild horse and burro management. These funds are to be 

used for population control research, including ongoing studies that ‘‘focus on developing more effective and longer lasting fertility control agents. . . .’’ 3 We support 

these efforts and request that any increase in appropriations under the Wild FreeRoaming Horses and Burros Act be used solely for implementation of humane, onthe-range management methods such as immunocontraception, and not unnecessary 

roundup. 

Finally, we strongly support the continued inclusion of this ‘‘no-kill’’ language to 

ensure that BLM does not kill healthy wild horses and burros: Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available for the sale or destruction of healthy, 

unadopted wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LETHAL MANAGEMENT OF NATIVE WILDLIFE

In recent years, the National Park Service (NPS) has significantly expanded its 

lethal control of native ungulates in contravention of its own legal mandates. During 

this time, the NPS has initiated lethal control of ungulates in a number of national 

parks (e.g., Valley Forge, Catoctin, Indiana Dunes, and Rock Creek) and is considering similar efforts in other parks. In each case, the NPS has misapplied its own 

statutes and policies and has failed to provide any credible site-specific data to justify its heavy-handed strategies. Though even the NPS concedes that ungulates are 

keystone herbivores, it is unwilling to allow ungulates to naturally influence ecosystem structure and function, as its own statutes and policies require. Therefore, 

we request that the following language, which would save taxpayer dollars, be included in the Senate Interior Appropriations bill: No funds appropriated under this 

legislation shall be expended by the National Park Service to lethally control or kill 
217 

native ungulates nor shall the National Park Service permit any entity, public or 

private, to kill said ungulates. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONSERVANCY

Dear Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons described below, I am requesting a fiscal year 2015 appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

in the amount of $4,461,000 for the Department of the Interior, National Park Service and $7,850,000 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 

(USFS) for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands surrounding or bordering 

the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Tennessee. 

ATC also requests support for the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request of 

$2,283,852,000 for National Park Service operations and $10 million for the Centennial Challenge, as well as a budget request of $183,000 for the USDA Forest Service 

for operational costs associated with managing the Appalachian National Scenic 

Trail. 

Background.—The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) is America’s premier long-distance footpath. Begun in 1922 and completed in 1937 as a continuous 

footpath extending from western Maine to northern Georgia, the trail gained Federal recognition in 1968 with the passage of the National Trails System Act. Amendments to that act in 1978 expanded the authorization for Federal and State land 

acquisition to establish a permanent, publicly owned right-of-way as well as a protective corridor or greenway along the trail. Since 1978, with the strong support of 

the subcommittee and the Congress as a whole, the Appalachian National Scenic 

Trail land acquisition program of the National Park Service and USDA Forest Service has become one of the most successful land conservation efforts in the Nation’s 

history. Additional land acquisitions will serve to protect priority landscapes along 

the trail that offer recreational and ecological benefits to the public. 

Resource Characteristics.—The Appalachian Trail is a 2,185-mile footpath extending along the crests and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains through 14 States 

from Maine to Georgia. Often characterized as a string of pearls, the trail, which 

is administered as a unit of the National Park System, connects eight National Forests, six other units of the National Park System, and approximately 60 State 

parks, forests, and game management units. With an estimated 2 million visitors 

per year, it ranks among the most heavily visited units of the National Park System 

and also ranks among the top 10 units from the standpoint of natural diversity, 

with more than 2,200 documented occurrences of federally and State listed rare, 

threatened, or endangered species at more than 500 discrete sites. 

The Appalachian Trail is equally well known as a remarkable public/private partnership. Since the initial construction of the trail in the 1920s and ’30s, volunteers 

affiliated with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy have constructed, reconstructed, 

and maintained the footpath, as well as a system of more than 250 shelters and 

associated facilities such as privies, improved campsites, bridges, signs, and parking 

lots. In 2013, for example, 5,941 volunteers contributed 245,548 hours of labor along 

the trail. 

Need for Appropriations.—As noted previously, while the Appalachian National 

Scenic Trail protection program represents one of the most successful land acquisition programs in the history of the conservation movement in the United States, 

that program is not yet complete. A number of critical parcels are now ripe for land 

acquisition from willing sellers, and we are seeking fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriations to secure those properties. A brief description of each of those critical parcels follows. 

Bald Cap Peak, New Hampshire.—ATC and The Conservation Fund request a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $200,000 for the National Park Service. The 

funds would be obligated for the National Park Service to acquire a 300-acre tract 

in fee in Coos County, New Hampshire. The tract will broaden the Appalachian 

Trail corridor in these highlands, protecting the natural flora and fauna along it, 

as well as the high elevation watershed found along the crest of the mountains the 

trail traverses. These lands are part of the Mahoosuc Mountain range, which is the 

northerly extension of the White Mountains in northeastern New Hampshire. Acquisition of this property would enhance protection for three major peaks in the area, 

including Bald Cap Peak, Bald Cap, North Bald Cap, and the area around Mount 

Success. This acquisition also will protect a key side trail that provides access to 

one of the more remote sections of the trail. 
218 

Greensboro Farm, New Hampshire.—ATC and the Trust for Public Lands request a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $2,251,000 for the National Park Service 

to acquire a 173-acre tract of land owned by Dartmouth College and located in the 

town of Hanover, New Hampshire. This acquisition will protect the ANST corridor 

from incompatible development and permanently protect side trails maintained by 

the town of Hanover which connect to the Appalachian Trail, but which do not have 

permanent protection status. Acquisition of this property, known as Hudson Farm, 

will also protect wetland and riparian systems, grassland bird habitat, rare plant 

sites, a significant wildlife corridor, and forest resources. The Hudson Farm is likely 

to be divested by Dartmouth College within the next 2 to 4 years, as it has been 

deemed a non-strategic real estate holding. 

Pomfret Pines Project, Vermont.—ATC and The Conservation Fund request fund- ing in fiscal year 2015 of $533,000 for the National Park Service to acquire an easement interest in an 81-acre property, known as the Pomfret Pines Farm, situated 

on a hill adjacent to and above the Appalachian Trail in the town of Pomfret, 

Vermont, to conserve its natural and scenic character. The property may be under 

threat of subdivision and residential development. 

Hottle-Fahey Forest, Massachusetts.—ATC requests funding in fiscal year 2015 of $777,000 for the National Park Service to acquire a 306-acre tract of the HottleFahey Forest that lies in the foreground viewshed of Warner Hill in Hinsdale, Massachusetts. In 2010, an industrial wind developer proposed constructing six large 

wind turbines within 500 feet of the ANST corridor at this point. This would have 

seriously altered the view from Warner Hill and significantly changed the character 

of this section of the trail through the small rural village of Hinsdale. In late 2012, 

the developer withdrew plans to develop the site, but the threat for industrial development and/or timber extraction remains. The Hottle-Fahey Forest lies in the center 

of the Hinsdale Flats, an area designated by the State of Massachusetts as an Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), a site that receives special recognition 

because of the quality, uniqueness, and significance of its resources. 

White Rocks Addition, Pennsylvania.—ATC requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF ap- propriation of $500,000 for the National Park Service to acquire a 107-acre property 

in the viewshed of the Appalachian Trail as it crosses the White Rocks formation 

just southeast of Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania. This tract is contiguous to a recently protected 800-acre tract. The most pressing threat to this landscape is the 

potential for additional development by the landowner. 

Tennessee Mountains Trails and Waters-Rich Mountain Inholding.—ATC requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $3,700,000, including the Rich Mountain 

inholding ($700,000), for the USDA Forest Service. This collaborative project includes funding for acquisitions associated with trails in Tennessee, including a 100- 

acre privately owned inholding situated in the northwest corner of the recently acquired 10,000-acre Rocky Fork property, a significant acquisition for the ANST. This 

tract includes the highest point of land for the overall property as well as prominent 

cliffs. The cliffs are only a short distance from the ANST through a high elevation 

heath bald. The property provides sweeping views of the Sampson Mountain Wilderness and northeast Tennessee/southwest Virginia. 

North Carolina Threatened Treasures—Grassy Ridge Project.—ATC requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $1,100,000 for the USDA Forest Service to acquire 601 acres of high elevation grassy bald with several threatened and endangered species. This parcel is the largest unprotected parcel in the ANST and Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail viewshed. An additional $1,050,000 will be 

contributed to the project from the North Carolina Parks and Recreation Trust Fund 

and the North Carolina Clean Water Trust Fund. 

Sugarloaf Mountain, Tennessee.—ATC requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriation of $330,000 for the USDA Forest Service to acquire this 80-acre inholding 

within the Cherokee National Forest to protect the viewshed of the Appalachian 

Trail. The tract hosts a cove hardwood forest, a waterfall, and abundant wildflowers, 

offering an outstanding recreational experience. ATC will contribute funding for the 

appraisal of this important tract. 

National Trails Collaborative Landscape.—ATC requests a fiscal year 2015 LWCF 

appropriation of $2,720,000 for the USDA Forest Service. This acquisition package 

includes several important ANST tracts, including: 

—Ripshin Wetlands.—This 403-acre property is adjacent to the Moffett Laurel Botanical Area Rare Community and Ripshin Ridge Rare Community. The Ripshin 

tract contains documented habitat and breeding grounds for the Bog Turtle, a 

State threatened species and federally listed threatened species within an Appalachian Highlands Bog. Cliff top viewpoints offer exceptional views of this tract 

for Appalachian Trail hikers. This tract is surrounded on three sides by the 

Cherokee National Forest. 
219 

—Hump Mountain, Tennessee.—The 27-acre Hump Mountain tract is a high elevation southern Appalachian grassy bald, which is home to a unique ecosystem 

including several threatened and endangered species and species of concern. 

The tract is also part of the culturally significant Roan Highlands landscape 

and a national natural landmark, and it is surrounded on three sides by the 

Cherokee and Pisgah National Forests. —Shook Branch, Tennessee, Cherokee National Forest.—This 20-acre tract provides an important linkage for the Appalachian Trail corridor as it travels from 

Watauga Lake to the Pond Mountain Wilderness. Rerouting the trail onto this 

tract will provide a much safer crossing of the very busy U.S. 321, prevent development adjacent to a USFS/Tennessee Valley Authority recreation area, and 

provide an improved corridor for wildlife. 

National Park Service Funding.—ATC requests a $10 million appropriation for the Centennial Challenge and $2,283,852,000 for National Park Service (NPS) operations. As NPS prepares for its 100th anniversary, Congress has an achievable opportunity to begin reversing the damaging pattern of recent cuts and long-term 

underfunding and instead invest in the popular and economically important NPS, 

including the ANST. The troubled budget process of recent years has allowed a slow 

motion shutdown that has meant deferring significant maintenance projects and the 

hiring of key park staff that provide for safe and enjoyable visits. 

USDA Forest Service, Appalachian National Scenic Trail Operations.—ATC requests $183,000 in operational funds for the USDA Forest Service Southern Region 

8 to provide a liaison for trail management. Operational funds also support volunteer trail maintenance crews and visitor outreach. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your consideration 

of our request. 

RON TIPTON, 

Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APS FOUR CORNERS POWER PLANT

APRIL 9, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. —Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID C. BLOOMFIELD, P.E., 

Four Corners Site Plant Manager. 
220 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASME ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TASK

FORCE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee: The ASME 

Environmental Protection Agency Task Force is pleased to provide this testimony 

on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for research and development programs in 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

INTRODUCTION

ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide educational and technical Society with more than 

130,000 members. It conducts one of the world’s largest technical publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development 

courses each year, and has authored over 600 industrial and manufacturing standards. 

BACKGROUND

Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest in applying 

Science & Technology (S&T) to improve the environment and human health in the 

U.S. Mechanical engineers increasingly collaborate with other professionals to develop innovative and cost-effective environmental technologies and systems. 

The EPA plays an essential role in the Nation’s efforts to protect human health 

and safeguard the environment, and EPA’s S&T research and development (R&D) 

activities are instrumental in improving environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health, the ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology development and implementation. Pollution reduction is needed to address the emerging concerns of climate change, as well as homeland security and infrastructure protection. 

OVERVIEW OF THE ASME EPA TASK FORCE REVIEW

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for EPA is $7.9 billion, a $310 million or 3.8 

percent decrease from the fiscal year 2014 enacted amount of $8.2 billion. The EPA’s 

Science and Technology account would increase by 0.6 percent or $4.6 million in fiscal year 2015 to $763.7 million. 

EPA has seen declining budget figures for the last four budget cycles. The EPA 

Task Force feels that a higher appropriation is warranted for the agency in fiscal 

year 2015. Additional R&D funds are needed in order to enhance study responses 

to hydraulic fracturing and oil shale waste issues, climate change, terrestrial carbon 

sequestration and management, biofuels, and nanotechnology development. 

The Task Forces comments on the fiscal year 2015 budget focus on the R&D activities of the S&T portfolio within the EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

(ORD) and the Superfund program that support eight strategic programmatic research areas: 

The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives between fiscal year 

2013 and fiscal year 2015 is as follows: 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 

2013 

Fiscal year 

2014 

Fiscal year 

2015 

Indoor Air and Radiation ....................................................................................... $6 .39 $6 .45 $6 .09 

Homeland Security ................................................................................................. 38 .88 38 .36 39 .44 

Clean Air and Climate ........................................................................................... 114 .9 120 .4 118 .5 

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources 106 .2 111 .0 114 .1 

Human Health Protection ....................................................................................... 3 .6 3 .6 3 .6 

Air, Climate, and Energy Research ....................................................................... 87 .1 94 .9 101 .9 

EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the scientific foundation 

for EPA by performing research and development to identify and solve present and 

future environmental issues and providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research, to improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate environmental health, as well as problem-driven research designed to provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems. It is an invaluable national resource. 
221 

We note that the ORD workforce has declined by over 10 percent in the past several years and is now not sufficient to permit action on various topics of national 

importance. Effort should be made to ‘‘right size’’ the ORD staff so that it can continue to support R&D on current and future environmental problems. 

We support the increases requested for the EPA’s S&T directorate, which partially 

reverses several years of funding decreases. An evaluation of EPA’s resources is 

needed to ensure that it can balance between existing priorities and new challenges. 

Program specifics issues are outlined below: 

INDOOR AIR AND RADIATION 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 

Indoor Air: Radon Program .................................................................................... $0 .56 $0 .19 $0 .0 

Reduce Risks from Indoor Air ................................................................................ 0 .36 0 .31 0 .41 

Radiation Protection .............................................................................................. 1 .9 2 .1 2 .0 

Radiation Preparedness Response ........................................................................ 4 .0 3 .8 3 .6 

The Task Force supports the EPA’s replacement of the Radon Program with the 

Federal Radon Action Plan, which will leverage industry and nonprofit efforts to 

amplify existing Federal efforts to reduce radon risk. 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 

Critical Infrastructure Protection ........................................................................... $10 .3 $10 .4 $12 .0 

Preparedness, Response and Recovery ................................................................. 27 .9 27 .3 26 .8 

Protection of EPA Personnel and Infrastructure .................................................... 0 .54 0 .54 0 .57 

Homeland security activities are a significant component of the EPA’s S&T activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection and disaster preparedness and response. The Task Force plans to review the reduced program operation levels, particularly with respect to EPA personnel accounts, to insure that the reductions do 

not delay the completion of the program’s objectives. The Task Force supports the 

additional funding allocated to the Critical Infrastructure Protection program. 

CLEAN AIR AND CLIMATE 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 

Climate Protection ................................................................................................. $13 .0 $8 .31 $8 .0 

The EPA Task Force views Climate Protection Research as a critical issue and 

is troubled by the funding trajectory for this program given funding in the previous 

fiscal years. We urge Congress to appropriate additional funds for Climate Protection to exceed the fiscal year 2015 requested level. 

RESEARCH: AIR, CLIMATE AND ENERGY 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 

2013 

Fiscal year 

2014 

Fiscal year 

2015 

S&T Activities ......................................................................................................... $87 .1 $94 .9 $101 .9 

The EPA Task Force supports the full fiscal year 2015 increased request for Air, 

Climate and Energy Research, particularly the $3.79 million in additional funding 

for support for hydraulic fracturing research activities within the ACE research program. 
222 

SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 

Research $106 .2 $111 .0 $114 .1 

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources funding supports a variety of activities related to the challenges facing U.S. water resources, including drinking water and 

waste water from industrial activities like hydraulic fracturing. Funding for Sustainability research is slated for an increase of just over $3.1 million for this fiscal 

year. The Task Force is pleased that funding has been increased and supports the 

fiscal year 2015 request. 

HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION 

[Dollars in millions] 

Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 

Drinking Water Programs ....................................................................................... $3 .61 $3 .63 $3 .68 

Overall, the fiscal year 2015 budget request calls for a slight increase from the 

fiscal year 2014 appropriated amount. The Task Force considers the long term development of infrastructure related to water quality issues as a high priority of the 

EPA and supports this request given the constrained budget environment. 

WATER QUALITY RESEARCH AND SUPPORT GRANTS

The EPA Task Force urges Congress to again support funding for the Water Quality Research and Support Grant program. Last year, Congress provided $4.23 million for this nationally competitive grant program to fund water quality and availability research. Given the severe droughts and water resource challenges facing 

many parts of the country, the Task Force supports funding at the fiscal year 2014 

appropriated level for this grant program. 

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The fiscal year 2015 EPA budget does not request any funding to support Environmental Education, which was funded at $8.7 million in fiscal year 2014. It is essential to encourage students to pursue careers in environmental science and engineering. Such investments are critical to addressing environmental concerns, bolstering our Nation’s workforce, and maintaining its competitiveness. If Congress 

and the Administration proceed with the transfer of EPA environmental education 

activities to the National Science Foundation (NSF), close coordination and consultation with EPA should be conducted to ensure that the goals of EPA’s programs are 

continued under NSF administration. 

CONCLUSION

The administration’s fiscal year 2015 request is, in part, reflective of a difficult 

fiscal environment where tough choices have to be made to support priorities within 

the EPA. As this Task Force has previously stated, however, difficult budget choices 

should not preclude certain priorities from receiving funding. The Task Force requests that additional funding be allocated for the Homeland Security programs to 

insure that security enhancements to our water supply are not delayed nor disrupted. Further, the Task Force proposes the continued funding of EPA’s Water 

Quality Research Support Grant program. 

This statement represents the views of the EPA Task Force of the Environmental 

Engineering Division (EED) of ASME’s Technical Communities and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) respectfully requests funding 

of no less than $155 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) 

and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). 
223 

In addition, AAMD requests a revision of the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act 

(Public Law 94–158) as amended (Public Law 110–161, Sec. 426) to increase the 

amount of indemnity that may be outstanding at any given time and for any single 

exhibition. Congress last amended the Act in 2005 and 2007, and both times it did 

so through the appropriations process. 

I. THE ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY ACT

Congress and President Gerald Ford approved the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity 

Act in 1975 to promote the international exchange and exhibition of major artworks. 

Officially a program of the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, the program is administered by the NEA. In 2007, Congress expanded eligibility to include 

coverage of works of art owned by U.S. entities while on exhibition in the United 

States. 

Federal indemnity only covers objects in major exhibitions. It usually does not 

cover every object, as some are excluded because they are fragile, or for other reasons. When objects are excluded, the museum must either secure private insurance 

or cover them through its own blanket policy. Having indemnity for some objects 

makes getting insurance for the remainder easier and more affordable. 

Absent indemnification, some exhibitions would have to be cut back in scale, 

whether by traveling to fewer venues or including fewer objects. In some cases, exhibitions would not go forward at all. For this reason, fine arts insurers as well as 

museums support the indemnity program, since they would rather insure some objects in an exhibition than not have the exhibition presented in the first place. 

The program has run smoothly and incurred minimal costs to the Federal Government, which since 1975 has paid just two claims, totaling $104,700. It currently 

saves art museums approximately $30 million annually, while enabling major exhibitions to be presented to audiences around the country, with all of their attendant 

educational and economic benefits. 

The program’s cost has been so low for several reasons. First, it imposes high 

deductibles: for exhibitions indemnified for over $500 million, the deductible is 

$500,000. Second, the program is very strict about what it will cover, with entire 

classes of objects ineligible due to fragility. Third, the program demands the highest 

standards in security and environmental controls; for example, all exhibitions must 

have human guards 24 hours a day, and all works must travel with couriers. 

The Act allows no more than $10 billion in indemnity for international exhibitions 

to be outstanding at any one time, and no single international exhibition may receive indemnity for more than $1.2 billion of value. No more than $5 billion may 

be outstanding at any one time for domestic exhibitions, and no single domestic exhibition may receive indemnity for more than $750 million of value. 

In 2012, museums requested indemnity for nearly $16 billion in value for international exhibitions and over $6 billion for domestic. Museums report that the caps 

are preventing indemnity from being extended to objects that would have been covered in past years. Simply put, there is not enough coverage to go around. As both 

inflation and a rising art market take their toll, the situation is bound to worsen. 

A list of recently indemnified exhibitions appears on the NEA’s Web site. While 

only the museum that organizes the exhibition applies for indemnity, all museums 

that present or lend to the exhibition benefit from it. For example, the Art Museum 

at the Rhode Island School of Design recently shared a Manet portrait and a Renoir 

with audiences far beyond Rhode Island, thanks to the indemnity program. The 

Joslyn Art Museum in Omaha sent its Veronese to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts 

as part of a major exhibition of Venetian painting, Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese: Rivals in Renaissance Venice. 

Nor is it only large institutions that present qualifying exhibitions. For example, 

the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Kentucky organized ‘‘Rembrandt, Rubens, 

Gainsborough and the Golden Age of Painting,’’ which traveled with indemnity to 

the Philbrook Museum of Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma; Dixon Gallery and Gardens in 

Memphis, Tennessee, Flint institute of Arts in Flint, Michigan; and the El Paso Museum of Art in El Paso, Texas. In this case, indemnity coverage permitted the Speed 

to control the exhibition’s costs and translated into a reduced participation fee for 

these moderate sized art museums. 

Since 1975, Congress has raised the international caps several times, the last 

being in 2005, generally anywhere from 25 percent to 100 percent. A partial legislative history is included below. 

AAMD requests that Congress once again raise the international caps and, for the 

first time since instituting the domestic program in 2007, raise its caps as well. 

Using previous congressional actions as precedent, we suggest that it would be reasonable to institute an overall cap of $15 billion for international exhibitions with 
224 

the limit per exhibition rising to $1.8 billion, and an overall cap of $7.5 billion for 

domestic exhibitions with the limit per exhibition rising to $1 billion. 

Partial Legislative History of the Indemnity Act 

1975 S. 1800.—An Act to provide indemnities for exhibitions of artistic and humanistic endeavors, establishes aggregate cap of $250,000,000, with $50,000,000 

maximum per international exhibition. 

1980 S. 1386.—Reauthorization of National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act and the Museum Services Act, increases aggregate cap to $400,000,000. 

1985 S. 1264.—Arts, Humanities and Museums Amendments of 1985, increases 

the aggregate of loss or damage covered at any one time by indemnity agreements 

made under such Act. Increases the maximum level of indemnification for each exhibition. 

1990 H.R. 5769.—Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, increases aggregate cap and exhibition cap. 

1999 H.R. 4328.—Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, amends the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act to increase certain coverage limits for loss or damage of items covered by indemnity agreements under 

such Act. 

2003 H.R. 13.—Museum and Library Services Act, increases aggregate cap from 

$5 billion to $8 billion and exhibition cap from $500 million to $600 million. 

2005 H.R. 2361.—Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, increases aggregate cap to $10 billion and exhibition cap to $1.2 

billion. 

2007 H.R. 2764.—Consolidated Appropriations Act, establishes program for domestic exhibitions with aggregate cap of $5 billion and exhibition cap of $750 million. 

II. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

As stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate no less than $155 million for the NEA. The agency continues to make modest but important grants that 

leverage significant private support. 

For this statement we would like to focus on the Blue Star Museums program, 

which is an outstanding example of NEA leadership. In 2013, 80 percent of AAMD’s 

membership participated in the Blue Star program, which calls on museums to offer 

free admission to active-duty military families at least from Memorial Day to Labor 

Day. Many museums offered free admission year-round. We have asked our members to enroll for 2014 and are receiving an enthusiastic response. 

Inspired by the Blue Star program, many AAMD members have tailored programs 

to the military audience: 

—The Frist Center for the Visual Arts in Nashville, Tennessee presented ‘‘Steve 

Mumford’s War Journals, 2003–2013.’’ Thanks to a generous donor, the Frist 

also offers free membership to military families. 

—The Minneapolis Institute of Art has created a specialized tour for veterans attending the Psychiatry Partial Hospital (PPH) program at the Minneapolis VA. 

The tour, titled ‘‘Honoring the Warrior’’ combines art history, art appreciation 

and art therapy into a unique therapeutic experience where veterans can explore their thoughts and feelings through their reactions to particular works of 

art. 

—The Honolulu Museum of Art is particularly proud of the Warriors’ Eyes on Art 

program, a partnership with Honolulu’s Tripler Army Medical Center. Servicemen and servicewomen in treatment for P.T.S.D. visit the museum before hours 

to visit the galleries and create art works of their own with professionals from 

the museum and medical center. 

—At the Bronx Museum of the Arts, a series of paintings, interviews and stories 

‘‘convey the pressing need for a civilian awareness of the realities and experiences of veterans from current and past generations,’’ according to the museum’s website. 

Each of these AAMD members is a Blue Star Museum. 

III. NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

Finally, and as stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate no less 

than $155 million for the NEH. 

This important agency assists art museums in presenting humanities scholarship 

to the general public. It also has historically played an invaluable role in assisting 

with the preservation and conservation of important collections. This is exactly the 
225 

type of unglamorous work for which it is chronically difficult to raise private funding, making Federal support all the more valuable. 

Both the NEA and NEH rely on the participation of non-governmental peer reviewers in making funding decisions, ensuring that political interference is non-existent. This system is the envy of many nations, and we strongly encourage Congress to maintain its vitality though continued and increased funding. 

We would be happy to answer any questions or provide more information as needed. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER

ADMINISTRATORS

Who We Are: I am John Calkins, president of the Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators (ASDWA). ASDWA represents the State drinking water programs in the 50 States, territories, District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation in 

their efforts to provide safe drinking water to more than 275 million consumers nationwide. 

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2015, the subcommittee appropriate funding for three programs at levels commensurate with Federal expectations 

for performance; that ensure appropriate public health protection; and that will result in enhancing economic stability and prosperity in American cities and towns. 

ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) 

program; $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) 

program; and $10 million for State drinking water program security initiatives. A 

more complete explanation of the needs represented by these requested amounts 

and their justification follows. 

HOW STATES USE FEDERAL FUNDS

Public Health Protection.—States need increased Federal support to maintain 

overall public health protection and to support the needs of the water systems they 

oversee. State drinking water programs strive to meet public health protection goals 

through two principal funding programs: the Public Water System Supervision Program (PWSS) and the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program. These two programs, with their attendant State match requirements, provide 

the means for States to work with drinking water utilities to ensure that American 

citizens can turn on their taps with confidence that the water is both safe to drink 

and the supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water programs have 

accepted additional responsibilities in the area of water system security that include 

working with all public water systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is protected; that plans are in place to respond to both natural and manmade disasters; and that communities are better positioned to support both physical 

and economic resilience in times of crisis. 

Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and businesses all 

depend on a safe, reliable, and adequate supply of drinking water. Economies only 

grow and sustain themselves when they have reliable water supplies. Over 90 percent of the population receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from 

a public water system—overseen by State drinking water program personnel. Firefighting also relies on water from public water systems to ensure public safety. Even 

people who have their own private wells will visit other homes, businesses, and institutions served by a public water system. As important as public water systems 

are to the quality of water we drink and our health, the majority of water produced 

by public water systems is used by businesses for a variety of purposes, including 

processing, cooling, and product manufacturing. The availability of adequate supplies of water is often a critical factor in attracting new industries to communities. 

Public water systems—and the cities, villages, schools, and businesses they support—rely on State drinking water programs to ensure they are in compliance with 

all applicable Federal requirements and the water is safe to drink. Several incidents 

in the U.S. over the past several years that have led to illnesses or deaths from unsafe drinking water serve as stark reminders of the critical nature of the work that 

State drinking water programs do—every day—and the dangers of inadequately 

funded programs, 

The PWSS Program.—To meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), States have accepted primary enforcement responsibility for oversight of 

regulatory compliance and technical assistance efforts for over 155,000 public water 
226 

systems to ensure potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in 

a timely manner. Over 90 contaminants are regulated in Federal drinking water 

regulations and the pace of regulatory activity has accelerated in recent years. Beyond the contaminants covered by Federal drinking water regulations, States are 

also implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect public health from ‘‘the 

source to the tap.’’ These include source water assessments and protections for communities and watersheds; technical assistance with water treatment and distribution for challenged utilities; and enhancement of overall water system performance 

capabilities. In recent years, States have also taken on an increasingly prominent 

role in working with Federal and local partners to help ensure sufficient water 

quantity. In short, State activities go well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the 

tap—and, they perform all of these tasks more efficiently and cheaply than would 

be the case if the program were federally implemented. In short, well supported 

State programs are a ‘‘good deal’’ for America. 

The DWSRF Program.—Drinking water in the U.S. is among the safest and most 

reliable in the world, but it is threatened by aging infrastructure. Through loans 

provided by the DWSRF, States help water utilities overcome this threat. The historical payback to the DWSRF on this investment has been exceptional. In the core 

DWSRF program, $15.7 billion in cumulative Federal capitalization grants since 

1997 have been leveraged by States into over $25.8 billion in infrastructure loans 

to small and large communities across the country (through the end of 2013). Such 

investments pay tremendous dividends—both in supporting our economy and in protecting our citizens’ health. Many State drinking water programs have also used 

‘‘set-asides’’ from the DWSRF to support the technical assistance and training needs 

of numerous small drinking water systems and to help these water systems obtain 

the technical, managerial, and financial proficiency needed to meet SDWA requirements. 

State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.—State drinking water programs 

are critical partners in emergency planning, response, and resiliency at all levels of 

government. In fact, States are typically the critical nexus between Federal and 

local levels officials in emergency situations. State primacy agencies provide key resources and critical support—regardless of whether the emergency is rooted in terrorism, natural disasters, or cyber intrusions. States continually work toward integrating security considerations throughout all aspects of their drinking water programs. 

WHY INCREASED FUNDING IS URGENTLY NEEDED

State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed and the Funding Gap Continues 

to Grow.—States must accomplish all of the above-described activities—and take on 

new responsibilities—in the context of a challenging economic climate. This has 

meant operating with less State-provided financial support—which has historically 

compensated for inadequate Federal funding. State drinking water programs have 

often been expected to do more with less and States have always responded with 

commitment and integrity. However, State drinking water programs are stretched 

to the breaking point. Insufficient Federal support for this critical program increases 

the likelihood of a contamination event that puts the public’s health at risk. Although the 1996 SDWA Amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100 million 

per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached that authorized level— 

a level that now, more than 17 years from the date of those amendments, falls far 

short of the amount needed. $101.9 million was appropriated for the PWSS program 

in fiscal year 2014 and the administration requested only $109 million in fiscal year 

2015. These amounts are woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by 

State drinking water programs. We believe, based on our assessments of every 

State’s need (in a report we released in January 2014), that at least twice that 

amount is needed. Inadequate Federal funding for State drinking water programs 

has a number of negative consequences. Many States are simply unable to implement major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work undone or ceding 

the responsibility back to EPA, which is also challenged by the Agency’s own resource constraints and lack of ‘‘on the ground’’ expertise. This situation has created 

a significant implementation crisis in several regions of the country and is ultimately delaying implementation of critically needed public health protections. 

Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well Below Documented Need.—In 

2013, the Association of Civil Engineers gave the Nation’s water infrastructure a 

D∂ grade and EPA’s most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs 

Survey (2011) indicated that drinking water system infrastructure needs total $384 

billion over the next 20 years. The American Water Works Association recently estimated that 20 year need at $1 trillion. Investment is needed for aging treatment 
227 

plants, storage tanks, pumps, and distribution lines that carry water to our Nation’s 

homes, businesses and schools. States are also providing, in many cases, State funding to augment Federal assistance, as the total loan figures noted above demonstrate. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part of the solution to the Nation’s 

infrastructure crisis. Further, as mentioned earlier, States can ‘‘set-aside’’ funds 

from the DWSRF (up to 31 percent of the grant) for a variety of critical tasks, such 

as shoring up the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of public water systems. Set-asides are thus an essential source of funding for States’ public health 

protection programs and these efforts work in tandem with infrastructure loans. 

State Drinking Water Security Funds Are Urgently Needed.—After 7 years of congressional support for State security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in EPA’s appropriations (from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 

2008), no funds have been provided for this purpose since fiscal year 2009 and none 

are requested by the administration for fiscal year 2015. It is very difficult to understand why this small, but essential grant to States has been zeroed out of EPA’s 

proposed budget and why Congress has not supported State drinking water security 

programs. State drinking water programs urgently need funds to continue to maintain and expand their security activities, particularly in partnership with small and 

medium public water systems. 

DETAILED JUSTIFICATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 REQUEST LEVELS

For the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully requests $200 million.—The number of regulations requiring State implementation and oversight as 

well as performance expectations continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations 

has been essentially ‘‘flat-lined.’’ Inflation has further eroded these inadequate funding levels. States want to offer the flexibilities allowed under existing rules/requirements to local water systems; however, fewer State resources mean less opportunity 

to work one-on-one with water systems to meet their individual needs. The figure 

recommended below is based on ASDWA’s January 2014 resource needs report and 

begins to fill the above-described resource gap. These funds are urgently needed for 

implementing new drinking water rules, taking on a number of other new initiatives, and accounting for the eroding effects of inflation. We further recommend that 

Congress not allow any Federal funds already appropriated to State drinking water 

programs to be rescinded. 

For the DWSRF Program in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully requests $1.3 

billion.—States were very encouraged by the $1.387 billion appropriated for the 

DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 but are disappointed at the subsequent downward 

trend—$963 million in fiscal year 2011, $919 million in fiscal year 2012, $854 million for fiscal year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), and, a somewhat better $907 

million in fiscal year 2014. Of particular concern to the drinking water community 

is the administration’s request of $757 million for fiscal year 2015; a figure we consider to be unacceptably low. The primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating water system compliance with national primary 

drinking water regulations through the provision of loans to improve drinking water 

infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health protection as well 

as a sustainable economy, as explained above. States have very effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with State contributions to provide assistance to 

more than 10,000 projects, improving health protection for millions of Americans. 

The U.S. Conference of Mayors reports that each public dollar invested in water infrastructure increases private long-term Gross Domestic Product output by $6.35. In 

light of these indicators of success and documented needs, we believe funding at the 

$1.3 billion level (commensurate with the fiscal year 2010 appropriation) will better 

enable the DWSRF to meet the SDWA compliance and public health protection 

goals for which it was designed. 

For State Drinking Water Security Programs in fiscal year 2015, ASDWA respectfully requests $10 million.—Given the realities and the lessons learned from recent 

catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey; tornados in central Oklahoma; wildfires and floods in Colorado; and continuing drought 

in Texas—to name but a few—State drinking water programs are working more 

closely than ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking 

water systems’ preparedness, response, and resiliency capabilities. States continue 

to expand their efforts to reflect a resilient, ‘‘all hazards’’ approach to water security 

and to assist public water systems of all sizes—with a particular focus on smaller 

water systems that most need help. 
228 

CONCLUSION

ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal year 2015 budget needs 

for States’ role in the provision of safe drinking water be adequately funded by Congress. A strong State drinking water program supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, in fact, will continue to improve—so that the public can be assured that 

a glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live. States are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal financial assistance is 

needed to meet ongoing and ever growing regulatory, infrastructure, and security 

needs. In 1996, Congress provided the authority to ensure that the burden would 

not go unsupported. For fiscal year 2015, ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be realized. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS

Thank you Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski for allowing me to 

submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation’s 213 U.S. accredited zoos and 

aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my support for the inclusion of 

$10,000,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $9.7 million for National Environmental 

Education Act programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal 

year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a nonprofit 

501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in the 

areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation. Accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than 182 million visitors, collectively generate more than 

$21 billion in annual economic activity, and support more than 204,000 jobs across 

the country. Annually, AZA-accredited institutions spend $160,000,000 on more 

than 2,650 field conservation projects in 130 countries. 

MSCF programs support public-private partnerships that conserve wild tigers, 

elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles in their native habitats. Through 

the MSCF programs, the United States supplements the efforts of developing countries that are struggling to balance the needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. MSCF programs help to sustain wildlife populations, address threats 

such as illegal poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential habitat. By working with local communities, they also improve people’s livelihoods, contribute to local and regional stability, and support U.S. security interests in impoverished regions. This Federal program benefits AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums 

in their field conservation efforts and partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

I also encourage you to continue to support the valuable environmental education 

initiatives at the EPA. Education programs at AZA-accredited institutions provide 

essential learning opportunities, particularly about science, for schoolchildren in formal and informal settings. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are 

lagging behind their international peers in certain subjects including science and 

math. In the last 10 years, accredited zoos and aquariums formally trained more 

than 400,000 teachers, supporting science curricula with effective teaching materials 

and hands-on opportunities. School field trips annually connect more than 

12,000,000 students with the natural world. Increasing access to formal and informal science education opportunities has never been more important. 

Finally, much of the important conservation work at accredited zoos and aquariums depends on a robust and fully staffed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While 

I am aware of the budget challenges facing Congress and the agencies, I encourage 

you to ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sufficient resources to employ qualified professionals, particularly for the programs handling permits, which 

support the science-based conservation breeding and wildlife education programs 

that require animals to be moved in an efficient, timely manner: International Affairs (Management Authority), Endangered Species, Law Enforcement, and Migratory Birds. 

AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential conservation and education 

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels domestically as well as internationally. To ensure that accredited zoos and aquariums can continue to serve in these 

important roles, I urge you to include $10,000,000 for the Multinational Species 

Conservation Funds operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $9.7 million 

for National Environmental Education Act programs at the Environmental Protection Agency in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 
229 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BRISTOL BAY AREA HEALTH CORPORATION

The requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) for the fiscal 

year 2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows: —Allocate at least an additional $8.5 million to the IHS to fully fund Village Built 

Clinic (VBC) leases, and direct the IHS to use its fiscal year 2015 appropriations to fully fund the VBC leases in accordance with section 804 of the Indian 

Health Care Improvement Act. 

—Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by moving the 

program to mandatory entitlement spending. 

—Support reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians at $200 

million annually. 

—Allocate $50 million to the IHS from the Prevention and Public Health Fund 

for tribal behavioral health grants. 

—Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis. 

—Improve the safety of Alaska Native communities by affirming tribal jurisdiction. 

The BBAHC was created in 1973 to provide healthcare services to Alaska Natives 

of Southwest Alaska. BBAHC began operating and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the Bristol Bay Service Unit for the IHS in 1980 and was the first tribal 

organization to do so under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 

Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact with the 

IHS under the ISDEAA and is now responsible for providing and promoting 

healthcare to the people of 34 Alaska Native villages. 

Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska.—For the last several years, BBAHC 

has submitted testimony to this subcommittee on the need to address chronic underfunding of VBCs in Alaska. VBCs are clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other 

entities and are a vital component of the provision of basic healthcare services in 

rural Alaska. VBCs serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). The CHAP, 

which IHS is directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a network of community 

health aides and practitioners to provide primary healthcare services in rural and 

isolated areas where access to those services might not otherwise exist. 

In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs in Alaska and 

provided approximately $3 million in funding for the program for that year. Since 

then, Congress has not provided amounts specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. But even though the 1989 appropriation was not a cap restricting IHS allocation of funds in later years, IHS has treated it as such and has refused to increase 

funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace with inflation or the 

rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC 

facilities, threatening the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for 

rural Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly maintained 

VBC space. 

According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska Native 

Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million is needed to fully fund 

the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need. BBAHC therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional $8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be 

directed to use its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases in accordance 

with section 804 of the IHCIA. 

This subcommittee should also be aware that, having attempted without success 

for many years to convince IHS to accept its responsibilities for the VBCs as part 

of the mandated CHAP program, some tribal organizations in Alaska are taking a 

new approach. The Maniilaq Association recently requested that the IHS enter into 

a mandatory lease under 105(l) of the ISDEAA for one of the VBCs that Maniilaq 

owns. Implementing regulations require payment under the lease to fully compensate for the costs of adequately operating and maintaining the facilities. However, the IHS refused to enter into the lease, and the matter is now being litigated. 

If Maniilaq prevails, the case could establish legal precedent that will allow tribal 

contractors in Alaska to negotiate for full funding for VBCs as part of their funding 

agreements under the IHS’s ISDEAA leasing authority. Though funding should be 

provided in full through the VBC program directly, the option to enter into a § 105(l) 

lease must also be preserved as an alternative funding mechanism. 
230 

Ensure Contract Support Costs Remain Fully Funded via Mandatory Spending.— 

We are pleased that the administration is following the subcommittee’s lead, and 

seeks to fully fund contract support costs (CSC) under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 

2015, and we urge Congress to continue supporting that goal. Contract support costs 

fund vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that provide 

critical services to our members—such as dental care, urgent care in village clinics, 

wide ranging community health services, and 24-hour medical care in Kanakanak 

Hospital. If CSC are not fully funded, however, our programs and services are directly impacted as we are forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed 

overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal year 

2014 and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding for CSC must 

not come with a penalty—namely, a reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. That result would have the same 

devastating effect on our service delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, noted that ‘‘since [contract support costs] fall under 

discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all other programs funded 

under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, including other equally important tribal programs.’’ Moreover, without any permanent measure to ensure full 

funding, payment of CSC remains subject to agency discretion from year to year, 

even though tribes are legally entitled to full payment under the ISDEAA. Noting 

these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult with tribes 

on a permanent solution. 

In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress is empowered 

to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the 

ISDEAA, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the budget authority for CSC is currently 

provided and controlled through appropriation acts—as if it were a discretionary 

program. Congress recognized that the current fundamental mismatch between the 

mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation approach leaves both the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the ‘‘untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract 

support costs.’’ As the Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ‘‘Typically obligations of this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move to appropriate 

funding for CSC on a mandatory basis. 

Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program.—While the entitlement funding for the 

Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations 

process, those funds are administered through the IHS. With the recent enactment 

into law of a 1-year extension of the SDPI as part of the Medicare ‘‘doc fix’’ bill (Public Law 113–93), it is funded through fiscal year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2 

percent reduction ($3 million) due to the sequestration of non-exempt mandatory 

programs (Public Law 112–240). This funding level has not increased since 2004. 

The SDPI has proven highly effective in Indian country, and has produced excellent 

results. For example, in the 4 years preceding the last report on the SDPI in 2011, 

the average blood sugar level dropped nearly a percentage point overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye, kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this 

program for a 5-year period at an annual funding level of $200 million. 

Increase Funding for Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention, and Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment.—Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our 

communities’ behavioral and mental health. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for suicide intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention, particularly for our youth. These efforts go hand in hand, as the problems often 

overlap. Alaska has twice the national rate of suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly six times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among 

all Alaskans increased by 33 percent between 2005–2008—a period when the national rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide epidemic is 

alcohol and substance abuse, or a mental health disorder. The overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health 

or substance abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 months, and due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people, particularly young people. 
231 

Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect. Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska 

have a difficult time working through the State of Alaska to provide these services, 

which adds layers of guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found 

that tribes and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly, because 

programs that implement traditional cultural values are more successful than those 

that don’t. Included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is mandatory funding ($17.7 

billion over 10 years) for a Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which 

Congress may allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new tribal behavioral health 

grant program; unfortunately Congress did not provide that allocation. We urge that 

Congress allocate $50 million to the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and 

that it be recurring. 

IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.—We support legislation that would 

place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The goal is for the IHS 

and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of 

Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of 

late funding and short-term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is 

for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS 

advance appropriations has been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Young 

and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. 

Support Tribal Jurisdiction To Protect Alaska Communities.—We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe Families and Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska tribes’ jurisdiction to protect their communities by 

dealing locally with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug and alcohol abuse. 

At the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in S. 1474 

which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization 

that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal jurisdiction over domestic violence 

affirmed in that law. These changes will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs 

resources regarding law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work 

with our congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial importance to Alaska Native communities. 

Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We will be glad to provide any 

additional information the subcommittee may request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAY BUSHNELL

APRIL 4, 2014. 

To: Hon. Jack Reed, Chair of Senate Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment 

and Related Agencies 

From: Dr. Jay Bushnell, immediate past president and advocacy chair, Friends of 

the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys National Wildlife Refuges 

Re: Support the 2015 $476 million proposed budget for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

I would encourage your subcommittee to develop a plan to eventually fully fund 

the refuge system. The proposed budget of $476 million is a small step in that direction. This does not represent a major increase in funding from what has been budgeted since 2007. Yet over the last 7 years the refuge system has increased from 

some 500 to over 561 refuges. It has become increasing difficult, if not impossible, 

to fulfill the refuge mission as outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 with continued budget constraints. The predicted cut in positions continues to plague the refuge system and specifically hampers the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Key National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). 

While the primary mission of the refuge system is focused on wildlife conservation, it is also important to recognize that the system is an economic engine. The 

report Banking on Nature points out that in 2011 for every dollar invested there 

was a return of $4.87 to the local communities. Over 70 percent of the revenue contributed came from non-local visitors who were attracted to non-consumptive activities like wildlife viewing, photography and hiking in the refuges. The fact that the 

Friends of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR are having 3,000–4,000 folks 

visiting our Web page each month verifies the fact that we are reaching a large nonlocal crowd (please check us out at friendsofrefuges.org). Funding of the refuge system should be considered an investment with a great rate of return. 

The Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWRs have four positions that have not 

been refilled, including a designated biologist we have been without since 2006 
232 

when I first started volunteering, and now a full time law enforcement officer. We 

also face the possibility of not acquiring a critical piece of land that has been on 

the approved U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) acquisition list. Some 2,000 acres 

that are a part of what is referred to Caber property are now on the market. This 

has been considered a vital acquisition for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

portion of the proposed budget. 

The Lower Suwannee NWR comprises over 52,000 acres that are split by the historic Suwannee River for the last 20–25 miles where the river empties into the Gulf 

of Mexico. The Cedar Keys NWR is composed of some 727 acres on 13 islands in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Because of their non-contiguous nature, both refuges face challenging management issues. 

The Lower Suwannee NWR is special and unique in the following ways: 

—The pristine natural condition of the refuge helps protect the environmental 

health of the Suwannee River and the surrounding area. 

—The Suwannee River is home to a wide variety of plant and animal life. The 

river is the most important spawning ground for the protected gulf sturgeon. 

The river is also an important habitat for the endangered manatee. 

—The refuge contains a unique combination of upland hardwood, wetland/swamp, 

and saltwater marsh habitats. Uniquely, one can find both temperate and tropical types of vegetation in the refuge. 

—The refuge provides habitat for a wide variety of birds including 15 endangered 

or threatened species like the bald eagle. The refuge is an important nesting 

site for the short-tailed hawks of which there are only an estimated 200 mating 

pairs in the wild. The swallowtail kite, once widespread, now is restricted to 

just the southeastern portion of the United States with the refuge being a very 

important nesting site. 

—Combined with surrounding State parks, the refuge will become an even more 

important conservation area as Florida’s population increases. 

—With constructed bat houses, the refuge has successfully established a viable 

bat population that serves as a model for future bat projects. 

—Many important cultural heritage sites are also to be found in the refuge. 

The Cedar Keys NWR is special and unique in the following ways: 

—The 727-acre refuge composed of 13 islands is a major rookery for pelicans and 

a wide variety of shore birds. 

—As studied by the University of Florida’s Florida Marine Center, of particular 

interest is the symbiotic relationship of cottonmouth moccasins and nesting 

birds on Seahorse Key. The moccasins provide protection from predators like 

raccoons and rats for the nesting birds. In return, the birds provide a steady 

diet of fish for the moccasins. This is the only place on earth that such a relationship between snakes and birds exists. 

—The Lower Suwannee Archaeological Survey of the University of Florida has uncovered prehistorical sites dating back over 4,000 years. 

—Historically, the refuge contains important historical structures including the 

Seahorse Key Lighthouse designed in the 1850s by Lieutenant George Meade, 

later to become General Meade of Gettysburg fame. It is also of interest that 

the lighthouse sits on a natural dune that is some 50∂ feet above sea level. 

This makes it one of the highest points in the Big Bend area of Florida. 

—This refuge also provides a vital barrier island system. 

Presently, the most critical problem we face involves staffing. With adequate staffing, along with operational funding, the refuge staff, with the help of the Friends 

of the Lower Suwannee and Cedar Keys NWR, would be able to: 

—Provide better monitoring of the health of the refuges’ habitat; 

—Consistently police the proper utilization of the resources of the refuges and to 

protect the habitat and its wildlife; 

—Conduct more programs for school children to learn about conservation; 

—Expand the conservation efforts across other public agencies as well as private 

stakeholders to deal with common problems like invasive species eradication 

and the protection of endangered species; 

—Upgrade and maintain public facilities like roads, docks, boardwalks, observation stations and signage; 

—Expand public access and use of the refuges; and 

—Monitor, manage, and protect the flora and fauna in the refuges. 

Thank you for considering these requests. 
233 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Chairman Reed, Senator Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for the opportunity to submit written testimony. I am Brett Hartl, endangered 

species policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. The Center is a nonprofit environmental organization focused on the protection of native species and 

their habitats through science, policy and environmental law. The Center has more 

than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is America’s strongest environmental law. It 

has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the 1,500 domestic species it protects. 

Were it not for the Act, scientists estimate that 227 of these plants and animals 

would have disappeared by 2006, and even more by 2012. The Act also has had considerable success moving species towards recovery. A 2011 study by the Center identified 110 listed species that have seen substantial recovery with Endangered Species Act protection, with over 90 percent of these species recovering at the rate projected in their recovery plan. 

However, not all species have approved recovery plans yet, and some species with 

recovery plans continue to decline. The Service’s 2010 report to Congress indicated 

that approximately 339 threatened and endangered species are still declining towards extinction. As the extinction crisis worsens due to threats including climate 

change, many other once-common species, such as monarch butterflies and greater 

sage-grouse, have experienced major population declines and may need to be listed 

in the future. 

Simply put, Federal funding has not kept up with the biological needs of listed species in the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Service received $170.5 million 

for endangered species in fiscal year 2014 to conserve approximately 1,500 protected 

species. By comparison, the National Marine Fisheries Service received $176 million 

to conserve approximately 180 species protected by the ESA and Marine Mammal 

Protection Act. And the U.S. Agency for International Development received $184 

million for biodiversity conservation internationally. The Center has identified three 

areas where funding beyond what is proposed for the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

the President’s 2015 budget proposal is required to address the continuing extinction crisis in the United States: (1) listing of endangered species; (2) species recovery 

funding; and (3) land acquisition for endangered species. 

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR LISTING UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE ESA

Protecting a species as threatened or endangered is the keystone of the ESA because it is only after a species is listed that it receives meaningful protections under 

the Act. In fact, the length of time a species has been protected and has had designated critical habitat significantly increase the likelihood a species will improve. 

Species designated as ‘‘candidates’’ for protection due to lack of funding, are far 

more likely to become extinct. Most recently, the Tacoma pocket gopher (Thomomys 

mazama tacomensis) was declared extinct in 2014. The species was first identified 

as declining in 1985 and declared a candidate for ESA protection in 2001. But its 

last populations winked out while waiting for ESA protections. 

Although the Service has long-struggled to list species according to the deadlines 

established by the ESA, the backlog of candidate species that warrant protection 

under the Act greatly increased following the moratorium imposed on listing in 

1995. Since then, Congress has imposed a funding cap on the amount of money the 

Service can spend in a year on listing. Currently, using the best-available science, 

the Service has identified 146 candidate species that warrant protection under the 

ESA, but for which funding is insufficient to complete the listing process. Some of 

these species, such as the band-rumped storm-petrel and Great Basin Columbia 

spotted frog, have awaited protections since 1989. Many more have waited for ESA 

protections since the early 1990s. 

Funding for listing peaked in fiscal year 2010 at $22.1 million and has since fallen 

by 10 percent. Hamstringing the Service budget does not further the recovery of any 

of these candidate species. Instead, delaying listing invariably leads to greater population declines, making recovery harder, longer, and more costly to achieve. The 

facts have demonstrated that for nearly all endangered species, the only path to recovery has been through protection under the ESA. The more quickly species are 

listed, the more quickly recovery planning and recovery work can begin, and the 

faster species can be delisted as recovered. 

The current average cost of completing the listing process for a candidate species 

under the ESA is approximately $650,000. Raising the budget subcap from the fiscal 

year 2014 level of $20 million to $30 million a year would allow the Service to completely address the listing backlog and address all candidate species in the next 3 
234 

years. Eliminating the backlog would not only provide an immediate conservation 

benefit to these species, but would also potentially allow the Service to more efficiently list species moving forward. Because funding has historically been insufficient to complete the listing process, the Service must add an additional step in the 

listing process and publish a separate 12-month finding that the species is ‘‘warranted-but-precluded’’—and each of these 12-month findings costs $100,000. Eliminating the backlog would save the Service $100,000/species and would allow the 

Service to use the more-streamlined process already employed by the Service when 

it delists recovered species. 

FUNDING FOR RECOVERY

The purpose of the ESA is not only to save species from extinction but also to 

recover them to the point that the protections provided by the Act are no longer necessary. Recovering species under the ESA requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

address and alleviate the threats that caused a species to decline in the first instance, including controlling invasive species, restoring degraded habitat, reducing 

illegal poaching, reintroducing new populations, and other forms of intensive management. All recovery actions are costly, especially with new and growing threats 

such as climate change. As shown in Figure 1, funding for recovery in inflation-adjusted dollars has remained flat to declining. 

Figure 1.—Recovery Funding Fiscal Year 1989 to Fiscal Year 2014 

As the extinction crisis continues and more species need protection under the 

ESA, the average amount of money available per species continues to decline. In 

real dollars, the average amount in inflation-adjusted dollars spent per species on 

recovery peaked in 1999 at $40,915 per species and has since dropped to $30,090/ 

species. Nearly 150 listed species receive less than $1,000 per year, or three dollars 

per day, to address their recovery and almost 100 species are getting no money at 

all. Many of the species that the Service has identified as declining are those that 

receive little to zero funding per year. 

If Congress wants to see more species recovered more quickly, then it should restore all of the cuts to ESA recovery funding that have occurred in the past 5 years 

and provide additional funding to the Service moving forward. First, Congress 

should restore full funding to the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation 

Fund (CESCF). In 2001, Congress allocated $104.7 million to the CESCF and has 

since reduced funding to this program by 47 percent to a level of only $50.1 million. 

This program provides valuable conservation tools and funding to States, territories 

and private landowners to participate in a wide array of conservation projects for 

candidate and listed. Cutting this program dis-empowers States and makes it hard-
235 

er for them to meaningfully participate in the conservation and recovery of endangered species. 

Figure 2.—Average Recovery Funding/Species Fiscal Year 1989 to Fiscal Year 2014 

Species 

Second, Congress should significantly increase the amount of funding for recovery 

by ensuring that each listed species receives at least $7,500 each year in direct recovery funding. Doing so would require Congress to provide at minimum, an additional $26 million per year in recovery funding. This would better ensure that endangered species that are continuing to decline receive some attention each year 

from conservation professionals. 

The longer a species is in crisis, the more expensive it becomes for that species 

to fully recover. Failing to ensure that each species receives a nominal amount of 

money for recovery makes recovery of declining species much less likely. Increasing 

the overall funding for recovery will prevent species from declining to the point 

where listing is necessary and will reduce the amount of recovery work that Fish 

and Wildlife will have to do down the road. 

LAND ACQUISITION

For listed species with finalized recovery plans, approximately 450 plans have 

identified land acquisitions (either through outright purchase or the securing of 

easements) as priority actions that would improve the conservation status of those 

listed species. For example, the El Segundo blue butterfly population size has increased by 22,312 percent since it was protected by the ESA in 1984. However, the 

butterfly’s recovery plan states that until four parcels of expensive, coastal land 

near the Los Angeles International Airport can be secured through purchase or acquisition, this species probably cannot be either downlisted to threatened or considered recovered. Simply put, land conservation could significantly improve the recovery rate of listed species. 

Funding available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to secure habitat for endangered species has simply not kept up with the biological need. 

The Center recommends that Congress amend the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Act to (1) make all money that is authorized for land acquisition each year 

immediately available in full without further appropriation, and (2) that the conservation fund cap be indexed to the amount of royalties and revenues received from 

oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). 

In 1968, Congress first made revenues from OCS development part of the conservation fund and set the annual authorization level at $200 million. At that time, 
236 

1S. Rep. No. 90–1071, at 2618 (1968), reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2613, 2618. 2S. Rep. No. 95–162, at 8 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 322, 328. 

OCS revenues were approximately $500 million per year.1 In other words, the conservation fund was authorized to use around 40 percent of the annual revenue 

stream from the OCS. In 1977, after OCS revenues increased to $4 billion/year,2

Congress increased the authorized level of the fund to $900 million. This authorization represented approximately 22.5 percent of total OCS annual revenues. Since 

1977, the conservation fund authorization amount has remained at $900 million 

while the total revenues from the OCS have continued to rise and are now reaching 

levels of up to $9 billion/year. The percentage of OCS revenues potentially going into 

the conservation fund has dropped from 40 percent of annual OCS receipts in 1968, 

to only 6 percent in 2014. 

Increasing the conservation fund to 22.5 percent of current OCS revenues would 

mean that approximately $2.025 billion would be available each year for land acquisition. Providing this full amount for land acquisition would allow the entire Department of Interior to address its priority land acquisitions. While this increase is substantial, it is important to remember that the purchasing power of the conservation 

fund has diminished because the average cost of land acquisition has risen nearly 

ten-fold from an average of $162 per acre in the 1960s to $1,515 per acre in the 

2000s. At current funding levels, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that it 

would take 44 to 75 years to acquire the land that has already been identified as 

priority acquisitions by the Service. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT

On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), I encourage you to include $5.2 million for general water quality improvement efforts within 

the Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects 

in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program in fiscal 

year 2015. This funding will help protect the water quality of the Colorado River 

that is used by approximately 40 million people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 4 million acres in the United States. 

CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project, a multi-purpose water resource development and management project that delivers Colorado River water into central 

and southern Arizona. The largest supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over 1.6 million acre-foot of Arizona’s 2.8 million acre-foot Colorado River entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users, agricultural irrigation districts, and Indian communities. 

Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and sustainable supply of 

Colorado River water to a service area that includes more than 80 percent of Arizona’s population. 

These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona’s economy and to the 

economies of Native American communities throughout the State. Nearly 90 percent 

of economic activity in the State of Arizona occurs within CAP’s service area. CAP 

also helps the State of Arizona meet its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing groundwater use and ensuring availability of groundwater as a 

supplemental water supply during future droughts. Achieving and maintaining 

these water management objectives is critical to the long-term sustainability of a 

State as arid as Arizona. 

NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF CONCENTRATED SALTS

Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the 

salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land 

within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is administered 

by BLM. Human activity, principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado 

River. Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts in the 

River. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $295 million per year to U.S. users with projections that 

damages would increase to more than $500 million by 2030 if the program were not 

to continue. These damages include: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use to meet 

the leaching requirements in the agricultural sector; 
237 

—increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine disposal for 

recycling water in the municipal sector; 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector; 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

and 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation 

of salts in groundwater basins. 

Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid significant increases in economic 

damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users. 

HISTORY OF THE BLM COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Congress 

recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from federally 

owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to 

the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United States. This testimony deals specific with title II efforts. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity 

Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive 

program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM. 

In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and requested a report 

on the implementation of BLM’s program (Public Law 106–459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin 

and to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control 

practices. With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming 

from BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is essential 

to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in 

significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United States and 

Mexico. On November 20, 2012, a 5-year agreement, known as Minute 319, was 

signed between the U.S. and Mexico to guide future management of the Colorado 

River. Among the key issues addressed in Minute 319 included an agreement to 

maintain current salinity management and existing salinity standards. The CAWCD 

and other key water providers are committed to meeting these goals. 

CONCLUSION

Implementation of salinity control practices through BLM Program has proven to 

be a very cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the Colorado River. In 

fact, the salt load of the Colorado River has now been reduced by roughly 1.2 million 

tons annually, reducing salinity in the Lower Basin by more than 100 ppm. However, shortfalls in funding levels have led to inefficiencies in the implementation of 

the overall Program. Therefore, additional funding is required in 2015 to meet this 

goal and prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River with a 

commensurate increase in downstream economic damages. 

CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $5.2 million for general water quality 

improvement efforts within the Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million 

for salinity specific projects in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Soil, Water 

and Air Program. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages from 

the higher salt concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United 

States and Mexico. 
238 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

APRIL 3, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

GENE SHAWCROFT, P.E., 

Deputy General Manager. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH NETWORK

The Children’s Environmental Health Network (CEHN or the Network) is pleased 

to have this opportunity to submit testimony on fiscal year 2015 appropriations for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). We seek funding levels of $9 billion for EPA 

and $76.2 million for ATSDR. 

CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the requested levels 

for the following EPA activities: 

—Office of Children’s Health Protection 

—Children’s Environmental Health & Disease Prevention Research Centers 

—Office of Research & Development 

—School and Child Care Environmental Health 

—The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units 

CEHN also urges the restoration of the State Indoor Radon Grants and full funding of all activities that advance healthy school and childcare environments for all 

children, including those supported by ATSDR. 

The Network’s mission is to protect the developing child from environmental hazards and promote a healthier environment. The Network’s Board and committee 

members include internationally-respected experts in children’s environmental 

health science and policy. We recognize that children, in our society, have unique 

moral standing. 

Today’s children are facing the distressing possibility that they may be the first 

generation to see a shorter life expectancy than their parents due to poor health. 

Key contributors to this trend are the modern pediatric epidemics of obesity, asthma, learning disabilities, and autism. For all of these conditions, the child’s environment plays a role in causing, contributing to or mitigating these chronic conditions. 
239 

1Trasande, Liu Y. ‘‘Reducing The Staggering Costs Of Environmental Disease In Children, 

Estimated At $76.6 Billion In 2008, Health Affairs. No. (2011): doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1239. 

The estimated costs of environmental disease in children (such as lead poisoning, 

childhood cancer, and asthma) were $76.6 billion in 2008.1

Investments in programs that protect and promote children’s health will be repaid 

by healthier children with brighter futures. Thus it is vital that the Federal programs and activities that protect children from environmental hazards receive adequate resources. 

As epidemiologists see increasing rates of asthma, learning disabilities, and childhood cancers; as parents seek the causes of birth defects; as researchers understand 

more and more about the fetal origins of disease, policy makers must do a much 

better job of understanding and acting on the connections between children’s health 

and the environments in which they spend their time. 

These environments include, but go beyond, home, school, and childcare settings. 

A growing number of studies are finding unexpected impacts of prenatal environmental exposures on health in later years. For example, prenatal exposures to either 

a common air pollutant or a common pesticide have each been linked to lower IQs 

and poorer working memory at age 7. 

Thus, all agencies should assure that their children’s programs build on and respond to the growing evidence of the importance of prenatal and early life exposures 

to a child’s health and future. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

A variety of factors, such as children’s developing systems, their unique behaviors, 

and differing exposures, mean that children can be more susceptible than adults to 

harm from toxic chemicals. Standards and guidelines that are based on adults cannot be assumed to be protective of children. The EPA programs of highest importance in the protection of children are described below. 

EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP).—OCHP has been leading 

EPA’s efforts to protect children from environmental hazards since 1997. Despite an 

effective track record, funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6 million, since its creation. OCHP focuses on interagency work that promotes healthy 

housing and healthy children. These areas show that environmental interventions 

result in great cost savings, not to mention the health problems averted, such as 

asthma episodes and lead poisoning cases. There is great interest but few resources 

for these approaches. We urge increased funding for this vital office. 

Children’s Environmental Health & Disease Prevention Research Centers.—These 

Centers, jointly funded by EPA and NIEHS, play a key role in providing the scientific basis for protecting children from environmental hazards. With their modest 

budgets, which have been unchanged for more than 10 years, these centers generate 

valuable research. It was these centers, for example, that generated the findings 

mentioned earlier about connections between prenatal exposures and lower IQ at 

age 7. 

Several Centers have established longitudinal cohorts, which in some cases are 

more than 10 years old. The ability to look for linkages between exposures and 

health outcomes in infants, toddlers, and, now, adolescents, is vital. If these cohorts 

are disbanded due to funding cuts, at best it will take years and untold resources 

before it is possible to replicate them. Few if any longitudinal cohort studies on adolescents, puberty and environmental exposures exist. The Network is concerned that 

inadequate funding may result in the loss of these valuable cohorts. We urge the 

subcommittee to support these centers at $33 million in fiscal year 2015. 

Office of Research & Development (ORD).—This office is critical in efforts to understand environmental impacts on children’s health. EPA has pledged to increase 

its efforts to provide a safe and healthy environment for children by ensuring that 

all EPA regulations, standards, policies, and risk assessments take into account 

childhood vulnerabilities to environmental chemicals. We encourage additional 

funds for research on children’s issues in fiscal year 2015. We ask that your subcommittee direct the office to improve transparency by tracking and reporting on 

the funding and research across the office dedicated to children’s environmental 

health. 

Children’s environmental health is an issue that cuts across all of ORD’s programs. For example, EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research 

Laboratory scientists are protecting children’s health through the development of 

cost-effective methods to test and rank chemicals for their potential to cause developmental neurotoxicity. To date, only a small number of the thousands of chemicals 

currently in commerce have been assessed for their potential toxicity and for their 
240 

effects on the child’s developing nervous system. These new testing methods can 

screen in hours to days instead of months to years and will provide faster, less expensive ways of assessing potential toxicity. 

These new testing methods, however, do not replace the need for continued research in childhood exposures and health effects. Much of the research in this field 

cannot be conducted in a short timeframe and requires sustained funding if scientists are to conduct research and measure effectiveness. 

State Radon Grants.—Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, 

and the EPA reports that it is one of the most serious public health problems in 

the United States, responsible for up to 21,000 lung cancer deaths annually. While 

we applaud the Agency’s continued work on indoor air quality, asthma, and its 

plans to ‘‘continue to lead on radon activities,’’ we are not convinced that the way 

to do so is to eliminate the State Indoor Radon Grants. We urge you to restore this 

program. 

School and Child Care Environmental Health.—In America today, millions of children, often as young as 6 weeks, spend 40–50 hours a week in childcare. Yet, little 

is known about the environmental health status of the Nation’s childcare centers 

or how to assure that these facilities are protecting this highly vulnerable group of 

children. Environmental health is rarely if ever considered in licensing regulations 

or in training childcare professionals. Similarly, about 54 million children and nearly 7 million adults —20 percent of the total U.S. population—spend up to 40 hours 

per week inside school facilities every week. Unfortunately, many of these facilities 

contain unsafe environmental conditions that harm children’s health and undermine 

attendance, achievement, and productivity. Thus, it is vital that EPA maintain and 

expand its activities for healthy school and child care settings, such as the Indoor 

Air Quality Tools for Schools program. 

Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units.—Pediatric Environmental Health 

Specialty Units (PEHSUs) form a valuable resource network for parents and clinicians around the Nation. They are funded jointly by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the EPA with a very modest budget. 

PEHSU professionals provide medical consultation to healthcare professionals from 

individual cases of exposure to advice regarding large-scale community issues. 

PEHSUs also provide information and resources to school, child care, health and 

medical, and community groups and help inform policymakers by providing data 

and background on local or regional environmental health issues and implications 

for specific populations or areas. We urge the subcommittee to provide adequate 

funding for both EPA’s and ATSDR’s portions of this program. 

ATSDR

CEHN urges the subcommittee to provide funding at or above the requested levels 

for ATSDR activities. ATSDR uses the best science in taking public health actions, 

such as site assessments and toxicological profiles, to prevent harmful exposures 

and diseases of communities and individuals related to toxic substances. 

ATSDR understands that in communities faced with contamination of their water, 

soil, air, or food, infants and children can be more sensitive to environmental exposure than adults and that assessment, prevention, and efforts to find remedies for 

exposures must focus on children because of their vulnerability and importance to 

the Nation’s future. We support the full funding of ATSDR and the continuation of 

their varied responsibilities. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND HEALTHY CHILDREN MUST BE ON-GOING PRIORITIES FOR THIS

AND EVERY ADMINISTRATION

We have seen much progress in recognizing the impact of environmental toxicants 

on children’s health. Much more remains to be done, however. The Network urges 

the subcommittee to direct both agencies to assure that all of their activities and 

programs—including regulations, guidelines, assessments and research—specifically 

consider children. 

EPA and ATSDR must always assure that children and other vulnerable subpopulations are protected, especially poor children, minority children, farmworker 

children, and others at risk. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on these critical issues, and 

thank you for your concern about the environmental health of children. 
241 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). On behalf of Chief Gary Batton, I submit this testimony which 

identifies the funding priorities and budget issues important to the citizens of Choctaw. We request that the subcommittee work with tribes and not allow tribal programs in the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs, as well as 

throughout the entire Federal Government, to incur further sequestration budget 

decreases and across the board rescissions that are not imposed on other beneficiaries of the Federal budget. 

We recommend the following: 

Indian Health Service 

1. Joint Venture Program—Increase President’s Request to $170 million. 

2. Special Diabetes Program for Indians—Reauthorize for 5 years at $200 million/ 

year. 3. Restore Funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance—$6 million. 

Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs 

1. Contract Support Costs—Full Funding with an Annual Special Appropriation. 

2. Restore Sequestered Funds and Exempt Tribes from Future Sequestration. 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American tribal government in the United States, with over 208,000 members. The Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in southeast Oklahoma, and we are 

proudly one of the State’s largest employers. The nation operates numerous programs and services under Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not limited to: a sophisticated health system serving over 33,000 patients 

with a hospital in Talihina, Oklahoma, eight outpatient clinics, referred specialty 

care and sanitation facilities construction; higher education; Johnson O’Malley program; housing improvement; child welfare and social services; law enforcement; and 

many others. 

JOINT VENTURE PROGRAM—INCREASE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST TO $170 MILLION

The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) allows IHS to enter into agreements with tribes that construct their own health facilities. The funding for the construction of the health facility comes from the tribe using their resources, financing 

or other funding sources with the exception of the IHS healthcare facility construction appropriations. Tribes apply for the JVCP during a competitive process and 

projects that are approved enter into agreements with IHS. Upon projected completion of construction by the respective tribe, the IHS agrees to request congressional 

appropriations for additional staffing and operations based on the tribes’ projected 

dates of completion, fully executed beneficial occupancy and opening. 

The President’s proposed level of $85 million will not support the intent of the 

JVCP and should be increased to $170 million at a minimum. Between fiscal year 

2001 and fiscal year 2012, 17 joint venture project agreements signed by IHS and 

tribes were initiated and 9 have been completed. The interest of tribes to assume 

the cost and build or repair the facilities represents the viability of the JVCP and 

the future of healthcare access and delivery of services in American Indian and 

Alaska Native rural and remote communities. 

Another key element to a successful JVCP partnership is full payment of contract 

support costs. Without reimbursement of contract support cost, offsetting program 

reductions must be made and services are reduced. Upon entering an agreement the 

IHS should include staffing and contract support costs in the IHS annual appropriations requests to ensure that the facility can open and begin operations as planned. 

SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM FOR INDIANS—SUPPORT 5 YEAR REAUTHORIZATION AT $200

MILLION/YEAR

The Choctaw Nation would like to thank the U.S. House of Representatives for 

passing H.R. 4302, Protecting Access to Medicare Act, which includes the extension 

of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) through 2015 at the current 

level of $150 million. Although we requested that Congress reauthorize the program 

for 5 years and increase the funding to $200 million a year, we are grateful that 

you sustained the program which allows us an opportunity to continue our advocacy 

for an extended reauthorization period. 

Since the program was initially authorized in 1997 there has been tremendous improvement in the status of diabetes, as well as building a desperately needed infra-
242 

structure for diabetes throughout American Indian and Alaska Native communities. 

SDPI funding is not part of the IHS appropriations process, but the funds are administered through IHS. The success can be attributed to nearly 400 Indian Health 

Service, Tribal and Urban (I/T/U) Indian health programs who have assisted in developing innovative and culturally appropriate strategies, vital resources and tools 

to prevent and treat diabetes. 

Congressional funding remains the critical factor in the battle against diabetes 

and we request that you urge your colleagues to extend the reauthorization to 5 

years and increase funding to $200 million for the SDPI program. 

RESTORE FUNDING TO THE OFFICE OF TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE (OTSG)—$6 MILLION

In 2003 Congress reduced funding for OTSG by $4.5 million in addition to congressional rescissions in 2005 and 2006 to total more than a 50 percent cut. In the 

recent Murray/Ryan spending plan OTSG was cut another $1 million. Self-Governance was permanently authorized in the IHS under Public Law 106–260; Tribal 

Self-Governance Amendments of 2000 which increased the responsibilities of the 

OTSG, yet with the reduction in funding it is not able to fulfill the legal requirements under the law. In addition, there are now 341 tribes and 84 compacts and 

109 funding agreements in Self-Governance and OTSG distributes approximately 

$980 million to Self-Governance tribes. We request that you restore the $6 million 

cut to OTSG to fulfill legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106–260. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS—FULL FUNDING WITH AN ANNUAL SPECIAL APPROPRIATION

Full funding of contract support cost in the fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 

budgets is timely and appreciated. However, funding for tribal programs is seriously 

impacted. Although our requests to honor the contracts and the compacts and pay 

full contract support costs have been fulfilled, it has come at a price that is insurmountable and detrimental to past, present and future tribal program funding. And, 

even though CSC claims are paid from the Judgment Fund, the day-to-day cost of 

tribes doing business with the Federal Government has forever compromised how 

tribal governments operate and provide essential services to our citizens. 

The Choctaw Nation is requesting that contract support costs be an annual special appropriation that is not tied to the ‘‘Operations of Indian Programs’’ account 

or the Indian Health Service funding. While it is true that contract support costs 

is based on the programs, services, functions and activities tribes include in the contracts or compacts with the agencies, most of these funding agreements are multiyear and the levels can be computed beforehand for inclusion in an appropriations 

measure separate from the larger appropriations bill. This will allow the agencies 

to more accurately capture the contract support costs and provide Congress with approximate amount for a special appropriation. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this in further detail with members of this subcommittee. 

RESTORE SEQUESTERED FUNDS AND EXEMPT TRIBAL FUNDING FROM FUTURE

SEQUESTRATION

Tribes have borne an unfair share of the budget deficit. The Choctaw Nation request that tribal programs be exempt from future sequestration considering that we 

have already contributed to the deficit at a rate that is not commensurate with 

other stakeholders. The percentage of the entire United States’ budget that is going 

to Indian Country is only 0.07 percent. That is a third less than what the percentage was in 1995. Yet we incurred a cut of $220 million in the Indian Health Service 

and $119 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Operations of Indian Programs 

Account—both under the 2013 sequestration. It is not realistic to expect tribes to 

continue to absorb the debt of this Nation and ignore the Trust obligation and Trust 

relationship between our governments. We are in fiscally tough times and our requests, as well as your responses, are tough choices and decisions that we will all 

have to live with. 

In 2013, the Choctaw Nation testified and shared our concern about the impending sequestration. When Congress approved legislation for the budget cuts, they specifically exempted many programs that benefit low-income Americans, including 

Medicaid, tax credits for working families and food stamps. However, basically none 

of the tribal programs funding in the Departments of Interior, Education, Health 

and Human Services or Agriculture were exempt. 

This issue was further exacerbated when the agencies consulted with the tribes 

on the fiscal year 2014 Spending Plans as a means of ‘‘damage control’’ and to soften 

the impact of the sequestration. It was our understanding that the Murray/Ryan 

budget deal was an attempt to lessen the blow of the sequestration cuts but such 

is not the case. Our requests to assist in the development of the Spending Plans, 
243 

or at a minimum to review them prior to submission, was not an option and we 

were once again left outside of the process, the decisionmaking and impacted by the 

outcome. 

In general, all tribal programs, not just the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

Indian Health Services (IHS) budgets should be exempt from any budget recessions 

and discretionary funding budget reductions. We remain extremely concerned about 

the consequences of sequestration and strongly urge Congress to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013. This action threatens the trust responsibility 

and reduces portions of the budget that are not major contributors to the deficit. 

Thank you for considering the requests of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOOSE CLEAN WATER COALITION

MARCH 28, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: As members of the 

Choose Clean Water Coalition, we are requesting continued support for programs 

that are essential to maintaining and restoring clean water to the rivers and 

streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region, and to the Bay itself. At least 11 

million people in this region get their drinking water directly from the rivers and 

streams that flow through the cities, towns and farms throughout our region. The 

quality of this water is critical to both human health and to the regional economy. 

The efforts to clean the Chesapeake began under President Reagan in 1983. In 

his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said, ‘‘Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it’s common sense.’’ 

To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and restore 

Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we request funding for 

the following programs in fiscal year 2015: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Chesapeake Bay Program—$73.1 million 

We support the President’s 2015 budget request of $73.1 million for the base 

budget of the Chesapeake Bay Program, which coordinates Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration and protection efforts. The majority of the program’s funds are 

passed through to the States and local communities for on-the-ground restoration 

work through programs such as the Small Watershed Grants, Innovative Nutrient 

and Sediment Reduction Grants, State Implementation Grants, and the Chesapeake 

Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program grants. Last year $29.5 million of this 

went exclusively to the six Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to achieve water quality restoration goals. 

In particular, we urge you to increase funding for both the Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants (SWG) Program and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grants to $6 million each—a modest increase over fiscal year 2014. These are 

two well-run, competitive grants programs that have contributed significantly to 

water quality improvements throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are 

the Bay Program’s only grants that go to restoration efforts by local governments 

and communities, not just the States. In the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, Congress directed EPA to increase funding for the SWG, which goes specifically to local communities for restoration work. 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)—$1.44887 billion 

This program is critical to the 1,779 local governments throughout the Chesapeake region. The funding level has eroded over the years as the clean water needs 

of local communities have increased dramatically, but Congress has stabilized this 

important program for the past 3 years and we urge you to do so again in fiscal 

year 2015. These low interest loans are critical for clean water and for ratepayers 

in the Chesapeake region and nationwide. We urge you to support the same funding 

level as fiscal year 2014 that provided $327 million in low interest loans to local 

governments in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. This SRF allocates money to the States based 
244 

on a set formula, which is then used for low interest loans to local governments for 

critical capital construction improvement projects to reduce nutrient and sediment 

pollution from wastewater treatment and stormwater facilities; nonpoint sources of 

pollution, such as farms and development; and other sources. The SRF enables local 

governments in the Chesapeake watershed to take actions to protect their local waters to meet Clean Water Act requirements. As the list of clean water infrastructure 

needs in the Chesapeake region continues to expand we request that the Clean 

Water SRF not be cut in 2015. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Chesapeake Bay Studies—$9.557 million 

We support the President’s 2015 budget request of $9.557 million for the U.S. Geological Survey for the science that undergirds the restoration and protection efforts 

in the Chesapeake Bay region. This funding supports restoration of fish and wildlife 

and their habitats; and to assess and explain water-quality changes. There are four 

key focus areas for the USGS Chesapeake work in 2015: (1) restoring brook trout 

and their habitats in headwater areas of the Chesapeake watershed; (2) identifying 

the endocrine-disrupting compounds and other contaminants that threaten fisheries 

and wildlife in the Chesapeake watershed; (3) furthering understanding of the effects of development and sea-level rise on coastal wetlands important for waterfowl; 

and (4) monitoring and explaining changes to water quality. The efforts of USGS 

are critical to preserving and restoring healthy fish and wildlife resources to the 

Chesapeake region. 

National Park Service—Chesapeake Regional Programs—$2.991 million 

The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of small, but 

very important programs that focus on increasing public access and the use of ecological, cultural and historic resources of the Chesapeake region. Expanding access 

and public awareness fosters stewardship and protection efforts. 

The key programs in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request that we sup- port are: Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($1,999,000); Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($368,000); Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail ($148,000); and, support for coordinating these programs through the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office ($476,000). 

National Park Service—Land Protection in Maryland, Pennsylvania & Virginia 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund—$9.832 million 

We support the President’s 2015 budget that calls for the strategic use of funds 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect and preserve key assets in 

the National Park System at Gettysburg National Military Park ($376,000) and the 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail ($500,000) in Pennsylvania; Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania County Battlefields National Military Park ($1.519 million) and the 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($6.0 million) in Virginia; 

and Piscataway Park ($1.437 million) in Maryland. In addition to enhancing public 

access and education and preserving key historic and heritage sites, these acquisitions, including the battlefield and military parks and the national scenic trail, will 

protect key freshwater and tidal habitat areas critical to an array of fish and wildlife species. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Land Protection in Virginia through the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund—$5.56 million 

The President’s 2015 budget calls for two targeted additions to the Rappahannock 

River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. We support the expansion of the Refuge for 

both public access and wildlife habitat protection. 

Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests to maintain 

funding for these programs which are critical to clean water throughout the midAtlantic region. 

Sincerely, 

1000 Friends of Maryland; American Rivers; Anacostia Watershed Society; Audubon Naturalist Society; Blue Water Baltimore; Chapman 

Forest Foundation; Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future; Clean Water 

Action; Conservation Pennsylvania; Delaware Nature Society; Elk 

Creeks Watershed Association; Friends of Dyke Marsh; Friends of 

Frederick County; Friends of Lower Beaverdam Creek; Friends of the 

North Fork of the Shenandoah River; Friends of the Rappahannock; 

Friends of the Rivers of Virginia; Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake; James River Association; Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy; 

Maryland Academy of Sciences at the Maryland Science Center; 
245 

Maryland Conservation Council; Maryland League of Conservation 

Voters; Mattawoman Watershed Society; and 

National Parks Conservation Association; National Wildlife Federation; 

Natural Resources Defense Council; Nature Abounds; New York 

State Council Trout Unlimited; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; 

Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited; Piedmont Environmental 

Council; Potomac Conservancy; Rivanna Conservation Society; Rock 

Creek Conservancy; Sassafras River Association; Savage River Watershed Association; Shenandoah Riverkeeper; Shenandoah Valley 

Network; Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna; St. Mary’s River Watershed Association; Trout Unlimited; Trout Unlimited Mid-Atlantic 

Council Upper Susquehanna Coalition; Virginia Conservation Network; Virginia League of Conservation Voters; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; West Virginia Rivers Coalition. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF AURORA

APRIL 5, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

MARSHALL P. BROWN, 

Director, Aurora Water. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON

APRIL 7, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 
246 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT CAMPBELL, 

Assistant City Manager. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CIVIL WAR TRUST

MAY 21, 2014. 

To the Chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide testimony on behalf of the Civil War Trust. I write today to respectfully 

request that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies fund the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized amount of $10 million. 

The Civil War Trust is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving 

America’s remaining Civil War battlefields. Thanks to the generosity of our 200,000 

members and supporters, the Civil War Trust has protected more than 38,500 acres 

of hallowed ground in 20 States. 

The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program is an authorized competitive 

matching grants program that requires a 1 to 1 Federal/non-Federal match, although on most occasions the Federal dollars are leveraged much more than 1 to 

1. The program promotes cooperative partnerships between State and local governments and the private sector to protect high priority Civil War battlegrounds outside National Park Service boundaries. 

BATTLEFIELD LANDS ARE OUR SHARED AMERICAN HERITAGE

Civil War battlefield lands are an irreplaceable part of our shared national heritage. When preserved, battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to educate current 

and future generations about this defining moment in America’s history. They are 

living monuments, not just to the men in blue and gray who fought there, but to 

all who have proudly worn our Nation’s uniform. Preserved battlefields are also economic drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are extremely important to State and local economies. When these hallowed grounds are lost, they 

are lost forever. 

This hearing is especially timely because of the ongoing sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, in which millions are learning about our Nation’s 

unique history by visiting Civil War battlefields and historic sites throughout the 

country. 

ORIGINS OF THE PROGRAM

In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC), a 

blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians and preservationists, to examine the status of America’s Civil War battlefields. Three years later, the Commission 
247 

released a report identifying the most important Civil War battlegrounds, 

prioritizing them according to preservation status and historic significance. In addition, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish a Federal matching 

grantd program to encourage the private sector to invest in battlefield preservation. 

The Commission’s proposal for a Federal matching grants program was the genesis 

of the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program. 

Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, the grants have been used 

to protect 22,000 acres of hallowed ground in 16 States. Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this program are: Antietam, Maryland; Bentonville, 

North Carolina; Champion Hill, Mississippi; Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga, 

Tennessee; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Mill Springs, 

Kentucky; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; and Wilson’s Creek, Missouri. It is important 

to note that grants are awarded for acquisition of lands from willing sellers only; 

there is—and never has been—any eminent domain authority. 

URGENT NEED FOR FUNDING

The Civil War Trust wishes to thank the subcommittee for its previous support 

for this valuable program. We recognize that these are difficult economic times and 

appreciate the constraints on this subcommittee. 

We also want to emphasize that the clock is ticking on the remaining battlefields 

of the Civil War. The Civil War Trust estimates that, in the next decade, most 

unprotect battlefield land will be either developed or preserved. Full funding for the 

Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized level of $10 million a 

year will enable nonprofit groups like the Trust to protect as many key battlefield 

lands as possible in the limited time remaining. The ongoing 150th anniversary 

commemoration of the Civil War is the most opportune time to provide robust funding for the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program. 

CONCLUSION

The Civil War was a defining moment in our country’s history. For 4 long years, 

North and South clashed in hundreds of battles that reunited our Nation and 

sounded the death knell for slavery. More than 625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians 

perished as a result of the war. Preserved battlefields help insure that the sacrifices 

of that turbulent period of our Nation’s history are never forgotten. 

I sincerely hope the subcommittee will consider our request to provide funding for 

the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program at its authorized level of $10 million. We look forward to working closely with you as we continue our important 

work to preserve our sacred Civil War battlefields. Thank you for the opportunity 

to present this testimony to the subcommittee. 

O. JAMES LIGHTHIZER, 

President. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION AGAINST FOREST PESTS

The Coalition Against Forest Pests is asking the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies to appropriate a total of $111 million for the Forest 

Health Management programs (combining the Federal and cooperative lands programs); and $303 million for Forest and Rangeland Research programs. 

Our Coalition of non-profit organizations, for-profit corporations, landowners, 

State agencies and academic scholars seeks to improve our Nation’s efforts to address the critical threat posed to our forests by non-native and native pests. 

Our Nation’s forests and trees provide numerous benefits in both rural and urban 

areas. They sustain the health of our environment and our economy by providing 

clean air and water, wildlife habitat, enhanced property values, renewable energy 

sources, and carbon sequestration. Healthy forests support numerous jobs; for example, the U.S. forest products industry employs nearly 900,000 people in all 50 

States. Visitors to National Forest System lands generate more than $13 billion of 

recreation and other related economic activity. One million tourists view fall foliage 

displays, generating $1 billion in revenue in New England annually. 

Forests’ ability to continue providing these benefits is threatened by damaging 

invasive species that are arriving and spreading at an increasing rate. At least 28 

new tree-killing pests have been detected over the last decade. Some cause enormous damage. For instance, thousand cankers disease threatens black walnut trees; 

walnut growing stock is valued at $539 billion. 

Already, municipal governments across the country are spending more than $2 

billion each year to remove trees on city property killed by non-native pests. Home-
248 

owners are spending an additional $1 billion to remove and replace trees on their 

properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. 

The Forest Health Management programs (FHM) manage forest health through 

direct action on the National forests and through assistance to other Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies and private landowners. The total allocated by 

FHM to non-native forest pests has fallen 15 percent since fiscal year 2011, with 

concomitant cuts for management of several pests: 90 percent for emerald ash borer; 

46 percent each for Asian longhorned beetle and hemlock woolly adelgid. We appreciate the near doubling of the account addressing three pests: goldspotted oak borer, 

thousand cankers disease, and laurel wilt. Still, the additional funds fall short of 

the level appropriate given the economic and ecological importance of the walnut, 

oak, and redbay trees at risk and the expectation that laurel wilt will nearly eradicate redbay just 25 years after the disease’s discovery. 

In fiscal year 2013, the FHM Program combated pests on over 285,000 acres of 

Federal lands and over 444,000 acres of Cooperative lands. Funding cuts meant 

321,000 fewer acres were treated on Cooperative lands in fiscal year 2013 than in 

fiscal year 2011. The President’s budget projects an increase in acres treated in fiscal year 2015, although it is unclear how this will be accomplished. 

Our awareness of the need to restore these programs and address additional pests 

such as western bark beetles, southern pine beetle, gypsy moth, white pine blister 

rust, Port-Orford-cedar root disease, oak wilt, and polyphagous shot hole borer 

underlies our request for an appropriation of $111 million—the fiscal year 2012 

level. 

The USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the scientific foundation for developing effective tools to detect and manage forest pests and the pathways by which they are introduced and spread. Due to budget cuts in earlier years, 

this program has lost 71 percent of entomologists and pathologists on staff in 1985. 

These scientists’ expertise is needed now more than ever due to the ever-growing 

number of non-native pests. Since 1985, more than 40 new forest pests have been 

detected in the U.S., including the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, sudden oak death, laurel wilt, thousand cankers disease, goldspotted oak borer, and polyphagous shot hole borer. New pathways of introduction and spread have required 

analysis, e.g., wood packaging and firewood. Yet, the President’s budget request for 

these programs would make a further cut of 6 percent, thereby jeopardizing vitally 

important research on these pests and pathways as well as hemlock woolly adelgid, 

white pine blister rust, and newly detected invaders. Already, recent cuts have 

forced significant reductions in several programs: 

—The Asian longhorned beetle kills many hardwood trees, especially the maples 

and birches making up much of the forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota 

and urban trees worth an estimated $600 billion. Due to the difficulty in detecting this beetle, large but previously unsuspected outbreaks have been detected 

in 2008, 2010, and 2013. Yet funding for research on this species has been cut 

by 66 percent since fiscal year 2011. 

—The emerald ash borer occupies more than 171,000 square miles in 22 States. 

More than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States and additional trees in 

the South might be protected if better detection and control methods were available. Despite the desperate need for better tools, including breeding of trees resistant to the beetle, funding for research on this species has been cut by 9 percent since fiscal year 2011. 

—Sudden oak death affects 143 different plant species and continues to spread 

in 15 California counties as well as Curry County, Oregon. In 2012 and 2013, 

sudden oak death killed nearly 700,000 trees in California. Many types of trees 

and shrubs in the East are vulnerable to the pathogen. Yet funding for research 

on this species has been cut by 87 percent since fiscal year 2011. 

We applaud the significant increase in funding for research on the goldspotted oak 

borer and thousand cankers disease. The goldspotted oak borer has killed up to 

80,000 California live oak and black oak trees in San Diego and Riverside Counties 

in less than 15 years and threatens oaks throughout California. 

In a time when America’s forests and trees face significant threats regarding their 

present and long-term health, USFS must be provided with adequate funds to support these key programs. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important request. 

Sincerely, 

Alliance for Community Trees (ACTrees); American Forest Foundation; 

American Forests; California Forest Pest Council; Davey Tree Expert 

Company; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; 

National Association of State Foresters; National Wild Turkey Federation; National Woodland Owners Association; Society of American 
249 

Florists; Society of American Foresters; The Nature Conservancy; 

and Vermont Woodlands Association. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

MAY 6, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies 

Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 4 million acres in 

the United States. Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $376 million per 

year. Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by continued development and use 

of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the 

quantifiable damages would rise to approximately $577 million by the year 2030 

without continuation of the Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to 

the Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM’s 

efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of $5.2 million for 

general water quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River Basin and an 

additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2015 is requested to prevent 

further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream 

economic damages. 

EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado 

River comes from natural sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River 

Basin is federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. In implementing 

the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that 

most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from federally owned lands. Title 

I of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the quality 

of the water delivered to users in the United States. This testimony deals specifically with title II efforts. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and 

directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for 

minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by 

BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and requested a 

report on the implementation of BLM’s program (Public Law 106–459). In 2003, 

BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River 

Basin and to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices. With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result 

in significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately $376 million in 

quantified damages and significantly more in unquantified damages in the United 

States and results in poor water quality for United States users. Damages occur 

from: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use to meet 

the leaching requirements in the agricultural sector; 

—increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine disposal for 

recycling water in the municipal sector; 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector; 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

and 
250 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation 

of salts in groundwater basins. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah 

and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado River’s water 

quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these standards. The level of appropriation requested in 

this testimony is in keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate 

funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salinity concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United States and Mexico. 

In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through BLM has proven to be a cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the Colorado River and 

is an essential component to the overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding levels for salinity control within the Soil, 

Water and Air Program will assist in preventing the water quality of the Colorado 

River from further degradation and significant increases in economic damages to 

municipal, industrial and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control 

pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40 million Americans. 

DON A. BARNETT, 

Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER DISTRICT—COLORADO RIVER WATER

CONSERVATION DISTRICT

APRIL 2, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

ERIC KUHN, 

General Manager. 
251 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES

APRIL 14, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. —Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

BRETT W. GRACELY. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) fiscal year 2015 budget. We have specifically 

identified the following funding needs and one request for review: 

—$7.7 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under Rights Protection 

Implementation, ($3.1 million above the request), to meet the base program 

funding needs of the Commission and the fisheries programs of our member 

tribes; 

—$4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty, ($500k above the request), 

to implement obligations under the recent agreements adopted by the U.S. and 

Canada; 

—$500 thousand for Youth Program Initiatives (supports the request); 

—$352.5 million for Public Safety and Justice, of which $716,00 supports enforcement of Federal laws at In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites on the Columbia River; 

—$3.1 million in Rights Protection Implementation and $10 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation to assist tribes in climate change adaptation and 

planning; and 

—$1.25 million to the Office of the Secretary of Interior’s Leadership and Administration Activity for Federal/Tribal collaborative analytical work and consultations during domestic reconsideration of the Columbia River Treaty. 

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River Treaty tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination and technical assist-
252 

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. 2The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord signatory. 

3See ‘‘Salmon Win A Triple Crown’’ at http://www.critfc.org/text/wanal109.pdf. 

ance to these tribes in regional, national and international efforts to protect and restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-third of the entire Columbia River Basin 

in the United States, an area the size of the State of Georgia. 

In 1855, the U.S. entered into treaties with the four tribes 1 whereupon we ceded 

millions of acres of our homelands to the United States. In return, the United States 

pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a 

perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). 

The CRITFC tribes are leaders in fisheries restoration and management working 

in collaboration with State, Federal and private entities. We are principals in the 

region’s efforts to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and 

rebuild them to levels that support ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. To achieve these objectives, our actions emphasize ‘‘gravel-to-gravel’’ management including supplementation of natural stocks, healthy watersheds and collaborative efforts. 

The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. Our programs are integrated as much as possible with 

State and Federal salmon management and restoration efforts. 

COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERIES MANAGEMENT WITHIN RIGHTS PROTECTION

IMPLEMENTATION

We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell us so. But 

along with success, management issues increase the complexity, requiring greater 

data collection and more enforcement burden. Funding shortfalls prohibit the 

achievement of tribal self-determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery effort, protecting non-listed species, conservation enforcement and treaty fishing 

access site maintenance. We request an increase of $3.1million over fiscal year 2014 

for a new program base of $7.7 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management. 

The BIA’s Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base funding 

that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the four member tribes. 

Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux funding. The increase will be directed to 

support the core functions of the fisheries management programs of the Commission’s member tribes, namely enforcement and harvest monitoring. 

In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes struck three landmark agreements: (1) 

the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin,2 (2) a 10-Year Fisheries Management 

Plan with Federal, tribal and State parties under U.S. v. Oregon, and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.3 These agreements establish regional 

and international commitments on harvest and fish production efforts, commitments 

to critical investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious issues by 

seeking balance of the many demands within the Columbia River basin. While 

through these agreements the tribes have committed to substantial on-the-ground 

projects with some additional resources from the Bonneville Power Administration, 

the overall management responsibilities of the tribal programs have grown exponentially without commensurate increases in BIA base funding capacity. For example, 

the tribes’ leadership in addressing Pacific Lamprey declines is this species’ best 

hope for survival and recovery. The tribes’ are also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish losses associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams. 

The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery programs is crucial to the tribes’ and CRITFC’s ability to successfully carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by providing sound technical, scientific and policy 

products to diverse legal, public and private forums. 

U.S./CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY UNDER RIGHTS PROTECTION IMPLEMENTATION

The U.S. and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985 to conserve 

and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum production, and control salmon 

interceptions. The treaty established the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) as a 

forum to collaborate on intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. Section of the PSC 
253 

annually develops a coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs to 

ensure cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in 2000 in order 

to implement the 1999 Agreement, but funding has significantly eroded since then. 

In 2008, the U.S. and Canada adopted a new long term treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new management research and monitoring activities to ensure the conservation and rebuilding of the 

shared salmon resource. 

For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S. Section has identified a program need of $4,800,000 for participating tribes. These funds provide for 

direct tribal participation with the Commission, panels and technical committees. 

The funding enables the tribes to assist in treaty implementation and facilitates 

management protecting trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required treaty implementation activities. The fiscal year 2015 recommended level for this program is an increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Our request correlates 

to the U.S. Section’s recommendation. 

YOUTH PROGRAM INITIATIVES

The Columbia River Treaty tribes place an emphasis on preparing our youth for 

careers in Natural Resources Management. However, our tribes, like tribes nationwide, struggle to overcome barriers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics achievement, high drop-out rates, and low percentages of students pursuing 

natural resources majors. Our Place-Based Workforce Development Initiative seeks 

to address these barriers through a blend of technical assistance, inter and 

externship opportunities and a summer Salmon Camp. 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND POLICE SERVICES

Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and our tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the cornerstone of public safety in 

the popular and heavily used Columbia Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we 

are the primary provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed 

pursuant to Public Law 87–14 and Public Law 100–581 for use by treaty fishers. 

CRITFC’s officers have obtained BIA Special Law Enforcement Commissions to aid 

our efforts protecting and serving tribal members and Federal trust properties along 

the Columbia River. We are also very pleased that the BIA has created Office of 

Justice Services (OJS) District 8 and housed it in Portland. CRITFC entered into 

a Public Law 93–638 contract with BIA in February 2011 for enforcement services 

along the Columbia River. That contract currently provides funding for two enforcement positions. 

It’s important that CRITFC build its enforcement capacity above the level of the 

two officers currently funded by the BIA Office of Justice Services. Our immediate 

priority is to add two officers. Funding for two additional officers would cost 

$313,560 plus indirect. Full funding for this project would be a total budget of 

$716,053 plus indirect which would support four officers, a sergeant and a dispatcher. 

COOPERATIVE LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION

The Treaty Right is feeling the effects of Climate Change. Shifts are occurring in 

salmon run timing, and berry and root ripening cycles. We support the President’s 

request of $10 million to implement the Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate 

Change Policy for Indian Tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Specifically, 

these funds support the BIA Tribal Climate Change Program which will integrate 

climate change adaptation strategies into its policies and planning for support for 

the tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. The BIA needs these resources 

to support active engagement of tribes, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians in the 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the Climate Science Centers and to ensure adequate Government-to-Government consultation on all issues with climate 

effects. 

COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY MODERNIZATION

The Columbia Basin tribes are a coalition of 15 tribes whose rights, as well as 

management authorities and responsibilities, are substantially affected by the implementation of the Columbia River Treaty. In order for treaty modernization to 

succeed, the Columbia Basin tribes need to continue to coordinate internally and 

with other regional and national entities, as well as continue their analytical eval-
254 

4Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission to U.S. 

House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf, Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 

2011. 

uation of the treaty including the impacts of climate change, while the State Department evaluates the Regional Recommendation and completes their national interests review. 

A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF SALMON MASS-MARKING PROGRAMS

CRITFC endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among tribal, Federal 

and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build hatchery programs using the 

best available science and supported by adequate, efficient budgets. A congressional 

requirement, delivered through prior appropriations language, to visibly mark all 

salmon produced in federally funded hatcheries should be reconsidered. We have requested that Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated funding, be reviewed for compatibility with our overall objective of ESA delisting and with prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. v. Oregon, Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.4 Salmon managers should be provided the latitude to make 

case-by-case decisions whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate percentages. 

In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported by a staff of 

experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our activities benefit the region 

while also essential to the U.S. obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our 

efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may require on the 

Department of Interior’s BIA budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL FIRE SERVICES INSTITUTE, THE

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS, AND THE NATIONAL VOLUNTEER

FIRE COUNCIL

Hon. BARBARA MIKULSKI, Chairwoman, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. RICHARD SHELBY, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate, Capitol Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: Our organizations request that you include a minimum of 

$16 million in funding for the Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program in 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations. VFA provides matching funds to volunteer fire departments protecting communities with 10,000 or fewer residents to purchase equipment and training for wildland fire suppression. 

According to the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget justification for the U.S. Forest Service, volunteer fire departments provide nearly 80 percent of initial attack 

on wildland fires in the United States. Unfortunately, these departments frequently 

lack the financial resources to adequately equip and train their firefighters to engage in wildland fire suppression. For example, the Third Needs Assessment of the 

U.S. Fire Service report published in 2011 by the National Fire Protection Association found that 68 percent of all fire departments that are responsible for wildland 

firefighting have not formally trained all their personnel to the recommended national standard. 

When local fire departments are unable to suppress wildland fires during the initial phase, the fires spread and State and Federal firefighters are deployed. This is 

an extremely expensive process that can cost the Federal Government anywhere 

from hundreds of millions of dollars to more than $1 billion in fire suppression costs 

alone in a single year depending on the severity of the fire season. 

The costs of wildland fire suppression have been increasing steadily as commercial and residential development pushes further into the wildland/urban interface 
255 

(WUI). The National Interagency Fire Center reports that in 2012, increased building in the WUI led to an above average number of structures burning in wildland 

fires. Throughout the year, a total of 4,244 structures were lost—2,200 of which 

were residential structures. With suppression costs rising, all stakeholders must increase efforts to prevent wildland fires, respond to wildland fires quickly before they 

become uncontrollable, and educate communities in the wildland/urban interface so 

that they can take precautions to minimize losses due to wildland fire. 

In recent years, Federal funding for volunteer fire departments to prepare for 

wildland fire suppression has been dwindling. VFA has seen funding reduced from 

$16 million in fiscal year 2010 to $15.662 million in fiscal year 2011 and approximately $13 million in fiscal year 2012, fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014. Additionally, the Rural Fire Assistance (RFA) program, which had historically been 

funded at $7 million to $10 million per year and provided matching grants to fire 

departments that agreed to assist in responding to wildland fires on Federal lands, 

hasn’t been funded since fiscal year 2010. 

Federal support is critical to ensure volunteer fire departments are able to safely 

and effectively respond to wildland fires. Our organizations recognize the challenges 

that Congress faces in trying to adequately fund a range of important programs in 

today’s difficult budget environment. At the same time, we believe that reducing the 

funding for programs like RFA and VFA from a combined $23 million in fiscal year 

2010 to $13.025 million in fiscal year 2014 leaves volunteer fire departments with 

fewer resources to prepare to respond to wildland fires and will lead to higher Federal spending on fire suppression in the long run. We urge you to provide a minimum of $16 million for VFA in fiscal year 2015. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION FUND

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, thank you for 

this opportunity to submit outside witness testimony on behalf of The Conservation 

Fund (TCF). The Conservation Fund supports full funding of the President’s budget 

request of $900 million in fiscal year 2015 for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) discretionary and mandatory proposals, which includes the Federal 

land acquisition programs of the Bureau of Land Management ($89.397 million), 

National Park Service ($171.041 million), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ($168.772 

million), U.S. Forest Service ($127.673 million), as well as three State grant programs: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($100 million); National Park Service’s State Conservation Grants 

($100 million); and the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program ($100 million). 

TCF also supports full funding of the President’s request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-North American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($34.145 million); the U.S. 

Forest Service—Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program ($1.683 

million); the Department of Interior—Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 

Restoration Program ($7.676 million); and the Bureau of Indian Affairs—Operations 

of Indian Programs: Trust—Real Estate Services ($127.002 million). Additionally, 

TCF supports the proposals for the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization, the National Park Service Centennial Initiative, and the U.S. Forest 

Service Wildland Disaster Fund Act. 

The Conservation Fund (TCF) is a national, non-profit conservation organization 

dedicated to conserving America’s land and water legacy for future generations. Established in 1985, TCF works with landowners; Federal, State and local agencies; 

and other partners to conserve our Nation’s important lands for people, wildlife and 

communities. To date, TCF has helped our partners to conserve over 7.4 million 

acres. These accomplishments are due, in large measure, to the leadership of this 

subcommittee over many years to appropriate funds to acquire lands for future generations, working forests, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and many 

other benefits. 

Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land acquisition programs. 

While these projects show the tremendous diversity of benefits of land acquisition 

for the public, they have one thing in common—each of these projects is driven by 

landowners. Many farmers, ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial equity in their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation easement 

or fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds to stay in business, 

reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial goals. 

As the subcommittee crafts its Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, there are several key points we respectfully request you to con-
256 

sider, listed below. Each of the funding amounts below reflects the fiscal year 2015 

President’s budget request. 

1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million.—Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical for the Nation’s premier conservation program, 

a bipartisan agreement from almost 50 years ago. As the lists of ready LWCF 

projects below show, there are many opportunities that will be lost without this 

funding. LWCF represents a promise to the Nation that proceeds from offshore oil 

and gas development will help protect the public trust and these projects will fulfill 

that mission. 

The LWCF budget includes Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) areas that 

we ask you to support: National Trails System, Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative, South Carolina Longleaf Pine, High Divide, Greater Yellowstone, Grasslands/Prairie Potholes, California Southwest Desert, and Upper Rio Grande. In each 

CLP, several Federal land agencies are partnering with States, local groups, nonprofits and private interests to support conservation and make a lasting impact. 

2. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $89.397 million.—The 

BLM and its National Conservation Lands provide some of our Nation’s best recreation and historic areas. From fishing at the North Platte River in Wyoming to exploring Pueblo ruins at Canyons of the Ancients in Colorado, we request funding 

for the following projects: —Upper Snake South Fork, Idaho: $1 million (#2); and $1.9 million (#14) 

—North Platte River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), Wyoming: $1.2 million (#5) 

—Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, Colorado: $1.2 million (#6) 

—CLP National Trails-Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (NHT), Montana: 

$1.032 mil. (#7); and $1.148 mil. (#17) —McInnis Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), Colorado: $210,000 (#8), and $1.625 million (#18) 

—Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon: $906,000 (#12); and $5 million 

(#21) 

—Upper Missouri River National Wild and Scenic River, Montana: $3.408 million 

(#23) 

—Aqua Fria National Monument, Arizona: $3.3 million (#24) 

—Colorado River Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), Colorado: $2 million (#27) 

—CLP High Divide—Oregon National Historic Trail (NHT), Idaho: $440,000 (#28) 

—CLP High Divide—Upper Madison, Montana: $868,000 (#28) 

3. National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $171.041 million.— Hosting more than 275 million visitors every year, the over 400 National Park units 

provide an economic boost to their local communities and those employed directly 

and indirectly. Funding for NPS LWCF will help protect key access points for recreation, historic areas, trails and more, including along the Captain John Smith National Historic Trail and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. We respectfully request funding for the following projects: 

—CLP National Trails—Captain John Smith National Historic Trail (NHT), Virginia: $4 million (#4), and $2 million, (#13) 

—CLP National Trails—Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST), New Hampshire, $200,000 (#13) 

—Olympic National Park, Washington: $5.22 million (#14) 

—CLP High Divide—Big Hole National Battlefield, Montana: $150,000 (#21) 

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at $168.772 million.— 

National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are our Nation’s protectors of clean water, clean 

air, abundant wildlife and world-class recreation. Funding for fiscal year 2015 FWS 

LWCF will help preserve grizzly bear territory of the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana and protect key longleaf pine at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia. We respectfully request funding for the following projects: 

—Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (WMA), North Dakota/ 

South Dakota: $3.887 million (#2), and $3.887 million (#11) 

—Dakota Grassland Conservation Area, North Dakota/South Dakota: $7 million 

(#3) and $7 million (#12) 

—Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area, Montana: $2 million (#5) 

—Everglades Headwaters National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Conservation 

Area, Florida: $3 million (#6) and $5 million (#14) 

—CLP Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine—Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), Georgia: $4 million (#9) 

—Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area, Kansas: $1 million (#22) 

—Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Texas: $2 million 

(#23) 
257 

—CLP Grasslands/Prairie Potholes—Dakota Tallgrass Prairie Wildlife Management Area (WMA): $3 million (#27) 

—CLP Grasslands/Prairie Potholes—Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area: $7.5 

million (#27) 

5. U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Land Acquisition at $127.673 million.—USFS 

LWCF funds help with forest management by protecting key inholdings and reducing fire threats. From the longleaf pine in the southeast to the North Carolina 

Threatened Treasures to the Missouri Ozarks, we are working with willing landowners at the following project areas and respectfully request funding: 

—CLP National Trails—Appalachian National Scenic Trail (NST), Tennessee: 

$330,000 (#4); and $2.72 million (#32) 

—North Carolina Threatened Treasures, North Carolina: $2.1 million (#5), and 

$3.5 million (#30) 

—CLP Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine Initiative—Osceola, Florida: $5 million (#7); 

and $3.677 million (#34) 

—Missouri Ozarks Current River, Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri: $1 million (#16) 

—Tennessee Mountains Trails and Waters, Tennessee: $3.7 million (#21) 

—Greater Yellowstone Area, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming: $3 million 

(#25) 

—Georgia-Disappearing Wildlands of Georgia Mountains and Rivers, Georgia: 

$2.7 million (#27) 

—Great Lakes Northwoods, Superior National Forest, Minnesota: $3 million (#33) 

—Cube Cove, Tongass National Forest, Alaska: $3 million (#38) 

6. LWCF State Grant Programs: FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species 

Fund, NPS-State Conservation Grants, and USFS-Forest Legacy.—We encourage the 

subcommittee to fully fund fiscal year 2015 President’s Budget request for: 

—FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: $100 million 

—NPS-State Conservation Grants: $100 million 

—USFS-Forest Legacy Program: $100 million. Project highlights include: 

—Bobcat Ridge, Texas, $2.37 million (#3 ranking) 

—East Fork of the French Broad Headwater II, North Carolina, $3.5 million 

(#9) 

—Liberty Hill, South Carolina, $2 million (#21) 

—Sherwood Forest, Tennessee, $3 million (#24) 

—Windham Region Working Forest, Vermont, $1.5 million (#34) 

7. Priority Land Acquisition Programs.—TCF encourages the Committee to fund: 

—FWS-North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: $34.145 million 

—USFS-Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: $1.683 million 

8. Department of Interior—Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Program at $7.676 million.—The Restoration Program leads the national response 

for recovery of natural resources that have been injured or destroyed as a result of 

oil spills or releases of other hazardous substances. Recoveries from responsible parties can only be spent to implement restoration plans developed by the Trustee 

Council for each incident. These funds are 100 percent private and represent the 

amount needed to restore environmental resources or compensate for lost public use 

since the damage in question. The fiscal year 2015 funds would allow the Program 

to add carefully targeted staff allocated to Interior bureaus and offices through its 

Restoration Support Unit in order to accelerate restoration activities. 

9. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)—Operations of Indian Programs: Trust-Real Estate Services at $127.002 million.—We support the BIA Trust-Real Estate Services 

program, including funding to support the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement. 

10. Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (H.R. 2068) 

(S. 368).—We support the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget request to reauthorize 

the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) an important program that 

provides conservation funding for the West, at no cost to the taxpayer. Through 

FLTFA’s ‘‘land for land’’ program, BLM sells land identified for disposal to ranchers, 

farmers, businesses and others to consolidate land ownership, create jobs, support 

economic development and increase revenues to counties by putting land on the tax 

rolls. These sales generate funding for BLM, USFS, NPS and USFWS to acquire 

critical inholdings from willing sellers in certain designated areas, which often complements LWCF, North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and other 

public and private funding. The sales provide revenue for Federal agencies to acquire high-priority lands with important recreational access for hunting, fishing, 

hiking, boating, other activities, as well as properties with historic, scenic and cul-
258 

tural resources. Over 150 groups are working together to support Congress’ efforts 

to reauthorize FLTFA. 

11. Wildlife Disaster Funding Act (H.R. 3992)(S. 1875) and Avoiding Transfers to 

Wildland Fire Suppression.—We support the proposal in the President’s budget that 

would avoid transferring funds Congress appropriates to other priority programs to 

fund wildland fire suppression. We support language mirroring the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875 & H.R. 3992). This important change to fire funding at the Federal level is needed to prevent future transfers and ensure that the 

USFS and Department of the Interior can achieve their land management objectives 

by implementing activities needed to address the growing buildup of hazardous fuels 

on Federal lands. 

The Conservation Fund stands ready to work with you to secure full and consistent funding for the LWCF, Forest Legacy, and the other critically important programs that help protect the environment, economies, forests, and community values 

across our Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and your 

consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE FOR REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2015 (fiscal 

year 2015) Interior Appropriations bill. We sincerely thank you for the desperately 

needed funding increase for fiscal year 2014 and respectfully request a funding level 

of $476.4 million for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System for fiscal year 2015. The National Wildlife Refuge System stands 

alone as the only land and water conservation system with a mission that prioritizes 

wildlife and habitat conservation alongside human, wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has worked 

to showcase the value of the Refuge System and to secure a strong congressional 

commitment for conserving these special landscapes. Found in every U.S. State and 

territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America’s environmentally 

sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, 

deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE’s 23 member organizations, which 

represent over 16 million American hunters, anglers, bird and wildlife watchers, scientists and concerned citizens passionate about wildlife conservation and related 

recreational opportunities. 

American Birding Association 

American Fisheries Society 

American Sportfishing Association 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Marine Conservation Institute 

National Audubon Society 

National Rifle Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Safari Club International 

The Corps Network 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

The Wildlife Society 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership 

Trout Unlimited 

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance 

Wildlife Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, protects approximately 150 million acres on 562 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts across the U.S. From the Virgin Islands 

to Guam and the Pacific marine national monuments, the Refuge System spans 12 

time zones and protects America’s natural heritage in habitats ranging from arctic 

tundra to arid desert, boreal forest to sagebrush grassland, and prairie wetlands to 

coral reefs. With a refuge within an hour’s drive from most metropolitan areas, the 

Refuge System attracts a growing number of visitors each year (46.5 million in fiscal 

year 2013) with opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

kayaking, and outdoor education. In fact, from 2006–2011, during our Nation’s 

greatest economic recession since the Great Depression, visitation to our national 

wildlife refuges increased by 30 percent. 

According to a report issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in late 2013, 

‘‘Banking On Nature’’, these visitors generated $2.4 billion annually to local and regional economies—on average returning $4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated—and support 35,000 U.S. jobs. In addition, refuges provide major environmental and health benefits, such as filtering storm water before it is carried 
259 

downstream and fills municipal aquifers; reducing flooding by capturing excess rainwater; and minimizing the damage to coastal communities from storm surges. According to a 2011 report by Southwick Associates, refuges generate more than $32.3 

billion in these ecosystem services each year, a return of over $65 for every $1 appropriated by Congress. 

At minimum, CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900 million 

in annual operations and maintenance funding to meet conservation targets, including wildlife management and habitat restoration and opportunities for the public to 

recreate. Unfortunately, inadequate funding threatens the System’s ability to carry 

out its mission, mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, Refuge System funding was 

reduced by $50 million—a 10 percent cut. As a result, System performance levels 

dropped substantially. 

The fiscal year 2013 Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) reports revealed 

falling performance rates in several important System categories, including habitat 

condition, habitat restoration, recreation opportunities, volunteerism, and scientific 

research. The following data shows the systemic impact of budget cuts from fiscal 

year 2010–fiscal year 2013. 

Measures for which performance declined more than 50 percent from fiscal year 2010 

to fiscal year 2013 

—Acres of forest/shrubland improvement (¥51 percent) 

—Wetland acres restored (¥77 percent) 

—Open water acres restored (84 percent) 

—Acres of non-native, invasive plants controlled (¥60 percent) 

Measures for which performance declined 25–50 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013 

—Number of invasive animal populations controlled during the year (¥46 percent) 

—Acres treated for non-native, invasive plants (¥37 percent) 

Measures for which performance declined 15–25 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013 

—Acres of moist soil managed (¥21 percent) 

—Number of population management actions (¥23 percent) 

—Acres of mowed/hayed grasslands (¥20 percent) 

—Acres managed by ‘‘other’’ techniques (¥15 percent) 

—Riparian miles restored (¥19 percent) 

—Number of research studies (¥15.5 percent) 

—Number of surface water acres impaired according to State 303d listings 

Measures for which performance declined 3–15 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal 

year 2013 

—Uplands receiving needed management (¥9 percent) 

—Number of Inventory & Monitoring Surveys accomplished (¥14 percent) 

—Open water receiving needed management (¥5 percent) 

—Total refuge acres receiving needed management (¥6 percent) 

—Restoration deferred on upland acres (¥4.5 percent) 

—Restoration deferred on wetland acres (¥12.5 percent) 

—Acres of water-level manipulation (¥8 percent) 

—Upland game hunt visits (¥6 percent) 

—Big game hunt visits (down 3.1 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 

2013) 

—Total hunt visits (down 3 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013) 

—Fishing visits (¥3 percent) 

—Number of volunteers (¥8.7 percent) 

—Volunteer hours (down 3 percent from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013) 

—Total ‘‘other’’ recreational participants (¥7 percent) 

As habitat management declines, the System’s fragile ecosystems are subject to 

opportunistic invasive species. And the foothold they gain in refuge lands can quickly transfer to adjacent private and State lands; an issue of great concern in places 

like southeastern Idaho where the CARE group visited in 2012. Between fiscal year 

2010 and fiscal year 2013, the System treated 37 percent less acreage for invasive 

plants and, sadly, saw a 60 percent drop in acreage where invasive plants were successfully controlled. One step forward and several steps back is an inefficient way 

to manage the Refuge System and threatens years of cooperative efforts with partners and landowners. 
260 

Of particular concern to CARE is the drop in hunting, fishing and other recreational visits, which include bird and wildlife watching, photography, hiking and 

kayaking. Due to staffing cuts, refuges are unable to sustain visitor hours and public use programs. This in turn leads to fewer visitors and could have serious impacts 

on the economic return these refuges have in local communities. Further, investments made at the urging of CARE regarding the System’s Inventory and Monitoring program are threatened. The System must have current, accurate data to 

make informed management decisions, yet the System had a 15.5 percent decline 

in research studies, and a 14 percent decline in essential Inventory and Monitoring 

Surveys conducted. 

CARE thanks the subcommittee and Congress for the much needed, 4 percent in- crease ($18.5 m) in funding for fiscal year 2014. It was hoped that the budget increase could reverse the systemic declines in performance but because the System 

needs at least $15 million annually to maintain management capabilities, there is 

in reality, only $3.5 million was left to address these declines. And unfortunately, 

emergencies nationwide such as natural disasters and looming endangered species 

listing could force the System to deal with these crises instead, further exacerbating 

the issues. Because of the constraints of the budget agreement reached in December 

2013, CARE is supporting the President’s request of $476.4 million for fiscal year 

2015, although it is substantially less than what the System needs. Albeit roughly 

half the optimal funding amount, $476.4 million may steady falling, System performance levels. If the requested funding level is satisfied, the Refuge System can 

better address the following tasks: 

—Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy habitats that 

attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors and increase economic return to communities; 

—Keep refuges open and staffed so that quality recreational opportunities continue to be offered to the public; 

—Maintain facilities and equipment used to serve the public and manage habitat; 

—Provide law enforcement officers needed to keep refuge resources and the people 

who come to appreciate them safe. 

Refuge visitation is growing and is expected to continue. In fact, from fiscal year 

2010 to fiscal year 2013, the Refuge System welcomed 6.7 percent more visitors. 

Wildlife observation visits, too, increased by 12 percent, and photography visits increased by 33 percent. However, refuges are losing valuable staff committed to visitors and volunteers. The number of volunteers dropped by 8.6 percent, particularly 

troubling considering this work force is a 20 percent boost to existing Refuge System 

staff. Refuges rely on volunteers for welcoming and greeting visitors, staffing refuge 

nature stores, maintenance, interpretation, and much more. Volunteer service, however, is only possible if the System is reasonably staffed and thus able to extend 

requisite volunteer training and oversight. Arguably, the System’s mission cannot 

be fully achieved without refuge volunteers and Friends groups. 

If the Refuge System is forced to sustain further reductions, future RAPP reports 

will likely show continued decline in the System’s conservation work and public use 

opportunities. Funding cuts are already impacting America’s refuges. If annual operations and maintenance funding does not rise, CARE anticipates further impacts 

both within and outside of refuge boundaries, including: 

—A reduction in the treatment of invasive plants, reducing habitat quality needed 

to support wildlife (both game and non-game) and put private lands at higher 

risk of infestations; 

—A decrease in the use of prescribed fire, which is used on refuges both to improve habitat for wildlife and to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a wildfire risk 

to nearby communities; 

—A decline in the number and quality of visitor programs, with visitor centers 

operating at reduced hours, and plans to add or expand hunting programs at 

refuges being postponed; 

—Lost revenue for local communities as visitor numbers drop; according to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fiscal year 2013 budget justification, 

‘‘Each 1 percent increase or decrease in visitation impacts $16.9 million in total 

economic activity, 268 jobs, $5.4 million in job-related income, and $608,000 in 

tax revenue.’’ 

—Elimination of ancillary functions like FWS’s operation of Henderson Field at 

Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which serves as a critical emergency 

landing site for trans-pacific flights, as well as the public’s main window to the 

vast marine national monuments. 

We urge Congress to fund the Refuge System at $476.4 m in fiscal year 2015— 

to bridge the growing gap between what the System needs and what it receives, enabling refuges to continue moving America forward. On behalf of our more than 16 
261 

million members and supporters, CARE thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill, and 

we look forward to meeting with you to discuss our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CORPS NETWORK

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Chocran, and members of the subcommittee: 

My name is Mary Ellen Sprenkel and I am the president and CEO of The Corps 

Network. The Corps Network is the national association of service and conservation 

corps with over 100 member organizations operating in all 50 States, and enrolling 

nearly 26,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 25 each year. It is The Corps 

Network’s mission to provide critical leadership to the Corps movement and to our 

Nation’s Service and Conservation Corps as they harness the power of youth and 

young adults to tackle some of America’s greatest challenges and transform their 

own lives. 

The Corps Network requests the subcommittee’s support for fiscal year 2015 programs that will allow public land and water management agencies to engage young 

adults and veterans to meet our Nation’s backlogged maintenance needs, address 

record youth unemployment, and prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next 

generation of natural resource employees and stewards. 

Corps are comprehensive youth development programs that provide their participants with job training, academic programming, leadership skills, and additional 

support through a strategy of service that improves communities and the environment. They are a direct descendant of the Depression-era Civilian Conservation 

Corps, which mobilized about three million young men who dramatically improved 

the Nation’s public lands while receiving food, shelter, education, and a precious 

$30-a-month stipend. 

THE IMPACT IN NUMBERS

In 2013 alone, the 100-plus members of The Corps Network collectively: 

—Restored and improved 240,000 acres of ecological habitat; 

—Maintained and improved 2,900 parks, gardens, and urban greenspaces; 

—Built and maintained 8,000 miles of trails; and 

—Removed over 300,000 acres of invasive and exotic plant species. 

CORPS ENROLL PARTICIPANTS REFLECTIVE OF AMERICA’S DIVERSITY

At present, our member Corps enroll nearly 26,000 Corpsmembers a year, the majority of whom come from diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds, and are looking 

for a second chance to succeed in life. Many Corpsmembers are ‘‘opportunity youth,’’ 

meaning that they have either dropped out of school or are unemployed at the time 

that they enter a Corps program. 

In addition to the normal work week, Corpsmembers receive a wide range of personal and professional development opportunities and services including, but not 

limited to: guidance from adult leaders who serve as mentors and role models, academic programming designed to lead to a high school diploma or GED, opportunities 

to pursue certificates and credentials with demonstrated value, and a modest stipend—all to prepare them for postsecondary education and labor market success. 

In 2012, 65 percent of all Corpsmembers were unemployed at the time of entry, 

31 percent were not in school and did not have a GED, 61 percent came from families below the poverty line, and 20 percent were formerly incarcerated or court-involved. After completing their programs, 54 percent of alumni said that they were 

employed or enrolled in further service. Sixty-eight percent reported that they were 

in college or a high school diploma/GED program. 

QUALITY WORK

Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often technical projects 

on public lands and waters. Project sponsors consistently express a high degree of 

satisfaction with the quality of work and productivity of the Corps. Virtually all 

Federal project partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again. 

Types of work include, but are not limited to: 

—Protecting wildlife and improving access to public land and waters; 

—Preparing communities for disasters and responding when needed; 

—Enhancing recreation on public lands; 

—Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating effects of wildfire; 

—Preserving historic structures; and 
262 

—Enhancing neighborhoods and community public spaces. 

COST SAVINGS

By partnering with Conservation Corps, Federal land and water management 

agencies achieve more with their operating budgets. Research conducted by the National Park Service’s Park Facility Management Division indicates that hiring Conservation Corps to complete maintenance and trail projects resulted in significant 

savings. 

The analysis considered 15 diverse trail and maintenance projects throughout the 

country in places including Mesa Verde National Park, Glacier National Park, Point 

Reyes National Seashore, and Voyageurs National Park. The research found that 

using Conservation Corps to complete maintenance and trail projects provided a cost 

savings of over 50 percent. 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 REQUEST

The Corps Network requests the subcommittee’s support for fiscal year 2015 programs that will allow public land and water management agencies to engage young 

adults and veterans to meet our Nation’s backlogged maintenance needs, address 

record youth unemployment, and prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next 

generation of natural resource employees. 

We respectfully request that in fiscal year 2015 the subcommittee fund the following accounts: 

—$2,283,852,000 for ‘‘Operation of the National Parks.’’ 

—$10,000,000 for the ‘‘Centennial Challenge’’ for the National Park Service. 

—$50,600,000 for Department of Interior Youth Programs. 

—Increased funding for operational accounts of the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) Bureaus and United States Forest Service (USFS). 

The first two accounts fall under National Park Service and the third is under 

the Department of Interior. National Park ‘‘Operations’’ is a preexisting account governing operation of our national parks and the ‘‘Centennial Challenge’’ is a new program and was also proposed under the most recent Bush administration. These 

funds will allow thousands of veterans, youth, and others to work upgrading the National Park System for its 100th anniversary in 2016. The Department’s Youth Program funding would also provide work and training opportunities for young people 

and veterans during 2014 and 2015. A key component of the Department’s efforts 

will be partnering with youth organizations through the 21st Century Conservation 

Corps. We also support increased funding for all operational accounts at the other 

Bureaus (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)) and at the U.S. Forest Service that could fund 

partnerships with Conservation Corps. 

As the National Park Service prepares for its 100th Anniversary, Congress has 

an opportunity to invest in the popular and economically important National Park 

Service. An investment this year will help parks recover from years of underfunding 

and restore parks for the Centennial. Every dollar invested in the National Park 

Service generates $10 in economic activity. The operations investment would provide for park rangers to maintain facilities and provide services to park visitors. The 

Centennial Challenge investment would allow for the park service to leverage private matching funds through a 1:1 match for specific projects. 

Beginning with the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great 

Depression, and continuing to the recent launch of the 21st Century Conservation 

Service Corps Initiative, organizations like Vermont Youth Conservation Corps, 

Southeast Youth Corps, and California Conservation Corps have helped millions of 

young Americans gain job training, further their education, and contribute to America’s communities through service and the conservation of national and State parks, 

forests, and other treasured places. 

The future of our Nation’s public lands depend upon the next generation becoming 

active resource stewards. I hope that you will provide the funding to put thousands 

of youth and returning veterans to work restoring some of America’s greatest historical, cultural, and natural treasures. With the approaching National Park Service 

centennial, billions in backlogged maintenance across all of the land management 

agencies, record youth unemployment, and the cost savings nature of public private 

partnerships, this funding is an absolute win-win for our country. 
263 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF ATHABASCAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

I am pleased to submit this testimony to the subcommittee on behalf of the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG). We are a consortium of 10 tribal governments located along the Yukon River and its tributaries in northeastern Alaska. 

We provide a variety of services to our tribal members, including full healthcare 

services at the Yukon Flats Health Center and village-based clinics in four of our 

villages. We request that you implement the following measures in the fiscal year 

2015 appropriations cycle: 

—Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending. 

—Increase funding for Village Built Clinics at least $8.5 million. 

—Fund the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget with advanced appropriations. 

—Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. 

—Allocate $50 million to the IHS from the Prevention and Public Health Fund 

for tribal behavioral health grants. 

—Support Tribal jurisdiction to protect Alaska communities. 

MANDATORY FUNDING FOR CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

We are pleased that the Administration has sought to fully fund contract support 

costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to support that goal. We also 

acknowledge that the administration’s request is a direct response to Congress’ actions with regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical caps 

on CSC funding and rejected the administration’s proposal—put forward without 

consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes—to individually cap contract support 

cost recovery at the contractor level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our 

members. If contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our programs and 

services are directly impacted because we are forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding for CSC must 

not come with a penalty—namely, a reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. That result would have the same 

devastating effect on our service delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, noted that ‘‘since [contract support costs] fall under 

discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all other programs funded 

under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, including other equally important tribal programs.’’ Moreover, without any permanent measure to ensure full 

funding, payment of CSC remains subject to agency ‘‘discretion’’ from year to year, 

even though tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these 

ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult with tribes on a 

permanent solution. 

In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress is empowered 

to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the 

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC 

is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Yet the budget authority for CSC is currently provided and controlled through appropriation acts—as if it were a discretionary program. The fiscal year 2014 Joint 

Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch between 

the mandatory nature of CSC and the current appropriation approach leaves both 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the ‘‘untenable position of 

appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract 

support costs.’’ As the Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ‘‘Typically obligations of this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move to appropriate 

funding for CSC on a mandatory basis. 

FUNDING FOR VILLAGE BUILT CLINICS IN ALASKA

For the last several years, Alaska organizations have submitted testimony to this 

subcommittee on the need to address chronic underfunding of Village Built Clinics 

(VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs, which are clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other entities, are a vital component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural 
264 

Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide Program 

(CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). The CHAP, which 

IHS is directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a network of community health 

aides and practitioners to provide primary healthcare services in rural and isolated 

areas where access to those services might not otherwise exist. 

In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs in Alaska and 

provided approximately $3 million in funding for the program for that year. Since 

then, Congress has not provided amounts specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation, and IHS has had discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. But even though the 1989 appropriation was not a cap restricting IHS allocation of funds in later years, IHS has treated it as such and has refused to increase 

funding for VBC leases. Funding therefore has not kept pace with inflation or the 

rising costs of healthcare in rural and isolated areas. In fact, the chronic underfunding over decades has resulted in deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC 

facilities, threatening the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for 

rural Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly maintained 

VBC space. 

According to an estimate calculated several years ago by the Alaska Native 

Health Board and adjusted for inflation, at least $8.3 million is needed to fully fund 

the VBC leasing program. However, that estimate is outdated and likely falls significantly short of the actual need. CATG therefore urges that Congress appropriate 

at least an additional $8.5 million to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed 

to use its existing appropriations to fully fund such leases. 

This subcommittee should also be aware that, having attempted without success 

for many years to convince IHS to accept its responsibilities for the VBCs as part 

of the mandated CHAP program, some tribal organizations in Alaska are taking a 

new approach. The Maniilaq Association recently requested that the IHS enter into 

a mandatory lease under § 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Assistance Act for one of the VBCs that Maniilaq owns. Implementing regulations 

require payment under the lease to fully compensate for the costs of adequately operating and maintaining the facilities. However, the IHS refused to enter into the 

lease, and the matter is now being litigated. If Maniilaq prevails, the case could establish legal precedent that will allow tribal contractors in Alaska to negotiate for 

full funding for VBCs as part of their funding agreements under the IHS’s ISDEAA 

leasing authority. Though funding should be provided in full through the VBC program directly, the option to enter into a § 105(l) lease must also be preserved as an 

alternative funding mechanism. 

FUND THE IHS THROUGH ADVANCED APPROPRIATIONS

An important goal for CATG—and for all of Indian Country—is the reliable, advance appropriation of the IHS budget 1 year in advance. The goal is for IHS and 

tribal healthcare providers to have adequate notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding 

and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations 

for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for parity in 

the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Young and S. 1570 

by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We request that you support such efforts to authorize and then appropriate the funds for IHS advance appropriations. 

REAUTHORIZE THE SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM

While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians 

(SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those funds are administered 

through the IHS. With the very recent passage by the House and Senate of a 1 year 

extension of the SDPI as part of the Medicare ‘‘doc fix’’ bill, it is funded through 

fiscal year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to 

the sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112–240). This 

funding level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven highly effective 

in Indian Country, and has produced excellent results. For example, in the 4 years 

preceding the last report on the SDPI in 2011, the average blood sugar level 

dropped nearly a percentage point overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in 

the risk of eye, kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you 

support ongoing efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period at increased 

funding levels. 
265 

INCREASE FUNDING FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, SUICIDE PREVENTION, AND ALCOHOL &

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities’ behavioral 

and mental health services. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for 

suicide intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention, particularly 

for our youth. These efforts go hand in hand, as the problems often overlap. Alaska 

has twice the national rate of suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide 

attempts requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate 

nearly six times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among all Alaskans 

increased by 33 percent between 2005–2008—a period when the national rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide epidemic is alcohol and 

substance abuse or a mental health disorder. The overwhelming majority of the people we lose to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance 

abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 months, 

and due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people, particularly young 

people. 

Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect. Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska 

have a difficult time working through the State of Alaska to provide these services, 

which adds layers of guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found 

that tribes and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly, because 

programs that implement traditional cultural values are more successful than those 

that don’t. Included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is mandatory funding ($17.7 

billion over 10 years) for a Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which 

Congress may allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new tribal behavioral health 

grant program; unfortunately Congress did not provide that allocation. We urge that 

Congress allocate $50 million from the PPH to the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this 

purpose and that it be recurring. 

SUPPORT TRIBAL JURISDICTION TO PROTECT ALASKA COMMUNITIES

We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe Families and 

Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska tribes’ jurisdiction to protect 

their communities by dealing locally with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug 

and alcohol abuse. At the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in S. 1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women Act 

Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal jurisdiction over 

domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial importance to Alaska Native communities. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We are happy to 

respond to questions or provide any additional information you may request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COWLITZ INDIAN TRIBE

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, distinguished members of the subcommittee; I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of funding 

for certain programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives. They include programs under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Environmental 

Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretary of Interior’s Office, and 

the National Park Service. 

BACKGROUND

Since the Cowlitz Indian Tribe was restored to Federal recognition in 2002, we 

have strived to develop services to protect and promote the well-being of our people. 

We have approximately 3,800 tribal members with the majority residing within or 

close to our traditional homelands in southwestern Washington State. Although we 

still have no reservation, our leadership continues to move forward the vision to provide for our people. We have established several Departments and Programs since 

2002. The work of this subcommittee is critical in our ability to continue our obligation to serve our people. 

Federal grant programs are particularly critical to our well-being because without 

a reservation, we have no trust land on which to conduct economic development to 

fund governmental services. Making our situation even more difficult, we are ineligible for the wide variety of Federal grant programs that are tied to reservation 
266 

lands. As a result, the Federal grant programs discussed in this testimony are of 

even more critical importance to the Cowlitz Indian Tribe. 

Despite the fact that we are landless, we do what we can to provide essential 

services to our people, and in so doing we believe we also directly and indirectly 

benefit surrounding communities. We also participate extensively at the local, State, 

and Federal level through established and emerging partnerships across a broad 

range of programs and initiatives. We believe that it is important to not only provide for our memberships’ well-being, but work to be a positive and contributing influence with our neighbors. Planning, supporting, and implementing activities that 

restore and protect our economies, natural surroundings, and future stability is important to us. The Cowlitz Tribal leadership is very much appreciative and dependent on the programs under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. It would be impossible 

for us to be a contributing partner without your support. 

THE COWLITZ TRIBE’S SEVEN PRIORITIES

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe respectfully requests that the subcommittee: 

1. Bureau of Indian Affair’s (BIA) ‘‘Aid to Tribal Government’’ Program.—Increase 

program funding from the $24.614 million proposed in the President’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget to $30 million. 

2. Indian Health Service (IHS) fiscal year 2015 Appropriations Report Congress.— 

Ensure IHS makes revisions to the Health Facilities Construction Priority System as directed in the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations Bill. 

3. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) ‘‘Indian General Assistance Program’’ (GAP).—Support the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request of $96.4 

million. 

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency’s (USFWS) ‘‘Tribal Wildlife Grant Program’’.— 

Increase proposed fiscal year 2015 budget from $4 million to $10 million. 

5. Support $1.25 million to be directed to the Office of the Secretary of Interior’s 

Leadership and Administration Activity for fiscal year 2015 for Federal/Tribal 

collaborative analytical work and consultations during domestic reconsideration of the Columbia River Treaty. 

6. BIA administered tribal transportation programs.—Support the Tribal Transportation Unity Caucus’s (TTUC) proposed increase for fiscal year 2015. 

7. National Park Service (NPS) proposed fiscal year 2015 for ‘‘National Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Grants’’.—Increase funding 

from the President’s $1.657 million request to $2 million. 

1. BIA ‘‘Aid to Tribal Government’’ Funding Increase.—The primary backbone of 

support for our tribe’s general operations is funded through BIA’s Aid to Tribal Government program. It is an essential source of funds that supports the general operations of our administration, Natural & Cultural Resources Department, and provides many other services critical to our people and governance. With this core funding, we have been able to provide essential government services, employment opportunity, regional partnerships, grant programs, and to provide increased security for 

our tribe and employees. For a tribe that continues to struggle in obtaining our own 

economic base, this funding source remains critical to keep governmental operations 

functioning. Funding under this program does not meet all the needs of our tribe, 

but as we try and obtain our own economic base, it improves our tribe’s ability to 

oversee program implementation and allows us to deliver essential services to our 

members. In sum, funding for tribal administration of programs is a key element 

towards our ability to support tribal self-governance. 

2. IHS Facilities Construction Priority System.—The IHS system is significantly 

underfunded and an imbalance of resources has developed within the system. An 

example of this is the frozen facilities construction list. We respectfully request the 

subcommittee to address this underfunding and also the delivery system imbalance 

and require the IHS to report to Congress its revisions to the Health Facilities Construction Priority System as directed in the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations 

Bill. The current system was developed over 23 years ago and prioritizes construction projects on antiquated data in a completely changed healthcare delivery environment. Most projects would not score high enough to be funded today relative to 

the needs of other tribes nationally. The system is broken and unfairly prohibits 

tribes from accessing important facilities construction funding on an equal basis as 

the tribes on the current priority list. The subcommittee should direct IHS to develop a facility construction priority system to address the unmet facility construction needs of all tribes and not just those on the current priority list. A new priority 

system should also incorporate the staffing needs for those tribes that have built 

their own health facilities without IHS resources. The Cowlitz Tribe received its ap-
267 

propriation for funding its Health Systems in 2000. In November 2002 we received 

funding for Contract Health Services only and no funding for direct services. 

3. EPA Indian General Assistance Program (GAP).—GAP has been a vital program for our tribe since Federal acknowledgement. It has allowed for our ability to 

build capacity for the many natural resource programs and tends to the needs of 

our memberships health and well-being. It gave us the ability to deal with very important resources issues of the tribe such as representation on key resource management concerns in the region. It has allowed our ability (and maintain) to forge positive relationships and work with local communities to protect and restore resources. 

EPA heard from the tribes in past years that funding under this program was well 

short to meet the needs to build capacity for addressing environmental issues within 

their homelands. We believe that this is a key program that needs to be maintained 

adequately well into the future in order to protect and restore the quality of life and 

culture for Indian Country. 

4. USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grant Program Increase.—Our tribe has been fortunate 

to receive two Tribal Wildlife Grants (TWG) administered by USFWS. With these 

grants we continue to contribute toward positive partnerships with State and Federal managers over recovery efforts of endangered Columbian White-tailed deer 

(CWTD) of the Lower Columbia River region. This species was one of the first to 

be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 1970s. Since we received 

our TWG, our involvement has heightened awareness to the issue of recovery of this 

long-standing recovery concern. We brought fresh new skills and thoughtfulness as 

to what was needed to create a path to recovery and eventual de-listing under ESA. 

We are proud to be one of the primary participants that are leading CWTD towards 

recovery and eventual de-listing. We believe it is important that collaborative partnerships with Tribal, Federal, and State resource managers are the key to achieve 

success towards species recovery efforts. The TWG program provides tribes capacity 

and opportunity to contribute to efforts that is deeply tied to traditional and cultural 

life-ways. We request that funding be restored to this program so other tribes can 

experience the great work that can be accomplished under this program. 

5. Columbia River Treaty Coordination and Technical Capacity Funding.—There 

are 15 Columbia Basin tribes, supported by three tribal organizations of the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Upper Columbia United Tribes, and the Upper 

Snake River Tribes, who have participated in the development of a regional consensus based recommendation on the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty 

between the U.S. and Canada. The Columbia Basin tribes have been key participants in the development and adoption of the U.S. Entity’s regional recommendation (coordinated by the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers). The Cowlitz Tribe along with other tribes participated extensively in 

this effort and continues to be committed towards future improvements on how the 

Columbia Basin water resources are managed. The recommendation is currently 

being considered by the U.S. Department of State to determine next steps in working with Canada to modernize the treaty. During this time there is a need for ongoing evaluation and coordination by the Columbia Basin tribes. The tribes have 

very limited availability of time and funds to conduct this vital work. The Columbia 

Basin tribes need approximately $1.25 million to continue to collaborate on necessary technical evaluations and assessments, as well as to consult with the U.S. 

Department of State, the U.S. Entity, other sovereigns, and stakeholders for fiscal 

year 2015. 

6. BIA Administered Tribal Transportation Programs.—Transportation infrastructure serving tribal communities is the most unsafe, rudimentary and under-maintained transportation network in the Country. Approximately 1,069 of 4,400 Indian 

Reservation Roads (IRR) Program bridges are currently rated as deficient. Cost of 

rehabilitating or replacing the 1,069 IRR bridges is likely to exceed $595 million. 

Consistent with TTUC recommendations, we support and request for an increase in 

funding levels for fiscal year 2015 to $1,050,000,000 for Federal Lands Highway 

(FLH) Program: (A) Indian Reservation Roads under section 204 of title 23; increase 

funding levels for fiscal year 2015 to $100 million for FLH program: (XX) Indian 

Reservation Road Bridge Program under Section 202(d)(4); and increase Highway 

Trust Fund funding for Tribal High Priority Projects Program for fiscal year 2015 

with $35 million including $5 million annual increases until fiscal year 2020. 

7. National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Grants.—The 

Cowlitz Tribe has in the past received a NAGPRA grant which helped fund a successful multi-tribe consortium to allow the re-interment of multiple ancestors at 

Fort Vancouver, Washington. The success of this project has created great opportunity for future multi-tribal projects to deal with long-standing concerns about repatriation issues. We would like to see continued funding of such projects, because 

there are still Native people and materials needing to be returned to their rightful 
268 

places, as well as other projects the Cowlitz Tribe would like to undertake so we 

can continue to address these or similar situations as they arise. 

CONCLUSION

The Cowlitz Tribe would like to re-iterate our thanks and appreciation for the opportunity to testify on the development of appropriations under this subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. We look forward to working with members of Congress to continue to 

build upon our successes and address future needs. We urge Congress to uphold its 

solemn promises to tribes, even as policymakers seek to reduce the deficit through 

spending reductions and revenue generation. The Federal Government’s obligations 

to Indian tribes reflect the Federal Government’s general trust responsibility for 

tribes and are based on numerous long-standing agreements made between tribes 

and the United States. 

The Cowlitz Indian Tribe is happy to answer any questions Congress may have 

about the testimony we have provided here or about the programs we implement. 

Thank you again for your time to consider our testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANCE/USA 

THE IMPORTANCE OF FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS (NEA)

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Dance/USA is 

grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Dance/USA, its board 

of directors and its 500 members. We strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for 

fiscal year 2015. This testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical to 

sustaining a vibrant cultural community throughout the country. 

The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from the performing 

arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, the arts were limited mostly to 

a few big cities. The NEA has helped to strengthen regional dance, opera, theater 

and other artistic disciplines that Americans now enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic or geographic limitations. The Endowment embodies the ideal that no one should be deprived of the opportunity to have art in their lives. The Arts Endowment has helped 

the arts become accessible to more Americans, which in turn has increased public 

participation in the arts. 

THE NEA IS A GREAT INVESTMENT IN THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF EVERY COMMUNITY

Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased by over $20 

million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants in 2013, totaling more 

than $112 million in appropriated funds, and reaching more than 38 million people 

who attended live arts events through NEA-supported programs. These grants help 

nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and 

artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our 

Nation’s diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the Nation’s cultural life results in both new and classic works of art, reaching the residents of all 

50 States and in every congressional district. 

The return of the Federal Government’s small investment in the arts is striking. 

In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA developed an ‘‘Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account’’ which calculated the arts and culture sector’s contributions to the gross domestic product (GDP) at 3.2 percent (or $504 billion) of currentdollar GDP in 2011. Additionally, the nonprofit arts industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supporting 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs 

in the arts and related industries. 

On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State, local, and private sources, generating roughly $600 million in matching support. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face of cutbacks in the recent 

years, the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country. 

The return on investments is not only found in dollar matches. The average city 

and county reports that nonprofit arts and culture organizations had 5,215 volunteers who donated 201,719 hours. These volunteer hours have a value of approximately $4.5 million—a demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities. 
269 

NEA GRANTS AT WORK

Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA funding has also made 

the art form more widely available in all States, including isolated rural areas and 

inner cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and socioeconomic lines. 

NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core programs: Art 

Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/State Partnerships. In 

fiscal year 2013, the NEA awarded 164 grants to the dance field through Art Works, 

totaling $3,972,000. 

AXIS DANCE COMPANY—$20,000; OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

To support Dance Access and Dance Access/Kids! educational and outreach programs in the Bay Area and on a national tour. These activities will offer a variety 

of events for youth and adults with and without disabilities who are based locally 

and nationally. 

DIAVOLO DANCE THEATRE—$20,000; LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

To support educational and outreach programs during the company’s national 

tour. The project will include a Young People’s Concert, community workshops, master classes, and residencies. The Young People’s Concert is an interactive student 

matinee show that includes choreography excerpts, discussion of teamwork, interactive exercises about movement and fitness, and active audience participation. 

Diavolo will work with presenters to tailor an educational and outreach program for 

each community on its tour. 

EUGENE BALLET—$30,000; EUGENE, OREGON

To support regional dance touring and outreach activities. The company will 

present a repertory program featuring Artistic Director Toni Pimble’s ‘‘Silk and 

Steel,’’ ‘‘Concerto Gross,’’ a full-length ‘‘Cinderella,’’ and Gerald Arpino’s ‘‘Light 

Rain.’’ The repertory program will also include school presentations of ‘‘Pulcinella,’’ 

with accompanying study guides for students. 

KANSAS CITY BALLET—$20,000; KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

To support New Moves, a showcase for new dance works by emerging local and 

national choreographers. The program will afford Kansas City Ballet members the 

opportunity to create, produce, and perform works while learning from nationally 

recognized choreographers. Performances will take place at the Michael and Ginger 

Frost Studio and Theater at Kansas City Ballet’s Todd Bolender Center for Dance 

Creativity. 

NASHVILLE BALLET—$20,000; NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

To support the staging and presentation of choreographer Jiri Kylian’s ‘‘Petite 

Mort’’ with live accompaniment by The Nashville Symphony. The work will be presented on the same bill as George Balanchine’s ‘‘Serenade,’’ along with a new dance 

production by Artistic Director Paul Vasterling, choreographed to an original composition by Ben Folds. 

THE NON-PROFIT PROFESSIONAL DANCE COMMUNITY

America’s dance companies perform a wide range of styles and genres. These include both classical and contemporary ballet, classical and contemporary modern, as 

well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary fusions and traditional to modern work rooted 

in other cultures. Over two-thirds of America’s professional dance companies are 

less than 45 years old; as an established art form with national identity and presence, dance has burst onto the scene almost entirely within living memory. And yet, 

America can boast some of the greatest dance companies of the world and can take 

credit for birthing two indigenous dance styles—tap and modern dance. 

One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the Arts instituted its Dance 

Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance became accessible to every community 

in America. What used to be a handful of professional companies and a scattering 

of ‘‘regional’’ dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through 

communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from almost 300 
270 

1The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, USFWS, 

12/12. 2http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/41.summary?sid=853248fd-6760-4341-93d0- 

2aeeab9ea450. 3The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and 

Historic Preservation in the United States, Southwick Associates, 9/29/11. 

nonprofit dance companies from across the United States, Dance/USA estimates 

that dance companies: 

—Employed over 14,800 people in a mix of full-time and part-time positions; 

—Paid approximately $345.7 million, or 53 percent of expenses, in wages and benefits; 

—Earned $200 million, or 29 percent of their income, from performances; 

—Received $326.6 million, or 48 percent of their income in contributions (including public support, corporate contributions, foundation support, and individual 

donations); 

—Generated more than $661.5 million in economic activity across the United 

States. 

Dance/USA, the national service organization for the professional dance field, believes that dance is essential to a healthy society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and potential, and facilitating communication within 

and across cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and organizations. Dance/USA’s membership currently consists of nearly 500 aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, jazz, and tap companies, dance service and presenting organizations, individuals, and related organizations. Dance/USA’s member companies 

range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million. 

CONCLUSION

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget further decreased by $22 million 

since 2010, leaving its programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal 

year 2015. 

On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Mister Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. Founded in 1947, Defenders 

has more than one million members and supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. 

North America is fortunate to have some of the most abundant and diverse wildlife on Earth, more than 200,000 known species in the U.S. alone. This unique and 

irreplaceable heritage is treasured by all Americans both for its aesthetic value as 

well as for the very tangible benefits it brings as a resource. For example, a third 

of our food is pollinated by birds, bats, and insects; wildlife associated recreation 

generated $145 billion in economic benefits in 2011; 1 bats provide at least $3.7 billion to the agricultural industry in pest control services each year; 2 and the value 

of ecosystem services from habitat in the contiguous 48 States is estimated at $1.6 

trillion annually.3 Cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs that conserve 

wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound management. Funding decreases in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species program delayed the recovery of endangered Florida manatees by preventing crucial habitat restoration 

work. Continued cuts will likely lead to irreversible harm to vulnerable species and 

habitat. Our Nation’s wildlife is a treasure and well worth the investment to properly care for it. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation’s premier wildlife conservation agency. We were deeply disappointed that the agency received a 27 percent cut in the fiscal year 2014 House Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

appropriations bill. FWS needs robust funding, not cuts, if it is to recover threatened and endangered species and protect migratory birds and fish, species of global 

conservation concern and other trust species, and stop or prevent wildlife crimes. 
271 

Cooperative Recovery.—Defenders supports the President’s requested increases of 

$1.5 million in Conservation and Restoration under Ecological Services and 

$300,000 under Migratory Bird Management. This initiative is supporting more efficient and strategic efforts across landscapes to recover threatened and endangered 

species on National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands. 

Renewable Energy.—Defenders supports the President’s requested increases of 

$1.1 million in Planning and Consultation under Ecological Services to support approvals of renewable energy projects while ensuring they do not significantly harm 

wildlife, and $1.4 million under Service Science to assess potential impacts of energy 

transmission corridors on sensitive lands and wildlife in the West and to identify 

mitigation strategies. 

Endangered Species.—The President’s request proposes a major restructuring of 

the Ecological Services Activity which includes the Endangered Species program. 

Defenders is concerned about whether the new structure will allow for adequate 

transparency and accountability, particularly in the large ‘‘General Program Activities’’ program elements. Before any such restructuring is permitted, the agency 

must show that it has adequate controls in place to ensure the strategic use of this 

funding and a transparent process for developing priorities and reporting how funds 

are allocated. Absent this information, Defenders supports maintaining the current 

budget structure and requests increases for the endangered species portion of Ecological Services, $21.7 million, which includes: 

—A $4 million increase to support the unprecedented effort to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its sagebrush habitat. 

—A $2.3 million increase for listing species. This funding will support progress 

in listing approximately 145 candidate species, many of which have awaited Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection for years. 

—An $11.1 million increase to support the recovery of the more than 1,500 listed 

U.S. species so that ESA protection is no longer necessary. 

—Defenders opposes a $1 million reduction for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program that assists livestock owners co-existing with wolves, and 

we urge its restoration. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).—Our National Wildlife Refuge System 

is the largest land and water system in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. 

Refuges provide enormous benefits to the American people, generating $2.4 billion 

each year for local economies. A September 2013 memorandum from the System’s 

Chief detailed significant damage from budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 with conservation effectiveness in numerous areas declining dangerously. The request includes a $4.2 million increase which includes funding for Challenge Cost share 

projects with partners and volunteer groups and for law enforcement but it is not 

sufficient. Instead, Defenders supports an $8 million increase over fiscal year 2014 

which is the minimal amount needed each year to keep up with operating costs such 

as fuel, utilities and rent. We also support legislative language proposed by the administration that would provide authority to recover compensation from responsible 

parties who injure or destroy Refuge System or Hatchery System resources similar 

to that of the National Park Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and allows compensation to be applied directly to repair the injury 

without further appropriation by Congress. 

Cooperative Landscape Conservation.—Defenders supports the President’s requested increase of $3.3 million that will support the continued development and 

work of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives that are working to solve complex 

problems across large landscapes. 

Science Support.—The requested $14.4 million increase will help to answer pressing questions about climate adaptation and other landscape level ecological changes 

as well as about energy development, White-Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat 

populations, and other agency management challenges. 

Migratory Bird Management.—U.S. bird populations have experienced precipitous 

declines in recent years. Full funding of the program’s $46.922 million request will 

support the program’s work to survey and monitor, reduce hazards, manage permits, and restore habitat for migratory birds. 

Environmental Contaminants.—Under Ecological Services, a $1.2 million increase 

in Planning and Consultation will help to support the process for national consultations related to pesticide registrations and a $2 million increase in Conservation and 

Restoration will help increase capacity to respond to impacts of contaminant releases. 

Office of Law Enforcement.—A $2.5 million increase requested by the President 

will support wildlife science forensics and efforts to combat an unprecedented level 

of illegal trade in wildlife. 
272 

International Affairs.—A $1.1 million increase in the request will support local 

communities in reducing poaching of flagship species such as tigers, rhinoceros, and 

elephants. 

Other key grant programs.—Defenders supports the requested funding amounts 

for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Fund, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund (CESF). We are opposed to the 

$8.695 million cut for State and Tribal Wildlife grants and urge that the program 

be funded at no less than the fiscal year 2014 level. In addition, we are opposed 

to the request to fund non-land acquisition planning and conservation grants from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund under the CESF. 

FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) are essential to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the United States, yet their resources are not adequate to meet significant challenges. A top priority for Defenders 

is ensuring that renewable energy development on these lands proceeds in a balanced way that maintains the ecological integrity of our public lands and waters, 

conserves wildlife habitat and populations, and contributes to agency efforts to successfully recover our most imperiled wildlife. We urge strong oversight to ensure 

that any energy development is done in an environmentally sensitive fashion. Given 

their large land ownerships it is imperative that both participate fully in landscape 

level conservation and management efforts. 

FS Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR)/Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.—The administration has again proposed merging a number of accounts, including Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, into an integrated budget. Instead, Defenders supports maintaining funding for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat 

Management at no less than the fiscal year 2014 level and continuing IRR as a pilot 

so that the agency can demonstrate its ability to adequately protect habitat for fish 

and wildlife under the consolidated program. ‘‘Evaluating the Integrated Resource 

Restoration Line Item: Results from Phase 1,’’ a recent independent study of the 

pilot program through the University of Oregon and Colorado State University, indicated that a combination of hard targets, including hard timber targets, coupled 

with declining budgets, may reduce investment in wildlife conservation. 

FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.—The request again 

proposes merging these two programs into a single line item. As with IRR, we are 

concerned about such a consolidation unless the agency can demonstrate its ability 

to carry out its responsibilities under these two programs and urge continued discrete funding for each at no less than the fiscal year 2014 level. 

FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.—We support the requested increase of $20 million for this proven cost-effective program established 

specifically to create job stability, achieve reliable wood supply, restore forest and 

watershed health, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce both the costs of fire suppression in overgrown forests and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires. 

FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).—We are opposed to the $17.490 

million cut in the request for FS R&D and we urge funding at no less than the fiscal 

year 2014 level. Adequate funding for this program is crucial in providing relevant 

tools and information to support sustainable management of National Forest System 

lands as well as non-Federal forest lands. Generally, we are concerned that the Forest Service may lack adequate applied scientific capacity to implement critical planning and management actions, including the 2012 planning rule. 

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy.—Defenders supports continued full funding of the $65.2 million request for the Wildlife and Fisheries Management program, a $347,000 increase, which includes support for the greater sagegrouse planning initiative, on-the-ground habitat restoration, and monitoring. We 

recently released an analysis of all draft plans developed under the Planning Strategy, ‘‘In the Red: How Proposed Conservation Plans Fail to Protect Greater SageGrouse,’’ which found that the plans in their current form recommend inconsistent 

and inadequate conservation measures. We urge the subcommittee to work with the 

agency to ensure that the plans are improved so that the final plans will be adequate to conserve and restore this iconic bird. 

BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.—According to agency reports, the BLM has funding to implement only about 10 percent of the work it is 

required to do in recovery plans for ESA listed species on BLM lands, but the request includes just a $178,000 increase. Instead, Defenders supports an increase of 

$1 million over the request which simply restores the budget to the fiscal year 2010 

level and will better help move listed species to recovery. 
273 

4http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/cooplacrosslboudaries.html. 

BLM Renewable Energy.—Full funding of the $29.2 million request, a $171,000 

increase, will help BLM to move forward with renewable energy development on 

public lands while avoiding areas with natural resource conflicts, including conflicts 

with sensitive wildlife species. 

BLM Resource Management Planning.—The $5.2 million increase in the President’s request is crucial to support priority planning efforts for vast areas of BLM 

lands, including maintaining the currency of resource management plans. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science necessary for conservation 

of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge support for the following increases: 

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/Climate Science Centers.— An $11.6 million increase in the request will support scientific needs in planning 

for climate change adaptation and building resiliency of ecosystems. 

Ecosystems.—A $9.2 million increase in the request will help to support development of crucial scientific information for sound management of our Nation’s biological resources including research into declines of native pollinators and measures 

needed to avoid harming sensitive wildlife, especially bats and birds, from renewable energy development. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

Defenders supports the proposal in the request for full and permanent funding of 

LWCF that will help to save some of the 6,000 acres of open space, including wildlife habitat, that are lost each day in the United States.4 Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENVER WATER

APRIL 7, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of Denver Water, I am 

requesting your support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program consistent with 

the President’s recommended budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. —Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES S. LOCHHEAD, 

CEO/Manager. 
274 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this written testimony for 

the record to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies. We appreciate this opportunity to share our views on some 

of the fiscal year 2015 programs for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The U.S. electric generation fleet is facing numerous challenges. Among these are 

EPA regulations, including pending rulemakings on Clean Water Act section 316(b) 

cooling water intake structures, coal ash disposal, ‘‘waters of the U.S.,’’ steam-electric effluent limitation guidelines, and greenhouse gas new source performance 

standards, as well as other significant pending Clean Air Act regulations. These requirements will dramatically affect individual utility decisions regarding construction of new generation and the retrofitting and retirement of existing plants. Therefore, I am sharing with you our views on a number of these proposals that could 

significantly impact the ability of electric utilities to ensure an adequate, reliable 

and affordable supply of electricity for consumers. 

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

On March 25, 2014, EPA released a draft proposed rule to revise the regulatory 

definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ (WOTUS) for purposes of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). The draft would have the effect of expanding the scope of Federal 

CWA jurisdiction at the expense of State jurisdiction to virtually all waters and 

every program under the CWA. 

The draft rule, if implemented, would vastly expand the triggering of CWA regulatory and permitting requirements for electric utility land-use activities, including 

generation construction and operations, as well as transmission construction and 

maintenance. Decommissioning operations would also be negatively impacted. 

EPA asserts it is not changing the existing exemption from WOTUS for waste 

treatment systems; however, that is not clear from the proposed rule text. Modifying 

the current exclusion by regulatory fiat could require electric facilities to comply 

with CWA limitations prior to discharge into impoundments. Often, this is not even 

technically or economically feasible. 

Under EPA’s proposal, the energy industry would face significant challenges in its 

effort to expand and upgrade infrastructure, primarily in the form of major project 

permitting delays, costly resource outlays for new permit applications, and an unprecedented level of regulatory uncertainty and inconsistency in the administration 

of CWA permitting programs. Such an outcome disregards the administration’s commitment to streamline permitting timelines and promote early Federal, State and 

local coordination for Federal permitting processes applicable to domestic energy infrastructure programs. 

In light of the significant and numerous legal, economic and scientific deficiencies 

with this proposal, EEI respectfully urges the subcommittee to adopt a legislative 

amendment to its fiscal year 2015 legislation that would bar EPA from implementing a final rule. In the alternative, we request that the subcommittee require 

the agency to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a study to establish a scientific basis for defining a ‘‘significant nexus’’ to guide development of a 

more scientifically grounded regulatory standard. 

CLEAN WATERS ACT SECTION 316(B) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES RULE

In 2011, EPA issued a proposed rule under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. 

The proposal, which is now expected to be finalized by April 17, 2014, will require 

changes in ‘‘cooling waters intake structures,’’ physical constructions through which 

water is withdrawn for cooling purposes, for the vast majority of America’s existing 

steam-electric generating plants and a wide range of manufacturing and industrial 

facilities. The proposed rule focuses on reducing fish and shellfish mortality attributed to ‘‘impingement’’ on intake structure screens and ‘‘entrainment’’ into cooling 

water systems. 

The proposed 316(b) rule would apply to facilities whose construction began before 

January 18, 2002, and where the total design intake flow of the cooling water intake 

structure(s) is greater than 2 million gallons of water per day. It would apply to 

all existing steam-electric facilities, including ones that have closed-cycle cooling and 

those that have once-through cooling. Importantly, the rule does not distinguish between nuclear, coal and gas units. 

EEI continues to believe that a science-based rule, one that is fair and flexible, 

should include reasonable compliance requirements and deadlines. In order to protect the environment and avoid unnecessary burdens on electricity consumers, such 

a rule should only impose technically justifiable mandates when costs—commensu-
275 

rate with benefits—are part of the appropriate course of action. We remain concerned that an overly prescriptive, rigid rule would encourage unnecessary retrofits 

and result in significant negative environmental, energy, cost, and local reliability 

impacts on hundreds of electric generation facilities across the country. 

With several unresolved implementation issues undergoing final interagency review, EEI urges the subcommittee to ensure that a final 316(b) rule addresses electric system reliability and encourages the use of flexible compliance mechanisms in 

a cost-effective manner. 

COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCT REGULATION

EPA’s Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule is currently in proposed form. The 

proposal offers two options—regulating coal ash as either hazardous waste or as 

non-hazardous waste. EEI continues to advocate for the non-hazardous regulatory 

framework that provides a workable timeline for implementation and protects safety, human health and the environment. 

In addition, we continue to advocate for legislation that would establish a Federal 

non-hazardous, State-implemented waste regulatory program for coal ash disposal. 

In July 2013, the House of Representatives passed such legislation, H.R. 2218, the 

Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. Later this year the Senate is expected 

to introduce a companion bill. 

EEI urges subcommittee support for a non-hazardous regulatory program for 

CCRs similar to the provisions outlined in H.R. 2218. Such an approach would build 

on existing State regulatory programs and ensure proper disposal of CCRs in a 

manner that is cost-effective and without unintended consequences. This approach 

enjoys bipartisan support in Congress and has been endorsed by the States, ash recyclers and our industry. 

EFFLUENT LIMITATION GUIDELINES RULEMAKING

In June 2013, EPA proposed the first significant revision of the Clean Water Act 

steam effluent limitation guidelines (ELGs) in more than 30 years. The proposal 

sets strict technology-based effluent limitations that will force technological and 

operational changes at existing coal-based facilities, many gas-based combined-cycle 

facilities, and some nuclear generation facilities. The impact to industry on the effluent guidelines rule could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

In September 2013, EEI filed extensive agency comments, noting that most of the 

proposed compliance options would impose substantial costs on the electric generation fleet without providing corresponding benefits. We have requested the agency 

to provide adequate time for utilities to implement any new requirements in the 

final ELG rule, as well as coordinate compliance with other rulemakings that affect 

the power industry. EPA must also revise its technical approaches with more current and reliable data. 

We look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure EPA fully considers 

the economic challenges and obligations of the power sector as a whole, and that 

criteria for the final rule is based on credible and sound data to achieve maximum, 

cost-effective reductions. 

GREENHOUSE GAS NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS) FOR NEW AND

EXISTING SOURCES

The electric power sector has made impressive reductions in its greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions, including a 15 percent reduction from 2005 levels as of 2012. Nevertheless, major steps in the development of GHG emissions regulations will occur 

this year as EPA moves forward with Clean Air Act performance standards for both 

new and existing sources. 

New Sources 

In September 2013, EPA issued re-proposed New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for new units. These re-proposed standards, which replaced a proposal in 

April 2012, were published in the Federal Register on January 8, 2014. 

EEI is developing industry comments that will largely track those filed on the 

original 2012 proposal. We remain concerned about the ability of natural gas units 

to comply with the standards under normal operating conditions, especially as more 

variable renewable resources are deployed, causing natural gas units to cycle more 

to support the integration of such resources into the grid. 

We also are concerned about the lack of an explicit exemption for simple-cycle 

combustion turbines, and continue to object to EPA’s determination that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a commercially demonstrated technology for coal-based 

electric generating units at this time. While EPA has proposed a separate standard 
276 

for coal, it has not created a workable pathway for coal going forward given the 

costs and other regulatory barriers to CCS. 

EPA is not compelled to finalize the new source standards by any particular date. 

At this time, the agency is not expected to finalize these standards until mid-2015, 

when existing source guidelines are expected to be promulgated. 

Existing Sources 

EPA has begun its initial, pre-proposal efforts to develop State guidelines for existing plants under CAA section 111(d). EPA, separately, will be addressing modified and reconstructed plants. The timeline includes proposing State emissions 

guidelines for existing sources by June 2014 and the finalization of guidelines by 

June 2015. Theoretically, States would have 1 year to develop and submit to EPA 

a plan to implement the guidelines, though expectations are that this process will 

take longer. 

We believe EPA should provide States with maximum flexibility when creating 

compliance plans and should give credit for a wide range of actions taken to date 

that have resulted in GHG emission reductions. It is also important that any rulemaking minimize the impact on existing electric generating units that are already 

making significant investments to comply with the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATs) 

rule. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, EEI truly values the partnership that we share with 

your subcommittee, and we look forward to continuing our dialogue with you 

throughout the year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits this statement 

for the official record in support of funding for entomology-related activities at the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ESA requests a robust fiscal year 2015 appropriation for the 

Forest Service and requests that the Forest and Rangeland Research budget is 

maintained at a level at least equal to the fiscal year 2014 enacted amount of $292.8 

million to preserve valuable invasive species research and development. The Society 

also supports continued investment in Forest Health Management programs across 

the Forest Service in fiscal year 2015. In addition, ESA recommends strong funding 

for EPA, including Pesticides Licensing Program Area activities within its Science 

& Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, as well as continued support for State & Tribal Assistance Grants for Pesticide Program Implementation. Finally, ESA supports a proposal in the President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request to establish a $45 million multi-agency initiative addressing pollinator health, including involvement by EPA to examine the potential impact of pesticides and ensure that pesticides represent acceptable risks to pollinator health. 

Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the field of entomology, help to protect our ecosystems and communities from threats impacting our 

Nation’s economy, public health, and agricultural productivity and safety. Through 

improved understanding of invasive insect pests and the development of biological 

approaches to pest management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and 

preventing the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national forests and 

grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use science-based, environmentally friendly, comprehensive methods to take preventative action against pests, 

often resulting in lower costs and a more targeted use of pesticides. In addition, entomology improves our knowledge of pollinator biology and the factors affecting pollinator health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop production that 

meets the needs of a growing world population. 

The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of 193 

million acres of public lands in national forests and grasslands across 44 States and 

territories. Serving as the largest supporter of forestry research in the world, the 

agency employs approximately 35,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and private forestry agency partners. 

The Forest Service’s Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative technological tools to improve 

the health, use, and management of the Nation’s forests and rangelands. Within 

Forest and Rangeland Research, the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, 
277 

1Forest Service fiscal year 2015 Budget Justification: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/ 

2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf. 2 Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic impacts of non-native forest 

insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587. 3Forest Service fiscal year 2015 Budget Overview: http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/ 

FY15-FS-Budget-Overview.pdf. 4March 12, 2014 EPA press release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ 

596e17d7cac720848525781f0043629e/ebef2aed5d69e01585257c99006af60d!OpenDocument. 

and impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects, plants, and 

diseases that can have serious economic and environmental consequences for our 

Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are working to prevent the devastation of ash trees across North America by the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle 

that was accidentally introduced from Asia. Emerald ash borer was first detected 

in 2002 and, since then, has killed countless millions of ash trees. This biological 

invasion threatens to eliminate all ash trees from North America, and is the most 

costly invasion from a forest insect to date. To attempt to address the problem, researchers have developed a multi-tiered program that includes removal of infested 

trees, new insecticides, and introduction of several species of parasitic wasps into 

ash borer-infested U.S. forests. The scientists found that the wasps, known to parasitize and kill emerald ash borer eggs and larvae, have helped to slow the spread 

of the ash borer invasion in recent years.1 Emerald ash borer is just one of the exponentially growing list of invasive insects and diseases that cause harm to our Nation’s forests and to our Nation’s economy. Forest health is also affected by invasive 

weeds, and those weeds are often best controlled by beneficial insects used as biological control agents, resulting in permanent and often spectacular control. ESA 

strongly opposes the proposed cuts to Forest and Rangeland Research included in 

the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request, especially the 8.0 percent reduction 

directed at invasive species research and development. 

Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health Management 

program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful insects, diseases, and invasive plants. 

The program also provides assistance to State and local partners to help prevent 

and control outbreaks that endanger forest health. According to a 2011 study, 

invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over $2 billion per 

year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss, tree removal, and treatment 

exceed an additional $2.5 billion per year.2 The program’s ‘‘Slow the Spread’’ activities, for example, have led to a 60 percent reduction in the rate of the spread of 

an invasive species known as gypsy moth, resulting in an estimated benefit-to-cost 

ratio of 3:1. Without the program, it is estimated that 50 million additional acres 

would have been infested by the moth.3 To support these important functions, ESA 

requests that the subcommittee maintain strong funding for the Forest Health Management Program in fiscal year 2015. 

EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the environment by 

developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants for research and other 

projects, conducting studies on environmental issues, facilitating partnerships, and 

providing information through public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives 

to ensure that our Nation enjoys clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and communities free from pollution and harmful chemicals. 

EPA’s Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA’s Science & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to evaluate and 

regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by consumers. Through the 

mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA 

utilizes scientific expertise and data, including knowledge gained from entomological 

sciences, to set maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products 

as effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of diseases of humans 

and domesticated animals, and invasive insect species that endanger our environment, pesticides registered by EPA help protect public health and the Nation’s food 

supply. EPA’s activities in this area also include the development of educational information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and other reduced-risk methods 

of controlling pests. For example, EPA recently awarded three grants to universities 

to help facilitate the use of IPM practices in schools in multiple States, helping to 

promote cost-effective strategies that reduce student exposure to pesticides and 

pests. Due to previous work in this area, 18 Indiana schools have reduced pest control costs by 90 percent by employing new IPM techniques.4 The President’s fiscal 

year 2015 budget request includes plans to reduce funding for IPM efforts in schools 

in favor of other priority activities. However, IPM strategies used in schools reduce 
278 

student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from pests themselves. Therefore, 

ESA supports continuing the modest funding that EPA has invested in school IPM. 

Among EPA’s State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in the area of 

Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-world approaches that work for local communities. For example, these grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental 

risks associated with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM 

techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional pest control 

methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee maintain support for Pesticides Program Implementation grants. 

ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically based studies of pollinator 

populations and health. Pollinators play a vital role in our Nation’s agriculture industry; for example, bees pollinate more than 90 crops in the United States and are 

essential for the production of an estimated 70 percent of all the food we eat or export. To ensure a healthy bee population, more research is needed to fully understand the complexities of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and to examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Pesticides represent just one potential risk 

to bees, but both the risks and benefits must be balanced, and those risks and benefits will vary among different crops and different crop-producing regions of the 

United States. EPA is well-positioned to help identify methods for protecting bee 

health; the agency recently awarded agricultural grants to three universities to aid 

in the development of IPM practices that lower pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from pests. For this reason, ESA supports EPA’s participation 

in a proposed multi-agency initiative to investigate pollinator health and develop 

implementation plans to prevent pollinator population decline. 

ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest organization in the 

world serving the professional and scientific needs of entomologists and individuals 

in related disciplines. Founded in 1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated 

with educational institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government. 

Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel, administrators, 

marketing representatives, research technicians, consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of America’s support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more information about the Entomological Society of America, please see http://www.entsoc.org/. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERAL FOREST RESOURCE COALITION

The following testimony is submitted on behalf of the Federal Forest Resource 

which represents purchasers of Federal timber in 32 States, with over 650 member 

companies and affiliated associations, collectively representing over 390,000 employees. 

We make the following specific programmatic recommendations for fiscal year 

2015: 

Enact the budget cap exception recommended in the President’s request and in 

H.R. 3992, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act; Focus increased investments (15 percent increases) on National Forest Timber Management, Wildland Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction, and Capital Improvement & Maintenance; Continue CFLR projects to 

demonstrate collaborative forest management. We strongly applaud the administration’s budget for proposing to increase timber outputs by almost 16 percent, and we 

endorse the bi-partisan approach to wildfire funding in the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. 

Our Mills Rely on Predictable, and Growing Supplies of Timber.—The forest products industry is extremely capital intensive. Our member companies have significant 

investments in logging and mill infrastructure, which can help offset the costs of 

managing the National Forests and return money to the Treasury. After weathering 

the worst recession our industry has seen in almost a century, forest products companies are seeing the benefits of a rebounding economy and international markets, 

providing us an opportunity to modernize and remain competitive. Several issues at 

the Forest Service inhibit our ability to grow and compete. Unpredictable timber 

supplies caused by erratic appropriations, fire borrowing, and obstructionist tactics 

by a minority of radical groups make it difficult to commit to the investments needed to keep our companies viable. 

Eliminating Fire Borrowing, Provide Stable Appropriations.—Last year was the 

second in a row in which the Forest Service redirected significant funds (over $600 

million) from other programs to pay for wildfire suppression activities. Programs 

which directly support improved forest health are among those penalized the most 
279 

by this process. The pattern of borrowing disrupts forest management and delays 

timber sale projects unnecessarily, while doing nothing to help ensure honest budgeting or reduced costs. Suppression borrowing concerns cause the Forest Service to 

freeze accounts early in the summer, stopping vital timber sale projects and Stewardship contract negotiations. The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act holds tremendous 

promise and we urge the Committee to move forward with it this year. 

We also stress that the Forest Service has had to manage through a long series 

of continuing resolutions, some lasting as little as a few days. This culminated with 

the disruptive Government shutdown, which halted 1,200 active timber sales. Contractors were given very little time to close up operations and remove machinery 

from the woods. The working men and women on our logging crews and in our mills 

should not be the unintended collateral damage in high stakes political fights. Disruptions in the timber sale program make it harder to manage the National Forests, 

harder to reduce fuel loads, and harder for our member companies to justify making 

the capital investments needed to remain competitive. We urge Congress to use the 

appropriations process to minimize these disruptions to the greatest extent possible. 

The Need for Management.—As you know, the National Forest System is experiencing significant forest health challenges. The Chief has testified that the National 

Forests have between 65 and 82 million acres in need of active management, with 

45 million acres decimated by bark beetles in the Rocky Mountains alone. Further, 

the Forest Service has a $5.6 billion capital facilities maintenance backlog. This 

backlog does not just affect the roads my members depend on to access timber, but 

the trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers millions of Americans use. Faced with 

deteriorating forest health and crumbling facilities, we urge Congress to prioritize 

management and maintenance over expansion of an overtaxed National Forest System. 

The Need to Increase the Pace and Scale of Forest Management.—In early 2012, 

the administration publicly committed to increasing the pace and scale of managing 

the National Forest System, arguing that by expanding forest restoration programs, 

forest health would improve, fire danger would decrease, and timber outputs would 

climb to over 3 billion board feet. We applaud their 2015 budget request for attempting to translate that commitment into action. However, we urge the subcommittee to take a more direct route than that proposed by the administration. 

The administration has once again proposed a consolidated line item, ‘‘Integrated Resource Restoration’’, funded at $820 million for fiscal year 2015. As you know, 

this program has been implemented as a pilot program in Regions 1, 3, and 4 since 

2010. We have not seen any indication that the pilot regions are experiencing a reduction in unit costs, whether the metric is acres treated or units of wood produced. 

Region 1, in particular, remains extraordinarily dysfunctional, with timber output 

plummeting by more than 58 percent in Montana since the pilot program began. 

There is no indication that an integrated or collaborative approach has reduced the 

appetite for obstruction among extremist groups who oppose all management. 

Further, each of these Regions relies heavily on personal use fire wood to meet 

their timber harvest goals and to artificially reduce their unit costs. The three pilot 

Regions’ timber programs included 31 percent, 21 percent, and 43 percent firewood, 

respectively. When firewood is factored out, Region 1 and Region 4 had unit costs 

of over $224 and $137 per thousand board feet each, making them the least efficient 

Regions in the lower 48. IRR has made use of funds more difficult to track and 

budget comparisons item to item or year to year almost impossible. 

Fiscal Year 2015 would be the 5th full fiscal year of IRR at the pilot level. Ultimately, we aren’t getting restoration or treatments achieved through this program. 

We urge you to end the pilot program and we oppose expansion to the rest of the 

country. 

The administration has also recommended expanding the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program (CFLR) by 50 percent, increasing the funding from 

the currently authorized level of $40 million per year to $60 million per year. We 

have similar concerns about CFLR as we do the IRR program. The Federal Forest 

Resource Coalition (FFRC) members are actively engaged in CFLR projects across 

the country. In many cases, our members are among the leaders in these collaborative efforts. However, as of today, we have yet to see significant results from these 

projects, and drastically increasing the allocation of funds to CFLR is not justified 

at this time. 

We recently surveyed our members on the successes and failures of the CFLR 

projects they are involved in. Just 60 percent said that the program had led to increased timber outputs and increased acres thinned. Only 53 percent said the program had reduced controversy around managing the National Forests. In many 

cases, our members reported that CFLR projects had completed no new National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, and in fact were reporting accom-
280 

plishments from projects whose NEPA was completed prior to the designation of the 

CFLR projects. 

We are extremely concerned about the lack of concrete matching funds for already 

selected CFLR projects. We support continued funding for CFLR at the authorized 

level. Congress should take steps to ensure that CFLR funds are truly supplemental 

to, not displacing, regular funds for the National Forest System (NFS) units with 

projects. Stricter matching requirements to ensure concrete financial matches 

should also be implemented. We urge the Committee to direct the Forest Service 

to expand management across the country, and not simply focus on CFLR project 

areas. There are many opportunities, and many authorities, for expanded management. 

The Need to Increase Efficiency in NFS Management.—As an industry, we have 

learned how to economize, reduce costs, and do more with less. We recognize that 

the Nation’s fiscal situation demands austerity, and we dialogue constantly with 

Federal land managers to find ways to reduce costs and increase efficiency. Congress has been at the forefront of these efforts. In recent years, the Congress has: 

Replaced cumbersome administrative appeals with a streamlined objection process; 

exempted projects that use a Categorical Exclusion from administrative appeal or 

objection; expanded the use of designation by description to all timber sales; and expanded forest health authorities beyond the Wildland-Urban Interface. 

We strongly urge you to continue these efforts by directing the Forest Service to; 

meet their forest products output targets using only commercial products such as 

sawlogs, pulpwood, and commercial biomass, not personal use firewood; focus higher 

yielding forest management projects on lands designated as suitable for timber production; and meet a goal of 3.5 billion board feet in fiscal year 2015. 

The current annual harvest from the National Forests represents less than 10 

percent of annual forest growth, and less than half the allowable sale quantity in 

existing forest plans. In many Regions, the Forest Service is falling short of its own 

management goals; including response to the bark beetle outbreak in the Rockies 

and in managing aspen habitat in the Lake States. Stepping up management, 

through collaboratives where they exist and normal timber programs elsewhere, will 

address pressing forest health concerns while bolstering employment in economically distressed rural communities. Investing in the Forest Service timber program 

is a very effective job creator, generating 16.5 new direct and indirect jobs per million board feet harvested. 

We appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee to remove the arbitrary requirements for hazardous fuels reduction work in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). 

A greater percentage of lands in need of fuels reduction are outside of the WUI, and 

mechanical thinning allows the Forest Service to take advantage of the wood products infrastructure to reduce treatment costs. Extensive Forest Service research 

shows that mechanical thinning which includes removing useable wood fiber, followed by prescribed fire, significantly reduce threats from wildfire and forest pests. 

BLM Forest Management.—The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget includes a 9.1 

percent reduction in funding for the Bureau of Land Management Oregon and California (BLM O&C) Land Management Program. FFRC strongly supports reforming 

these critically important and productive timberlands. We urge the Committee to reject the proposed reduction and fund the O&C program at least at the 2014 enacted 

level. Aggressive action is needed to offer regeneration harvests from these lands 

that meet the needs of local mills and communities. We strongly support the Presidential Decree (PD) Forest Management Program at no less than the President’s 

recommended level of $9.9 million. 

Alaska.—The timber industry in Alaska faces several challenges stemming from 

years of controversy over the management of the Tongass National Forest. FFRC 

members depend upon supplies of timber from this forest, and have been hard 

pressed as the Forest Service has placed complete restrictions on harvest in roadless 

areas. Current efforts to transition to second growth timber will not meet the local 

industries needs for decades. Steps must be taken to offer a timber sale program 

that complies with the National Forest Management Act and can sustain the local 

value added industry in order to save the capacity to manage the very small percent 

of the Tongass that is open to any harvest (almost 90 percent of the Tongass is 

roadless). Local mills and loggers, along with Governor Sean Parnell, have concluded that some portion of the Tongass should be converted into State ownership 

in order to meet the needs of the local economy. FFRC strongly supports this effort. 

FFRC also strongly urges the subcommittee to make permanent the Red Cedar language which it has included in previous Interior bills for more than a decade. This 

language is absolutely necessary to insure that USFS sales are not offered as deficit 

sales. 
281 

Conclusion.—Wood product demand remains strong, providing an opportunity to 

expand management on the National Forests. More forest management work needs 

to be done on the National Forests. Only Congress can decide whether we will help 

meet that domestic and international demand using timber from our National Forests, which must be milled domestically before it can be exported. Only Congress 

can create American jobs by using this market upswing to pay for badly needed forest management work. To paraphrase our favorite bear, only you can decide to act 

now, or you can allow the negative trends in forest health and rural economic distress to continue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF STATE HUMANITIES COUNCILS

The Federation of State Humanities Councils respectfully requests that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior allocate $154.5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and $46 million for the Federal/State 

Partnership for fiscal year 2015. 

We would like to thank the members of this subcommittee for your past support. 

The funding included in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus bill for State Humanities 

Councils was extremely helpful to these organizations, particularly following the severe cuts of the previous year. Councils are careful stewards of these funds, which 

they administer strategically to achieve the maximum benefit for the communities 

in their States. As full partners of the NEH, councils receive their core funding 

through the Federal/State Partnership line of the NEH budget, which they use to 

leverage additional support from foundations, corporations, private individuals, and 

State governments. In 2013, every Federal dollar the councils awarded through 

grants to local institutions leveraged, on average, $5.00 in local contributions. Councils further extended their resources by forming partnerships with more than 9,000 

organizations throughout their States. 

These numbers tell part of the story—but not the most important part. Council 

programs improve not just individual lives but also the civic and cultural lives of 

the communities in your States. The benefits of the Federal funds invested in the 

State Humanities Councils are realized through programs that (1) preserve local 

history and culture, (2) support veterans, (3) serve rural communities, (4) reach diverse audiences, (5) boost local economies, (6) enhance national security, and (7) promote lifelong learning. 

Council programs preserve local history and culture.—Programs that help communities understand and appreciate their history have been a staple of council work 

from the beginning, illuminating the events and conditions that have shaped these 

unique places. Consider, for example, the Idaho Humanities Council’s ‘‘Wilderness 

Considered’’ reading and discussion series, developed to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act. This program is designed not only to look at 

the idea of wilderness in the American imagination but also to explore the particular relationship that Idahoans ranging from ranchers to snowmobilers to hunters and hikers have to wild places and the impact this relationship has had on the 

State’s character. Humanities Washington, in partnership with the State Historical 

Society, is travelling an exhibit entitled ‘‘Hope in Hard Times’’ to eight communities. 

The exhibit and related activities will allow participants to reflect on the ways 

Washingtonians during the Great Depression coped with their struggles and sustained hope for a better future. It will also invite them to share family and community stories as a means of looking at the impact of that history on their own lives, 

reminding themselves to look for their own opportunities to create change. 

Though councils have been supporting such programs throughout their history, 

they have continually explored fresh approaches, involving scholars in new ways, 

engaging audiences more interactively, and employing the many electronic tools at 

hand. The online State encyclopedias developed by councils have given residents, 

visitors, and educators unprecedented and constantly evolving access to the history 

of the State. The Virginia encyclopedia, to cite an outstanding example, allows visitors to scroll through an alphabetical index of State figures and events, browse an 

interactive map, or bore more deeply into topics covered by the blog. The encyclopedia also provides resources for teachers and researchers. 

In addition, council programs bring to light stories long hidden but crucial to the 

State’s or a community’s understanding of its culture and identity. The Minnesota 

Humanities Center, in partnership with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council and 

the National Museum of the American Indian, developed an exhibit, ‘‘Why Treaties 

Matter: Self-Government in the Dakota and Ojibwe Nations,’’ that has given more 

than 50,000 Minnesotans in 39 communities a deeper understanding of the circumstances surrounding Minnesota land, its use, and the treatment of the land’s in-
282 

digenous people, historically and today. The exhibit has also been used in schools, 

prompting Kevin Gover, Director of the National Museum of the American Indian 

to observe, ‘‘Together, we can work to educate a new generation of Minnesotans who 

understand basic important facts about Minnesota’s tribal nations.’’ 

Finally, the Rhode Island Council for the Humanities is collaborating with Brown 

University on Rhode Tour, a new statewide digital history project. Rhode Tour features a smartphone app with GPS that uses oral histories, pictures, and sound to 

tell Rhode Island’s story. The Rhode Island Council is partnering with organizations 

throughout the State to provide the content for this digital history tour, including 

stories on environmental, economic, and social issues. 

Councils serve veterans.—A number of agencies and groups provide services and 

programs for veterans, but the humanities have a special role to play. Humanities 

scholars and facilitators have proven skill at drawing out stories and exploring their 

meaning. Council programs look at larger and deeper questions of what it means 

to individuals to be in violent circumstances and what it means to a society to place 

their men and women in such conditions. Over the past few years, councils have 

developed a rich array of programs for and about veterans. These include, among 

others, the Missouri Humanities Council’s ‘‘Proud to Be’’ volumes of veterans 

writings, the council-sponsored Literature and Medicine reading and discussion programs for veterans’ caregivers throughout the country, and the Veterans’ Voices programs sponsored by the Minnesota Humanities Center and Humanities Texas that 

explore the veteran experience through plays and discussion groups. 

Cal Humanities recently announced a statewide multi-year program, ‘‘War Comes 

Home,’’ that will launch hundreds of events involving dozens of partners throughout 

the State. Through speakers, reading and discussion groups, public forums, oral histories, and teacher resources, the program will help veterans and their families and 

communities explore how Californians are welcoming their returning veterans. All 

these council-sponsored programs have the potential not only to allow veterans to 

tell their stories and to begin to re-integrate into their communities, but also to compel the public to listen, to wrestle with the consequences of sending people to war 

and bringing them home, and to claim their own role and responsibility in this process. Councils serve rural communities.—A recent Federation survey revealed that 

council programs reached more than 6,000 communities last year, many in rural, 

even remote areas, where they are often the only programs of this sort that small 

towns have access to. Whether they involve individual speakers who stimulate a discussion well into the evening, a reading and discussion program at the local library, 

or a facilitated community conversation about an issue of concern, these programs 

strengthen and revitalize communities. They unite and enlighten residents. They 

encourage habits of dialogue. 

The highly successful Museum on Main Street program, the product of a partnership between State councils and the Smithsonian and designed specifically for rural 

communities, shows the lasting benefits of a relatively modest investment. Last year 

Frederick, Oklahoma, with a population just under 4,000, hosted the exhibit ‘‘New 

Harmonies: Celebrating American Roots Music,’’ which explored music, history, and 

cultural movements such as desegregation and gender equality. The Center’s exhibit 

and program attendance grew by 50 percent and donations increased by 150 percent. The Alaska Humanities Forum’s ‘‘Take Wing Alaska’’ program helps rural Native Alaska students adjust to urban college settings, with the ultimate aim of their 

gaining knowledge to strengthen their communities once they return. The Forum 

sponsors Urban and Campus Immersions in Anchorage that focus not only on academic skills, but also on cultural strengths the students can use to transition from 

a rural to an urban environment. 

Council programs reach citizens of all ages, incomes, and levels of education.—Increasingly, council programs engage young adults as well as seniors, a variety of 

ethnic communities, immigrants, low-income families, prison populations, and Native Americans. These groups are not just passive recipients of council programs but 

partners and active participants. 

As our future leaders, teens and young adults are especially important participants in humanities programs. Several councils support or coordinate their State’s 

National History Day, which offers students intellectual, practical, and even emotional benefits. The Pennsylvania council offers vibrant interactive programming for 

students with the library-based Teen Reading Lounge. These programs supplement 

formal education for young people and help instill habits of communication and critical thinking that will serve them well into adulthood. 

Councils also conduct programs that help immigrants and refugees adjust to their 

new homes and enable long-time residents to learn about the cultures of these new 

citizens. The New York Council for the Humanities, in collaboration with the Citi-
283 

zens Committee for New York City and several other groups, provided grants to 

faith-based or neighborhood-based immigrant and cultural groups to encourage 

unity through active engagement between new immigrant groups and their longerterm neighbors as well as residents of different faiths. Projects funded in 2013 

through this first-of-its-kind program included an interfaith celebration of Eid 

hosted by Afghans United, a cross-cultural mural project with students from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, and a film series sponsored by the National 

Council of Negro Women that encouraged members of diverse communities to view 

and discuss films about a variety of immigrant experiences. 

Council programs boost local economies.—Council programs help improve and revitalize such institutions as libraries, museums, and schools, which gives communities a vibrancy that draws both new residents and potential investors. Many councils conduct books festivals that bring dollars to local economies. Many use the Museum on Main Street exhibits to draw tourists. Still others are steadily building cultural tourism programs that leverage local dollars. In Ohio, where tourism is the 

fourth largest economic drive in the State, Ohio Humanities offers grants and technical assistance to communities seeking to engage in heritage tourism, offering authentic place-based experiences for travelers. The council has also produced driving 

tours drawing from ‘‘The Ohio Guide,’’ the 1940 publication of the Federal Writers 

Project. Communities along the 11 selected routes report that the tours have increased visitation. 

The many book festivals that councils conduct in States including Tennessee, 

Montana, Colorado, Virginia, South Carolina, and South Dakota serve as another 

economic boost for host communities, drawing readers and tourists from all regions 

of the State and beyond. A recent economic impact study by the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau estimated the Virginia Festival of the 

Book’s total impact at $3.9M. Over 600 hotel rooms are booked each year for the 

South Carolina Book Festival, which generates more than $100,000 in book sales. 

The Utah Humanities Council’s statewide Book Festival has for 16 years brought 

Utah readers and writers together with authors from around the world to talk about 

books and ideas. Throughout the month of October (National Book Month) historians, journalists, biographers, politicians, and members of the public mingle with 

poets, novelists, and children’s writers in communities in every corner of the State, 

both enriching the intellectual and cultural lives and contributing to the economies 

of those communities. 

The humanities and the humanities councils increase national security.—Clearly 

councils do not directly affect national security policy-making, but council programs 

contribute to the citizen understanding of global issues that is the necessary prerequisite to citizen involvement with the decisionmaking process and the elected officials who do make these decisions. The Maine Humanities Council offers evidence 

of the validity of this assumption with ‘‘The World in Your Library: A Foreign Policy 

Speakers Series,’’ a speaker series through which local libraries host three one-hour 

presentations, with discussion, on foreign policy issues of their choice, providing a 

rare opportunity for residents to explore these issues with experts in foreign policy. 

Finally, council programs promote lifelong learning.—This learning extends to citizens who participate in the many community conversations conducted by councils, 

to teachers who benefit from the council-sponsored institutes and seminars that enrich and re-energize them, to the parents and children who improve their reading 

skills and engage with ideas through councils’ family literacy programs. 

The Virginia Foundation for the Humanities recently offered a program, ‘‘Segregation, Desegregation and Civil Rights in Virginia,’’ that provided learning opportunities for several audiences. First, it offered a day-long seminar that used events surrounding the 1959 school closings in Arlington and Prince Edward county to help 

teachers ‘‘consider new ways to understand and teach this multi-layered history; the 

ways our collective understanding of citizenship and community was challenged during the desegregation era; and why this history still matters—and the issues remain 

current—in the present day.’’ The workshop was followed by a community conversation inviting residents to recall their own experience of those years and discuss why 

these issues still matter. 

We have offered only a small sampling of the programs that enrich and enliven 

communities throughout the Nation. We hope these examples have demonstrated 

the significant difference that this modest investment in Federal funds makes. And 

we hope you will look with favor on our request for $46 million for the councils and 

$154.5 million for NEH. 
284 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING SOLUTIONS PARTNER

CAUCUS

The undersigned organizations, members of the Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus, urge the subcommittee to address the vexing issue of wildfire 

suppression funding in fiscal year 2015 appropriations. We respectfully request that 

the subcommittee correct this wildfire suppression funding issue by including language from the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA—H.R. 3992; S. 

1875) in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This language provides the structure to fund a portion of the USDA 

Forest Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire suppression 

costs through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. This would provide the USFS and DOI 

with a funding structure similar to that used by other agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies. 

The Partner Caucus is a diverse coalition of organizations brought together in 

January of 2009 to find a solution to the impacts of increasing suppression costs 

on land management agencies. Our coalition includes national and local organizations, State forestry, environmentalists, outdoor and recreation industry, sportsmen, 

timber industry, local governments and many other groups interested in Federal 

lands. 

Our organizations are concerned current spending levels for the suppression and 

FLAME accounts will not be sufficient for fiscal year 2015 and certainly not sustainable over the long term. The current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle 

of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest 

management activities. The agencies and first responders need a predictable, stable, 

and efficient budget structure to deliver their congressionally directed land management missions. 

Numerous fire seasons over the past decade have required fire funding transfers 

from non-suppression accounts, clearly demonstrating the urgent need to change the 

suppression funding model at the USFS and DOI. The last few fiscal years have increasingly reflected the need for a new funding approach: 

Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013 

Carry-over levels in the FLAME accounts were rescinded in fiscal year 2012, 

suppression was funded below the forecast, and the fire season was very costly, 

particularly at the end of the fiscal year. Suppression was also funded below 

the ten-year average in fiscal year 2013 and the fire season was once again very 

costly. Over $1 billion were transferred from USFS and DOI programs at the 

end of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 combined. 

In the past, repayments of transfers occurred through emergency supplemental appropriations, which would occur well after the USFS and DOI Bureaus had been severely impacted by the transfers. However, fiscal year 2012 

and fiscal year 2013 suppression transfers were ‘‘repaid’’ from the entire Interior bill for the following fiscal year. The result is that all Interior Agencies and 

their programs are now impacted by suppression funding. Additionally, the 

transfers have had long lasting effects on the USFS’ and DOI’s implementation 

of impacted programs that continue to this day. 

Fiscal Year 2014 

Suppression is funded at the full ten-year average. However, with the increasing drought conditions across the Nation, the fiscal year 2014 fire season is expected to be particularly active and costly. There is every indication that the 

USFS and DOI will run out of suppression funds and be forced to transfer before the end of the season. 

This pattern of funding is neither efficient nor sustainable. The Wildfire Disaster 

Funding bill would provide the USFS and DOI with a funding structure similar to 

that used by other agencies that respond to natural disaster emergencies, which 

have budget cap exemptions for a portion of disaster funding. This important change 

would free the agencies to reinvest in core activities which have been reduced in 

recent years due to a continued shift of limited resources to fund wildfire suppression, including the very programs that would help to decrease wildfire costs over 

time. Further, this change would end the highly disruptive process of canceling and/ 

or significantly delaying ongoing project work, most often at the time such work is 

being executed on the ground. 

We appreciate this subcommittee’s attention to this increasing and unsustainable 

natural resource challenge. The fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill can provide for 

both necessary wildfire suppression and also fire risk reduction activities that create 
285 

jobs and reduce firefighting costs in the long run. We are prepared to help and look 

forward to assisting Congress in developing a sustainable and long-term solution to 

fund emergency wildfire suppression. 

The following are 226 groups supporting the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act: 

3 Legs Collaboration Services 

4FRI: Four Forest Restoration Initiative 

Collaborative Stakeholder Group 

ACA « Canoe—Kayak—SUP—Raft— 

Rescue 

Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc. 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group 

Alliance for Community Trees 

American Bird Conservancy 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Forest & Paper Association 

American Forest Foundation 

American Forest Resource Council 

American Forests 

American Hiking Society 

American Loggers Council 

American YouthWorks 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Applegate Partnership and Watershed 

Council 

Arid Land Innovation 

Arizona Conservation Corps 

Arizona Fire Chiefs Association 

Arizona Prescribed Fire Council 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Association of National Grasslands 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

Black Hills Regional Multiple Use 

Coalition 

Black Hills Resource, Conservation, and 

Development 

Blue Goose Alliance 

Blue Mountains Forest Partners 

Boulder County, CO 

BRL Services Inc./BRL Logging 

Bull Moose Sportsmen’s Alliance 

California Deer Association 

California Fire Safe Council 

California Forestry Association 

California Ski Industry Association 

California Waterfowl 

Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation 

Center for Sustainable Communities 

Central Oregon Intergovernmental 

Council 

Choose Outdoors 

City of Ashland, OR 

Civil War Trust 

Clearwater Resource Council 

Colorado Timber Industry Association 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 

Conservation Legacy 

Conservation Northwest 

ConservationCorps, MN & IA 

Criley Consulting 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Ducks Unlimited 

Eastern Arizona Counties Organization 

Ecosystem Workforce Program 

El Tesoro Retreat Center 

Elliotsville Plantation, Inc 

Endangered Species Coalition 

Environment America 

Environmental Stewards 

Estrada Collaborative Resource 

Management, LLC 

Federal Forest Resource Coalition 

Flagstaff Fire Department 

Flathead Economic Policy Center 

Foothill Conservancy 

Foothills Conservancy of North Carolina 

Forest Business Network 

Forest County Economic Development 

Partnership 

Forest Energy Corporation 

Forest Guild 

Forest Health Task Force 

Fourth Sector Strategies 

Framing Our Community, Inc. 

Friends of the Columbia Gorge 

Friends of the Urban Forest 

Front Range Roundtable 

Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, 

and Ecology (FUSEE) 

Future Forest, LLC 

Gila Tree Thinners 

Gila WoodNet 

Global Parks 

Grassroots Outdoor Alliance 

Great Lakes Timber Professionals 

Association 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition 

Hawks Aloft, Inc. 

International Association of Fire 

Fighters 

Idaho Conservation League 

Idaho Forest Owners Association 

Indiana Forestry & Woodland Owners 

Association 

Intermountain Forest Association 

Intermountain Roundwood Association 

International Association of Fire Chiefs 

International Association of Wildland 

Fire 

International Mountain Bicycling 

Association 

Intertribal Timber Council 

Jara Landworks 

KHII Radio 

Lake County Resources Initiative 

Lemhi County 

Little Colorado River Plateau RC&D 

Lomakatsi Restoration Project 

Louisiana Forestry Association 

Maine Audubon 

Mainland Planning, Inc 

Mass Audubon 

Massachusetts Association of 

Conservation Commissions 

Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition 

Massachusetts Resident 
286 

Masters of Foxhounds Association 

McCutchanville Volunteer Fire 

Department 

Mid Klamath Watershed Council 

Montana Conservation Corps 

Montana Wilderness Association 

Montana Wood Products Association 

Mottek Consulting 

Mountain States Lumber and Building 

Material Dealers Association 

Mt. Adams Resource Stewards 

Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC 

Mule Deer Foundation 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

National Association of Forest Owners 

National Association of Forest Service 

Retirees 

National Association of State Foresters 

National Association of University Forest 

Resources Programs 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

National Network of Forest Practitioners 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Rifle Association 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

National Volunteer Fire Council 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

National Wildfire Institute 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

National Woodland Owners 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

New Mexico Forest Industry Association 

New Mexico Prescribed Fire Council 

New Mexico State Land Office 

Northbrook Public Works 

Northern Arizona Wood Products 

Association 

Northern Forest Center 

Northwest Connections 

Northwest Forest Worker Center 

Northwest Youth Corps 

National Ski Areas Association 

Outdoor Alliance 

Outdoor Industry Association 

Partnership for Rural America 

Partnership for the National Trails 

System 

Pheasants Forever/Quails Forever 

Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

Public Lands Council 

Public Lands Foundation 

Public Lands Service Coalition 

Quality Deer Management Association 

Quail and Upland Wildlife Federation 

Restoration Technologies 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Rural County Representatives of 

California 

Safari Club International 

Salmon Valley Stewardship 

San Juan Forest Health Partnership 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Forest Legacy 

Siuslaw Institute 

San Juan Woody-Invasives Initiative 

Society of American Foresters 

South Carolina Wildlife Federation 

South Dakota Campground Owners 

Association 

South Dakota ATV/UTV Association 

Southeast Youth Corps 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Southern Oregon Climate Action Now 

Southern Oregon Forest Restoration 

Collaborative 

Southern Oregon Timber Industries 

Assn. 

Southwest Conservation Corps 

Southwest Forests Sustainable 

Partnership 

Spatial Interest, LLC 

Sustainable Northwest 

Swan Ecosystem Center 

Taos County Economic Development 

Corporation 

Teller County Home Builders Association 

Texas Forestry Association 

The Conservation Fund 

The Corps Network 

The Forest Guild 

The National Association of RV Parks 

and Campgrounds 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Trust for Public Land 

The Watershed Center 

The Wilderness Society 

The Wildlife Society 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership 

Tierra y Montes SWCD 

Town of Laona, Forest County, 

Wisconsin 

Tree Musketeers 

Tribal Environmental Policy Center 

Trout Unlimited 

Twin Willows Ranch 

Upstate Forever 

Ute Mountaineer 

Vail Resorts 

Village of Taos Ski Valley 

Village Reconstruction and Development 

Project 

Wallowa Resources 

Washington State Fire Fighters’ 

Association 

Washington Wildlife and Recreation 

Coalition 

Watershed Research & Training Center 

West Range Reclamation, LLC 

Western Environmental Law Center 

Wild South 

WildEarth Guardians 

Wildlife Forever 

Winter Wildlands Alliance 

Wisconsin Off-Road Vehicle Park, Inc. 

Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association 

Inc. 
287 

Wyoming Mining Association 

Wyoming Stock Growers Association 

York Land Trust 

Zuni Mountain Forest Collaborative 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF BON SECOUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the Friends of Bon 

Secour National Wildlife Refuge (FBSNWR), thank you for this opportunity to submit comments in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FBSNWR is a nonprofit volunteer organization formed in 1996 and represents citizens from throughout the United States 

who cherish and support the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, our 

members are concerned about its future and the role it plays in preserving vital 

habitat types. 

The Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) provides vital habitat for 

neotropical migratory birds and nesting habitat for endangered sea turtles. In addition, the refuge is a component of a thriving nature-based tourism along coastal Alabama. The coastal economy is dependent upon sound stewardship of natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico, so we believe the development and sustainment of 

a strong Bon Secour NWR and National Wildlife Refuge System is critical to creating a resilient economy in southern Alabama and the Gulf Coast. 

Our organization is an active partner with the National Wildlife Refuge Association, who has focused on several key areas where support of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is sorely needed. Within this context, we urge your action on the following: 

1. Move towards fully funding the National Wildlife Refuge System at $900 million 

annually for operations and maintenance, beginning with $476 million in fiscal 

year 2015. 

The present emphasis on budget austerity is especially troubling for refuges on 

the Gulf Coast, for we may lose opportunities to leverage funds generated by criminal and civil penalties associated with the 2010 oil spill into long-term investments 

for these refuges. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be reluctant to expand 

or improve facilities with these funds if the agency does not have operational funds 

to staff and maintain facilities. 

Bon Secour NWR needs a functional visitor and education center. The Act that 

established the refuge in 1980 directed that the refuge ‘‘serve as a living laboratory 

for scientists and students’’. Bon Secour is a natural wonder that contains all aspects of the marine environment, so the refuge could demonstrate the importance 

of the marine environment to coastal culture and economy as well as the very survival of the planet. 

2. Appropriate $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation easements on working lands and 

to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and reauthorize LWCF at $900 million annually. 

Again, Gulf Coast wildlife refuges may lose opportunities to leverage oil spill 

funds into acquisition of in-holdings and sensitive habitats if LWCF funds area not 

available. Coastal properties are expensive, so it will be difficult to rely solely on 

spill funds to acquire land. However, combining LWCF funds with other sources 

would likely enhance our chances to acquire key properties. 

3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75 million. 

The Bon Secour NWR is one of three refuges within the Gulf Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Grand Bay NWR (located in Jackson County, Mississippi 

and Mobile County, Alabama) is also within the complex and has relied heavily on 

NAWCA funds to acquire lands within the currently approved acquisition boundary. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed in 2011 to expand the acquisition 

boundary by approximately 8,000 acres. 

4. Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs including State Wildlife Grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Coastal Grants, 

and the Department of the Interior’s Fire Management Program. 
288 

The Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR is also one of the three refuges within the 

Gulf Coast NWR Complex and supports one of the elite fire management operations 

with the National Wildlife Refuge System. Their program represents over three decades of public investment in the restoration of fire-dependent habitats that include 

critical habitat for the endangered Mississippi sandhill crane and vital habitat for 

numerous species of neotropical migratory birds. Managing fire-dependent habitats 

that are bisected by an interstate highway and surrounded by commercial and residential development has not been easy. Moreover, these areas will burn by managed 

fires or wildfires, so it is not a matter of choosing to exclude fire from these areas. 

Therefore, supporting the continued investment of using prescribed fire becomes a 

public safety and economic impact in southern Mississippi, for wildfires present far 

more potential to create hazardous smoke conditions along the busy I–10 corridor. 

I will conclude with a reminder that the citizens of the Gulf Coast were faced with 

a dire threat to their economy and culture when the spill began 4 years ago, for 

our lives are directly connected to the natural resources of the Gulf of Mexico. These 

National Wildlife Refuges represent are a vital component for the stewardship of 

these natural resources and represent decades of public investment. They directly 

support the environment and economy through the science-based management of 

the lands and waters for the benefit of wildlife, and they connect citizens to these 

resources through opportunities to enjoy the fish and wildlife. 

The spill no longer dominates the headlines, but the Gulf Coast is still hurting. 

While the nature-based tourism has rebounded well since the spill, sustaining the 

natural features and resources that attract customers cannot be certain. Assessing 

the long-term environmental impacts of the spill will take time. Commercial fishing 

continues to struggle, as water quality degradation and other impacts tied to various types of coastal development hamper fishery productivity. Development is resuming despite the recession. The hurricanes, oil spill, and failure to meet the challenges now may leave a gap that will be even more costly to fill in the future. Families who have been tied to the fishing industry for generations question whether not 

they are witnessing the end of their livelihood. 

We need to support these refuges so that they can be engaged partners in the 

coastal recovery. Our culture and economy depend on active and sustainable stewardship of these natural resources, and the Gulf Coast is a major component of the 

national economy. 

Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call upon the Friends 

of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge if we can be of any assistance. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF MAINE’S SEABIRD ISLANDS (FOMSI) 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 250 members 

of the Friends of Maine’s Seabird Islands from across the country, thank you for 

the opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. Thank you for your past support of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s premier system of public lands and waters set aside to conserve 

America’s fish, wildlife and plants. 

FOMSI is an all-volunteer group whose mission is to support the Maine Coastal 

Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge manages 59 islands on our 250-mile 

long coast, and several thousand acres of mainland wildlife habitat. First, let me 

emphasize that we are grateful that we have a National Wildlife Refuge on the 

coast of Maine. Why? For many reasons, all of which lead back to the positive economic and social benefits that are produced by the conservation of wild lands and 

wise use of our natural resources. The 2006 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, found that, in Maine alone, hunters, anglers, 

and wildlife watchers generated nearly $1.5 billion in revenue for Maine. Clearly, 

wild lands and healthy fish and wildlife populations are important to this State’s 

economy, and the National Wildlife Refuges in Maine are a significant part of that! 

Although we understand and take very seriously the economic challenges that our 

Nation faces, it is important to point out the positive economic impact that this Refuge has on local economies. In Maine, according to studies conducted by Dr. Charles 

Colgan from the University of Southern Maine, 120 companies provide services involving seabird viewing as a recreational activity. These include small kayak guides 

and outfitters all the way to large ships that go on seabird watching cruises several 

times each day. An estimated 5,000 to 7,500 trips are made by people annually primarily for seabird viewing and 350,000 to 450,000 trips with seabird viewing as a 

secondary activity. The total estimate for seabird-related spending was $5 million 

to $10 million in 2001. This does not count the number of birders and others who 

have their own boats and do not take the organized trips, yet come to this area spe-
289 

cifically to see seabirds; accordingly, they have a significant, but uncalculated impact on the economy, too. Nor does it count the revenues from stores that sell merchandise from t-shirts to binoculars that go along with birding. 

Thousands of people come to the Maine coast each year to see the charismatic Atlantic puffin, a bird that nests in the United States only in Maine. Currently, over 

90 percent of the Atlantic puffins nesting in Maine nest on Refuge islands, where 

they are actively protected by Refuge staff and partners, such as the National Audubon Society and Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If funding for this 

management is not maintained, these nesting birds will abandon their colonies and 

Maine will return to the pre-Refuge situation in the 1970’s and early 1980’s when 

only gulls nested on many of the islands. Seabird viewing and birder expenditures 

will fall, and our already fragile economy will suffer further. 

The economic impact described above is only a part of the positive impact that 

the Refuge has on the State’s economy. Others visit the Refuge units to hunt, hike, 

fish, and learn about conservation. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s ‘‘Banking on Nature’’ report showed that the local economic effects of recreational visits to this refuge totaled $7.9 million in 2011, with associated employment of 71 jobs, $2.2 million 

in employment income and $930,700 in total tax revenue. 

That is a brief summary of the economic impacts that one refuge has in our part 

of the country. There are five other refuges in Maine that are also important to 

Maine’s economy. Multiply that by the 556 National Wildlife Refuges in the System, 

and it is clear that Congress’ investment in the System pays off many-fold to our 

Nation’s economy. Our National Wildlife Refuges are often economic powerhouses, 

especially in rural areas. In fact, ‘‘Banking on Nature,’’ found that for every $1 that 

is appropriated for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), $5 is returned to 

our Nation’s economy. 

Therefore, we respectfully ask you to: 

1. Maintain management capabilities for the National Wildlife Refuge System by 

approving a $4 million increase over fiscal year 2014 levels. The System actually 

needs $900 million annually to adequately manage its 150 million acres; a funding 

allocation of $476 million in fiscal year 2012 will simply maintain the status quo. 

2. Appropriate $168.8 million in fiscal year 2015 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire conservation easements on working lands and to 

purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System, and 

reauthorize LWCF at $900 million annually. Created in 1965 and authorized at 

$900 million per year (more than $3 billion today), the LWCF is Refuges’ most important land acquisition tool. More than 8 million acres are unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and there is an increasing need to establish key wildlife 

corridors and connections between protected areas making the LWCF more important than ever. 

There are four significant inholdings for sale at the Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge, and more are expected to come on the market soon. Funding 

of the LWCF at the authorized level will allow the Refuge to acquire these important inholdings to further protect its integrity. 

3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75 million. This Act helps 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leverage Federal conservation efforts through 

partnerships that enable the acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands to deliver multiple benefits including habitat restoration and improved water quality. 

The Refuge received partial funding from NAWCA this year to help acquire 

Mahoney Island in Brooklin, Maine, a critical seabird nesting island. We are grateful for that, and hope to receive more funding from this important Act in the future. 

4. Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs including State 

Wildlife Grants ($58.7 million), the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

($4 million), Coastal Grants ($13 million), and the Department of Interior’s Fire 

Management Program ($60 million). 

The State Wildlife Grant program is a very successful Federal-State program that 

helps keep our Nation’s wildlife from becoming endangered. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) grants conserve the habitats that neotropical birds use along their migration north and south and in their 

wintering range throughout the Caribbean, Central, and South America. This Act 

fortifies investments on national wildlife refuges by conserving ‘‘our’’ birds during 

critical periods of their lifecycles spent outside of refuges and often outside the 

United States. 

The Coastal Program provides technical and financial assistance for voluntary efforts to protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife. This program is critical to 

implementing recovery projects such as restoring and enhancing estuarine habitats, 
290 

removing invasive species and derelict fishing gear, and stabilizing shoreline. This 

program has been a very important partner with the coastal refuges in Maine. 

Fire is one of the Service’s most important tools for managing wildlife habitat; 

however, due to the catastrophic western wildfires made worse by climate change 

and fuel loading, funds for refuge fire management have been consistently diverted 

to fighting wildfires and protecting the forest-urban interface. Resources are needed 

to allow refuges to manage dangerous fuel loads in fire-dependent systems and to 

use fire management to improve habitat for many threatened and endangered species. The refuges in Maine actively use fire to protect and enhance habitats for 

many species such as arctic terns and woodcock. 

We are proud of our National Wildlife Refuges, one of our country’s greatest conservation achievements. We are but one of 230 ‘‘friends’’ groups who support National Wildlife Refuges throughout the country. Friends groups provide assistance 

to our National Wildlife Refuges through monetary and equipment donations and 

volunteer labor. Last year over 40,000 friends and volunteers provided services for 

the NWRS equal to over 600 positions, saving taxpayers millions of dollars. Volunteers throughout the country provide an astonishing 20 percent of the work done 

of Refuges each year! This is a further indication of how many Americans support 

the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System is significant and we are 

showing our support with our donated time and funds. However, we need proper 

funding of the System so we can leverage our taxpayer dollars to provide even more 

economic and social benefits to our country. 

Finally, let me also add that with all the negative stories in the press today about 

Government appropriations and politics, the National Wildlife Refuge System remains a positive success story since the first Refuge was created by President Theodore Roosevelt over 100 years ago. It has always enjoyed support from Congress and 

we thank you for that, and for your continued support! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF RACHEL CARSON NWR 

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill Durkin, 

President of the Friends of RCNWR in Maine. 

I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR for the past 23 years. 

The group was founded in 1987; we are a small group of about 200 members. This 

time of the year all of the letters go out to Congress asking for support of the refuge. 

I have given numerous written statements over the years and we really appreciate 

your support in the past. This year, our refuge is not requesting any appropriations 

directly for Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge; this is a request for general 

funding of the System. I thank you all for your consideration. 

1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $476 million in fiscal year 2015 

for the operations and maintenance budget of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 

managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All of the refuges are in dire need 

of staffing and upkeep. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities to hunt, fish, 

watch wildlife and educate children about the environment; last year there were 

over 46 million visitors to all of the Refuges combined. An investment in the Nation’s Refuge System is an excellent investment in the American economy. Without 

increased funding for refuges, wildlife conservation and public recreation opportunities will be jeopardized. We fully supported the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s request of 

$476 million for O&M for the NWRS. 

2. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public 

lands and at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across the 

country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including 

promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the adaptation of wildlife 

and fisheries to climate change. For all these reasons, LWCF needs to be funded 

at the $168.8 million level. Created by Congress in 1964 and authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 billion in today’s dollars), the LWCF is our most important land and easement acquisition tool. The President has included meaningful increases to the program in his fiscal year 2015 budget, and I support the administration’s commitment to fully funding the program in the near future. I urge a minimal 

commitment of $168.8 million to the National Wildlife Refuge System. This wise investment in the Land and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently 

pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. The Land and Water Conservation Fund should be fully funded at $900 million 

annually—the congressionally authorized level. LWCF is good for the economy, it 
291 

is good for America’s communities and their recreational access; it is critical for our 

public lands and wildlife habitat. 

3. Appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75 million. NAWCA supports habitat restoration, water quality improvements and carbon sequestration. 

The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one of the Nation’s foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After arriving in Maine in 1946 as 

an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became 

entranced with Maine’s coastal habitat, leading her to write the international best 

seller ‘‘The Sea Around Us’’. This landmark study, led Rachel Carson to become an 

advocate on behalf of this Nation’s vast coastal habitat and the wildlife that depends 

on it, the refuge that bears her name is dedicated to the permanent protection of 

the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern Maine coast. Last year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s publication of her historic book, ‘‘Silent Spring’’ and look forward in continuing her message through various programs 

at the refuge here in Maine. 

I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment 

to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully request the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee allocate $476 million for the Refuge System’s fiscal year 

2015 Operations & Maintenance (O&M) budget, and fund the LWCF at the $168.8 

million level for fiscal year 2015. The LWCF request is constant every year, we need 

Congress to standby their commitment that was made in 1964: stabilize the fund 

at the $900 million level. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in 

support of protecting wildlife and it’s habitat. Enjoy your next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE FLORIDA PANTHER REFUGE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge recommends the following funding for fiscal year 2015: 

National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................................... $476.4 million 

Land and Water Conservation Fund .................................................... $168.8 million 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act ..................................... $3.7 million 

State Wildlife Grants ............................................................................. $58.7 million 

Coastal Program ..................................................................................... $13.0 million 

We also support funding changes within the fiscal year 2015 U.S. Department of 

the Interior Wildlands Fire Budget to include: 

—Preparedness.—A program increase of $34.1 million, including $15.0 million for 

tribal resource management; 

—Resilient Landscape.—Program established at $30.0 million; 

—Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR).—A program increase of $2.0 million; and 

—Fixed Costs Increases.—Fixed cost increases of $4.2 million. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony concerning the funding of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the Department of the Interior’s Wildlands 

Fire Management Budget. The 26,400 acre Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (FPNWR) was established in southwest Florida to protect the critically endangered Florida panther and its habitat. The FPNWR is also populated with many 

other species that are listed as threatened or endangered by Federal and State 

agencies. The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge is a non-profit volunteer organization with a mission to support the FPNWR and protect the Florida panther in 

the wild. Our members are concerned for the future of the habitat and wildlife on 

our refuge and Florida panther habitat in general. 

We are also concerned about maintaining Florida’s unique environment on public 

and private lands. Southwest Florida supports a large tourist industry that is dependent on maintaining a healthy environment. Funds spent on protecting species 

and water quality have a significant economic impact on the region. 

FUNDING THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

Our National Wildlife Refuge system needs to be fully funded to protect America’s 

natural heritage. The Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge urges the Senate to appropriate $476 million in fiscal year 2015. A budget of $900 million every year, with 

a minimum of $476 million for fiscal year 2015, is required to fully fund the operations and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Funding less than 

these amounts threatens permanent damage to the system. 
292 

Refuge mangers at the FPNWR are challenged by a variety of funding shortfalls 

to fully carry out habitat restoration, invasive species control, prescribed burning, 

baseline and updated wildlife inventories, education/interpretation, law enforcement, visitor services as well as technical assistance and collaborative efforts across 

boundaries with private land holders. The staff at the FPNWR has been reduced 

by six full time employees over the last 3 years representing a 32 percent decrease 

in staff and is hard pressed to meet their goals. 

THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) should be appropriated $168.8 

million in fiscal year 2015 to acquire conservation easements on working lands and 

to purchase outright the vital habitats to support the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool for protecting the integrity of Florida panther habitat. Funds of this program along with 

funds from the State of Florida are critical to the survival of the Florida panther 

and other Federal listed species. There is an opportunity with private land easements to not only protect Florida panther habitat but also the ranching heritage of 

central and south Florida for future generations. This is a critical time through 

easements and acquisition to provide wildlife corridors through central and south 

Florida that will protect our life style, traditions, and natural resources for future 

generations. Time will run out on this opportunity with lasting negative effects. The 

window of to secure a place for Florida panthers, conservation and compatible agriculture in Florida is rapidly closing. 

Increase appropriations for essential conservation programs including State Wildlife Grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Coastal Grants, and 

the Department of Interior’s Fire Management Program. 

State Wildlife Grants.—The Fish and Wildlife Service works with Florida to keep 

common species common and restore declining species before they warrant listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. We ask the Senate to fund the State Wildlife 

Grants Program at $58.7 million for fiscal year 2015 to fulfill the shared FederalState responsibility for keeping our Nation’s wildlife from becoming endangered. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA).—Populations of 

Neotropical birds are high on the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge and our 

sister Refuge, the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge. NMBCA grants 

conserve the habitats that neotropical birds use along their migration north and 

south and in their wintering range throughout the Caribbean, Central, and South 

America. This Act fortifies investments on national wildlife refuges by conserving 

‘‘our’’ birds during critical periods of their lifecycles spent outside of refuges and 

often outside the United States. We request that the Senate reauthorize the 

NMBCA and provide $3.7 million for fiscal year 2015. 

Coastal Program.—Water birds, sea turtles, game fish and other flora and fauna 

attract many visitors to our sister Refuge, Ten Thousand National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Coastal Program provides technical and financial assistance for voluntary efforts to protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife. The coastal program is critical to implementing recovery projects such as restoring and enhancing estuarine 

habitats, removing invasive species and derelict fishing gear, and stabilizing shoreline. We ask Senate to fund the Coastal Program at $13 million for fiscal year 2015. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Wildlands Fire Management Budget.—The Florida 

Panther National Wildlife Refuge is highly dependent on the use of prescribed burns 

to manage the habitat for the Florida panther and its prey. Reduced funding of the 

fire operation budget has forced the Refuge to reduce positions over the last several 

years. This situation has left critical habitat unburned and increased dangerous fuel 

loads in this highly fire-dependent system. The State and the Federal governments 

have invested billions of dollars to restore the Everglades, making a more resilient 

ecosystem. Fire management in this region is needed complement the restoration. 

We urge the Senate to include in fiscal year 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior 

Wildlands Fire Budget: 

—Preparedness.—A program increase of $34.1 million, including $15.0 million for 

tribal resource management; 

—Resilient Landscape.—Program established at $30.0 million; 

—Burned Area Rehabilitation (BAR).—A program increase of $2.0 million; and 

—Fixed Costs Increases.—Fixed cost increases of $4.2 million. 

Thank you for consideration of our comments. 
293 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE SILVIO O. CONTE FISH AND WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the 

Friends of the Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Friends of Conte). The 

Friends of Conte respectfully request $5 million ($2 million in discretionary funding; 

$3 million in mandatory funding) for land acquisition projects in the Connecticut 

River Watershed as well as full funding, $900 million, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

The Friends of Conte represent organizations big and small, from all corners of 

our four-State watershed. Our diverse membership includes groups that focus on 

educating urban constituencies in Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts, groups that focus on providing recreational access to the river, business interests and local and regional watershed groups that focus on protecting the water that 

we drink and swim and fish in, and national non-profits whose work includes the 

Connecticut River watershed. We have been dedicated to recreation, education and 

conservation in the Connecticut River Watershed for the past 7 years and represent 

more than 65 organizations with more than 100,000 members. 

The Connecticut River, New England’s main artery for commerce and transportation throughout the region’s early development, gained additional notoriety in 

1991 when President George H. W. Bush signed legislation establishing the Silvio 

O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Conte Refuge). Uniquely legislated among other 

refuges in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service system, the Conte Refuge was founded 

on three pillars: land protection, cooperative management and environmental education. The Conte Refuge is also unique as it attempts to conserve an entire watershed in which 2.3 million individuals co-exist with nature. Additionally, the Conte 

Refuge calls for only a small acreage in public ownership, with the vast majority 

of the watershed in privately-held lands. The refuge also works with those landowners to help them achieve their personal conservation goals for their properties. 

The 4,840 acres and 35 tracts (1,274 acres and 14 tracts with discretionary funding and an additional 3,566 acres and 21 tracts with mandatory funding) in our 

funding request spans the entire four-State Connecticut River watershed, protecting 

critical forests, wetland and rivers. These acquisitions from willing sellers represent 

a key opportunity to protect critical habitats and to provide recreational access to 

the more than 2 million citizens of the watershed, as well as to the 70 million individuals who are within a day’s drive of the Conte Refuge. 

Providing these recreational opportunities not only makes conservation sense, it 

makes good economic sense. In 2013, the Outdoor Industry Association documented 

an economic impact of $23.6 billion in consumer spending on outdoor recreation and 

more than 200,000 in direct jobs in the four watershed States of Vermont, New 

Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut. 

More specifically, New England’s healthy fish and wildlife populations are also a 

backbone of the region’s economy. New England’s fish and wildlife support a $5.31 

billion-dollar wildlife-related economy. This includes a $2.57 billion-dollar hunting 

and angling economy and a $2.74 billion-dollar wildlife watching economy. In addition to outdoor recreation, the nature services these lands provide include water 

quality and streamflow protection, as water filters through our forests prior to entering our rivers and streams, and flood protection as floodplain forests absorb and 

slow flood waters. 

As you know, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established 

by Congress nearly 50 years ago and will expire next year. We are at an important 

juncture. If we miss this opportunity to celebrate and commemorate the 50th Anniversary of LWCF in all 50 States at the full funding level and continue the conservation legacy of LWCF for another 50 years; the quality of the natural environment will impact the human environment. These impacts will be exacerbated by 

changes in climate and land use. Actions made possible by the LWCF Act of 1965 

allow agency and elected leaders the opportunity to invest in monumental ways to 

create another chapter in our Nation’s conservation legacy for future generations. 

In closing, we thank you again for the opportunity to comment. The Friends of 

Conte is a diverse association of organizations and individuals from conservation, 

education, and recreation communities, who are avid supporters of the Conte Refuge 

and the Connecticut River watershed. We believe the investment of funds from the 

LWCF will enhance recreation and conservation, protect clean water, and support 

jobs and economic vitality across the entire four-State watershed. 
294 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGES, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 192 members 

of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR), including 

Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Passage Key NWR, and Pinellas 

NWR, I would like to thank you for your commitment to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The 4 percent funding increase that you passed for fiscal year 

2014 made a huge difference throughout the refuge system. We realize that in this 

time of budget cuts, it may be difficult to justify increasing the NWRS funding 

again, but once the Refuges start to decline it will cost many times more than these 

small increases to return them to a condition that will fulfill their mandates. We 

respectfully request that you consider the following in your appropriations: 

—Fund the National Wildlife Refuge System $476 million in fiscal year 2015. 

—Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million for fiscal 

year 2015, including a minimal commitment of $168.8 million for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

—Fund $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75 million. 

—Increase funding for essential conservation programs including $58.7 million for 

State Wildlife Grants, $4 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, $13 million for Coastal Grants, and $60 million for the Department 

of Interior’s Fire Management Program. 

The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) estimates that the 

NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million annually in operation and maintenance funding in order to properly administer its 150 million acres as mandated in 

the Refuge Improvement Act. The Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the 

American public, our wildlife, and 46.5 million annual visitors without increases in 

maintenance and operation funds. The current budget is far short of the amount actually required to effectively operate and maintain the Refuges. We respectfully request that you increase the NWRS budget to $476 million so that the Refuges do 

not backslide even further in protecting these valuable lands and ecosystems. The 

investment yields an impressive return, generating approximately 35,000 jobs and 

$2.4 billion in economic output each year. Every dollar appropriated to the Refuge 

System returns and average of $4.87 to local economies as well as providing $33 

billion dollars’ worth of clean water and other environmental benefits such as clean 

air and water and a cool climate. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created in 1965 and authorized at 

$900 million. We ask that you reauthorize the LWCF at $900 million for fiscal year 

2015 with a minimal commitment of $168.8 million to the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. These funds are used for land acquisition as well as less expensive easements or leases to protect wildlife and their habitats. With the effects of a changing 

climate, it is more important now than ever to establish key wildlife corridors between protected areas so wildlife can migrate to more suitable habitat as their historic ones change. These landscape level conservation efforts through conservation 

easements and land purchases are the best way to protect the diversity of flora and 

fauna. The price of real estate is still low at this time and the $900 million can go 

much further in protecting habitats than it can in a higher market. When we start 

to lose species due to lack of food, water, shelter, or space, we are changing the balance of nature. We urge you to fund the LWCF at $900 million for fiscal year 2015 

with $168.8 million to acquire conservation easements on working lands and to purchase in-holdings and vital habitat for the NWRS. The LWCF is not funded by taxpayer money. 

We ask that you appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and reauthorize the Act at $75 million. 

NAWCA supports habitat restoration, water quality improvements, and carbon sequestration. These projects developed by individuals and at the community level 

benefit our declining migratory bird species as well as ducks and waterfowl. 

Essential conservation programs to protect habitat and wildlife will cut expenses 

in the future by protecting and improving what we have today. We request that you 

fund the State Wildlife Grants Program at $58.7 million to fulfill the shared Federal-State responsibility for keeping our Nation’s wildlife from becoming endangered. The NMBCA grants conserve habitats for Neotropical birds as they migrate. 

It covers areas outside of refuges and often outside the U.S. that many of our birds 

utilize during critical periods of their life. We request you fund the NMBCA at $4 

million for fiscal year 2015. The Coastal Program provides technical and financial 

assistance for voluntary efforts to protect and restore coastal habitats for wildlife. 

We ask that you fund this program at $13 million for fiscal year 2015. Lastly, pre-
295 

scribed burns keep our refuges from becoming overgrown or having catastrophic 

fires due to high fuel loads due to fire suppression. It is an important tool for managing wildlife habitat. We urge you to provide $60 million in dedicated funding to 

the Refuge System’s fire program through the Department of the Interior’s Hazardous Fuel Reduction program. 

The Tampa Bay Refuges (TBR) are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the 

west central Gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases a few years ago meant increased management, protection, and restoration of the Refuges and the ability to 

better meet the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. The wildlife on the 

refuges has done well with the extra help. Due to those past increases in budget 

and personnel the TBRs were able to plan for big picture issues such as erosion and 

increased public use. Unfortunately, due to the budget decreases, much of that planning will not be implemented. 

The recent budget decreases and the sequestration have hurt our refuges. 

—The Crystal River NWR Complex which included the Tampa Bay Refuges was 

comprised of 5 refuges. It is now part of the 9 refuge North Florida NWR complex. In 2013, the Project Leader and both refuge managers from the Crystal 

River Complex moved to other refuges, leaving no manager at the Tampa Bay 

Refuges. 

—We are coming into the summer nesting season on Egmont & Pinellas NWR’s. 

Without a manager and with the heavy visitation in the warmer months, this 

is a big problem. The refuge law enforcement (LE) officers are not able to patrol 

Egmont Key as often during the key summer nesting season due to restrictions 

in travel and overtime. This leaves the nesting birds open to more intrusions 

by refuge visitors and nesting failures. 

—If a staff member leaves, he/she may not be replaced so the refuge can stay 

afloat financially for the rest of this fiscal year because of the budgets. We have 

already lost a maintenance position to keep the equipment, including the boats 

used to access the island refuges, in good working order and now we are down 

managers as well. 

—The refuge was able to eradicate exotic plants and predators on the refuges, but 

with the budget, there is little or no money to monitor and keep up with the 

work that has already been done. The result will be degraded habitat for refuges and their wildlife, including nesting failures. 

—Fire management budgets have been cut and prescribed fires have not been conducted Egmont Key as needed. This opens the island, its historic buildings, & 

visitor center up to a much higher catastrophic wildfire risk. 

—There simply isn’t enough money in the budget to purchase safety equipment, 

like a GPS, for the refuge boat. The Tampa Bay Refuges 2014 budget didn’t 

have enough money to pay for storage at a marina for the boat used to get to 

the refuges. Our Friends group made up the difference. Without a boat at a convenient location, the staff must waste valuable time and wages towing a boat 

from the maintenance yard 80 miles away and then launching it near the islands. If the staff has to waste 3–4 hours of their day getting a boat ready they 

only have a few hours to work, rather than a full 8 hour day working. 

—The Ft. Dade Guardhouse on Egmont Key NWR has been restored and will become the visitor center. The Refuge had grant money and installed the first 

phase of the displays, but with the budgets the way they are staff may not have 

time to keep this important environmental education center open to the public, 

much less finish the next phase. 

—Egmont Key NWR has a huge erosion problem and can possibly be lost. Because 

it is in an urban setting, the 32,000 pairs of birds who nest there yearly don’t 

have another location to go to. Because of the lack of funding, this refuge and 

nesting habitat could be lost in the not too distant future. Passage Key NWR 

has eroded to the point that it is a sandbar at low tides and no longer useful 

for nesting: those birds moved to Egmont. There is nowhere else to go if Egmont 

is lost. 

These are just a few of the things impacting the Tampa Bay Refuges. Bottom line, 

funding cuts hurt the wildlife that the NWRS is mandated to protect. The refuge 

system has a very small budget compared to the whole Federal budget. It is not a 

big impact to the Federal budget to give the refuges a little more funding whereas 

the impact of reduced funding is devastating. Please consider funding $476 million 

for the fiscal year 2015 Operations and Management budget. 

The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges (FTBNWR) was incorporated and became a 501c3 in 2008 to better assist the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges with volunteers and fundraising. In 2013 FTBNWR was able to provide 

over 3000 volunteer hours to assist the refuge staff with exotic invasive control, refuge cleanups, and education. FTBNWR has been able to raise money to fund contin-
296 

ued removal of invasive plants on the Pinellas Refuges that degrade the habitat for 

the wildlife. FTBNWR has also purchased equipment for the refuge boat and contributed to the local storage of the boat. The FTBNWR also continued their Education Program to provide outdoor environmental educational programs at our local 

schools for grades K–5 and also environmental field trips to nearby preserves to 

teach our 4th & 5th graders about the NWRS and the environment. Volunteers act 

as bird stewards on Egmont Key NWR during the summer nesting season to enhance the visitors experience on the refuge through education. Our refuges do not 

have enough staff to provide these education programs so we have filled that gap 

as volunteers. Our volunteers are passionate about the Refuge System and donate 

their time, money, and expertise to protect them. 

The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges is one of over 230 

Friends groups who support the National Wildlife Refuges. The interest in our National Wildlife Refuge System is significant and we are proving it with our donated 

time and funds. 

In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges believe the 

National Wildlife Refuge System can meet its conservation objectives only with 

strong and consistent funding leveraged by the work of refuge staff and volunteers. 

We again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment 

to our National Wildlife Refuge System. We encourage you to approve $476 million 

for the fiscal year 2015 National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance budget managed by FWS and to approve $900 million for fiscal year 2015 for 

the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as a dedicated $168.8 million for the 

NWRS. Additionally, we urge you to appropriate $35 million in fiscal year 2015 to 

the NAWCA, $58.7 million to the State Wildlife Grants Program, $4 million to the 

NMBCA, $13 million to the Coastal Program, and $60 million dedicated to the Refuge System’s fire program through the Department of the Interior’s Hazardous Fuel 

Reduction Program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

SUMMARY

The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to at least fully fund the 

fiscal year 2015 request for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). As one of our Nation’s key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role in understanding and documenting mineral and energy resources needed for economic growth; researching and 

monitoring potential natural hazards that threaten U.S. and international security; 

and determining and assessing water quality and availability—keys to a healthy 

and prosperous society. Approximately two-thirds of the USGS budget is allocated 

for research and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and 

decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities 

across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering, and education. Despite the critical role played by the USGS, funding for the Survey has stagnated in real dollars 

for more than a decade and the request is still below the fiscal year 2010 budget. 

Given the importance of the many activities of the Survey that protect lives and 

property, stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide national security, 

and enhance the quality of life, GSA believes that balanced growth in Federal funding for the Survey is necessary for the future of our Nation. 

The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with 

over 26,000 members from academia, government, and industry in all 50 States and 

more than 100 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and programs, GSA 

enhances the professional growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in 

the service of humankind. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL SECURITY, HEALTH, AND

WELFARE

The USGS is one of the Nation’s premier science agencies. Approximately twothirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research and development. In addition 

to underpinning the science activities and decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering, and education. USGS research addresses many of society’s greatest challenges for national security, health, and welfare. Several are highlighted below. 

—Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, 

wildfires, and landslides—are a major cause of fatalities and economic losses. 
297 

Recent natural disasters, including the landslide in Washington and California 

earthquakes, provide unmistakable evidence that the United States remains 

vulnerable to staggering losses. An improved scientific understanding of geologic 

hazards will reduce future losses through better forecasts of their occurrence 

and magnitude and allow for better planning and mitigation in these areas. 

GSA urges Congress to support efforts for USGS to modernize and upgrade its 

natural hazards monitoring and warning systems to protect communities from 

the devastating personal and economic effects of natural disasters. GSA is concerned about cuts to this important program in the request. 

—A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce Trends 

in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action, found, ‘‘Energy and mineral resources are essential for the Nation’s fundamental functions, its economy, 

and its security.’’ Improved scientific understanding of these resources will 

allow for their more economic and environmental management and utilization. 

Nevertheless, Federal programs in minerals science, research, information, data 

collection and analysis have been severely weakened. Funding for the USGS 

Mineral Resources Program, the only primary source for minerals science and 

information, has been cut by 30 percent in constant dollar terms over the last 

decade, reducing its ability to provide critical information on mineral potential, 

production, and consumption that is used for decisionmaking across the Federal 

Government and by a range of businesses and industries. 

—Many emerging energy technologies—such as wind turbines and solar cells—depend on rare earth elements and critical minerals that currently lack diversified 

sources of supply. China accounts for 95 percent of world production of rare 

earth elements (USGS, 2010). USGS research will play a lead role in helping 

ease our dependence on these foreign sources. 

—The ongoing water crisis in California and elsewhere is a testament to our dependence on water. The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are vital to the well being of both society and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding of these resources through monitoring and research is 

necessary to ensure adequate and safe water resources for the health and welfare of society. 

—USGS research on climate impacts is used by the Department of the Interior 

and local policymakers and resource managers to make sound decisions based 

on the best possible science. The Climate Science Centers, for example, provide 

scientific information necessary to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate 

change’s effects at regional and local levels. 

—The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely sensed 

land data in the world, a tremendously important resource for natural resource 

exploration, land use planning, and assessing water resources, the impacts of 

natural disasters, and global agriculture production. Last year’s successful 

launch of Landsat 8 is an important step to continue to provide these resources. 

GSA supports interagency efforts to plan a path forward for future support of 

Landsat. 

Research in Earth science is fundamental to training and educating the next generation of Earth science professionals. The United States faces a looming shortage 

of qualified workers in these areas that are critical for national security. We are 

very concerned that cuts in earth science funding will cause students and young 

professionals to leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of professionals in areas that are already facing worker shortages. Investments in these 

areas could lead to job growth, as demand for these professionals now and in the 

future is assessed to be high. 

The report Emerging Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A 

Call to Action, found, ‘‘In mining (nonfuel and coal) a personnel crisis for professionals and workers is pending and it already exists for faculty.’’ Another recent 

study, Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2011, by the American Geosciences Institute found: ‘‘The supply of newly trained geoscientists falls short of geoscience workforce demand and replacement needs. . . . aggregate job projections are expected to 

increase by 35 percent between 2008 and 2018. . . . The majority of geoscientists 

in the workforce are within 15 years of retirement age. By 2030, the unmet demand 

for geoscientists in the petroleum industry will be approximately 13,000 workers for 

the conservative demand industry estimate.’’ 

Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity, environmental quality, 

and national security. Earth science is a critical component of the overall science 

and technology enterprise. Growing support for Earth science in general and the 

U.S. Geological Survey in particular are required to stimulate innovations that fuel 

the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life. 
298 

As the National Science Board’s recent 2014 Science & Engineering Indicators re- ports, America’s share of the world’s R&D fell from 37 percent to 30 percent from 

2001 and 2012. As other nations have been increasing their support for long-term, 

high-risk research, we have been allowing ours to stagnate or decline. We must reverse that trend and tackle our mounting innovation deficit if we want to retain our 

global economic leadership. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about the Geological Society of 

America—including GSA Position Statements on water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, and public investment in Earth science research— 

please visit www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at kwhite@geosociety.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT SALT LAKE COUNCIL OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF

AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am representing 

the Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America, and we wish to express 

our support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, particularly the President’s 

fiscal year 2015 budget request for Forest Service land acquisition. 

The President’s proposed budget includes two line items, one in the discretionary 

portion of the budget and the other in the mandatory section, totaling $3 million, 

for Wasatch Watersheds-Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Property currently owned by 

the Boy Scouts in Mill Creek Canyon would be acquired by the Forest Service if 

Congress approves sufficient funding. The requested funds, though not enough to acquire all of the Boy Scout property available for sale, would allow for a substantial 

first phase purchase. The Council has been interested in selling approximately 700 

acres to the Forest Service since 2011. This is the first year, however, that funding 

has been included in the Federal budget for the project. 

Mill Creek Canyon is one of the main canyons in the Wasatch Front, the iconic 

backdrop for the major population area of Utah. In the mid-1800s, early settlers of 

Salt Lake City established 20 mills in the canyon that provided everything from 

lumber to flour for the growing population of settlers. Today, Mill Creek Canyon is 

well known to residents of the Salt Lake Valley and has long been a popular area 

for hiking, biking, and many other recreational activities. The Great Salt Lake 

Council of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) would like to sell five parcels of land 

in this area that are considered surplus to its Camp Tracy. The BSA will continue 

to own and operate the camp, while planning to use the proceeds from the proposed 

sale to acquire land and facilities elsewhere to benefit the youth of our community 

and organization. These parcels were originally placer mining claims that were donated to the Scouts nearly a century ago. Adding these parcels to the national forest 

would also preserve the essential camp experience for the 17,500 scouts and volunteers who visit Camp Tracy each year. 

Nearly all of the parcels contain segments of trails, including the Bonneville 

Shoreline Trail, Pipeline Trail, Grandeur Peak Trail, and Thayne Canyon Trail. Mill 

Creek Canyon is a major recreational destination for hiking, biking, snowshoeing, 

cross country skiing, and picnicking due to its proximity to Salt Lake City and the 

greater Wasatch Front area; the canyon entrance borders the Salt Lake City limits. 

Currently the public lands in the area are being managed jointly by Salt Lake 

County and the Forest Service. Including these private parcels in the surrounding 

national forest will ensure public access into the future and provide for better management of the trails, trailheads, and other recreational sites. 

Mill Creek Canyon is one of seven major canyons listed in Salt Lake City’s Watershed Management Plan and will play a role in the future city water supply. The 

Watershed Management Plan recommends watershed protection through acquisitions by Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and the Forest Service. The resource 

management plan for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest charges the Forest 

Service with managing and protecting watersheds used as a municipal water source 

in cooperation with Salt Lake City. The property contains a portion of Mill Creek— 

a tributary to the Jordan River—in addition to a number of gulches and smaller 

canyons that feed into Mill Creek. The Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework rating for Mill Creek is Class Two—functioning at risk—meaning one or more 

existing attributes make it susceptible to degradation. Forest Service ownership will 

protect this important water resource, which could be impaired if the surrounding 

land were to be sold for development rather than conservation. The Forest Service 

is currently working with State wildlife authorities on a project designed to support 

recovery of the Bonneville cutthroat trout, which is native in this drainage and is 

included on the Utah Sensitive Species List. Other wildlife found on and around this 
299 

land include bald eagle, deer, elk, mountain lion, bighorn sheep, and Canada lynx— 

a species listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

It is our desire that these lands be conserved, but we may have to offer the property on the open market—and possible development—if the Forest Service is unable 

to acquire the land in a timely fashion. As mentioned previously, we have been 

working on this proposal with the Forest Service for over 3 years and we need to 

utilize the proceeds from the sale of this property to improve services to the growing 

number of Scouts in the Salt Lake City metroplex. We want to work with the Forest 

Service to preserve this land for its abundant natural resources and recreational opportunities dear to the hearts of so many visitors. 

We urge the Interior Subcommittee to provide appropriations from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund to protect Mill Creek Canyon through this proposed land 

acquisition. I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee 

for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important protection effort 

in Utah, and I appreciate your consideration of this funding request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HEALING OUR WATERS-GREAT LAKES COALITION

Members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to provide this testimony about one 

of our world’s most prized natural and economic treasures—our Great Lakes. The 

Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition joins a bi-partisan group of 46 Representatives and 11 Senators in asking you to support $300 million for the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative in fiscal year 2015. We appreciate the trust you have 

shown the region over the last 4 years and ask you to maintain this support. 

Our Coalition is comprised of more than 120 environmental, conservation, hunting, and fishing organizations; museums, zoos, and aquariums; and businesses representing millions of people whose goal is to restore and protect the Great Lakes. 

We came together to fight for the Great Lakes, and we recognize the need for Federal assistance for all great waters, including Puget Sound, the Everglades, Coastal 

Louisiana, and Chesapeake Bay. 

Mr. Chairman and ranking member, 30 million people rely on the Great Lakes 

for their drinking water, and the entire country benefits from the commerce that 

depends on these waters. Protecting and restoring them is a huge non-partisan priority for the people in the region. We recognize that the Federal Government is our 

partner in an endeavor to help heal the lakes through the undertaking of one of 

the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem restoration projects. Non-governmental 

groups, industries, cities, and States are forging public-private partnerships to clean 

up toxic hot spots, restore fish and wildlife habitat, and combat invasive species. 

Our Coalition has invested almost half a million dollars of our own resources to help 

our member groups restore and protect this resource. The philanthropic community 

has also invested approximately $100 million over the past 4 years through initiatives to educate citizens and policy makers about the Great Lakes environment and 

to identify actions and policies that most effectively will restore its health. 

ECONOMIC BENEFITS

We do this work because cleaning up the Great Lakes is critical for the health 

and quality of life of the region. It also drives economic development—and jobs— 

in communities all around the Basin. Investments in Great Lakes restoration are 

creating jobs and leading to long-term economic benefits for the Great Lakes States 

and the country. A Brookings Institution report shows that every $1 invested in 

Great Lakes restoration generates at least $2 in return, making Great Lakes restoration one of the best investments on the dollar in the Federal budget. Research 

from Grand Valley State University shows that the return for certain projects is 

closer to 6-to-1. The University of Michigan has also demonstrated that over 1.5 million jobs are connected to the Great Lakes, accounting for more than $60 billion in 

wages annually. According to the Great Lakes Commission, more than 37 million 

people boat, fish, hunt, and view wildlife in the region, generating over $50 billion 

annually. Great Lakes businesses and individuals account for about 28 percent of 

the U.S. gross domestic product, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. 

We have also seen jobs being created by our Nation’s efforts to clean up the Great 

Lakes and restore fish and wildlife habitat. These jobs include wetland scientists, 

electricians, engineers, landscape architects, plumbers, truck drivers, and many others. While we do not know how many jobs have been created to clean up the Great 

Lakes, it is likely in the thousands. Consider: 

—125 jobs were created for a $10 million project to restore fish and wildlife habitat in Muskegon Lake, a Great Lakes Area of Concern in Michigan. 
300 

1Found at www.healthylakes.org/successes/. 

—177 people are employed to control the invasive sea lamprey in the Great Lakes, which costs the U.S. Government around $20 million annually. 

—174 jobs were created, some of which were filled by at-risk youth, to remove 

dams and other barriers in a 150-mile stretch of the Milwaukee River system. 

Specifically, stories like that of business owner Jim Nichols of Carry Manufacturing are increasingly common. Jim tells of how Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 

(GLRI) projects are adding new orders for his manufacturing business. Carry Manufacturing has manufactured water control equipment since 1987. Their employees 

are being kept busy building submersible pumps for GLRI projects that flood duck 

habitat or drain areas to re-establish native habitat for sport fishing. The jobs add 

up when you begin counting the men and women at other companies who manufacture the pipes for the pumps, the control structures in which the pumps are housed, 

and the hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers that benefit from the improved environment the pumps help create. 

INVESTMENTS PRODUCING RESULTS

The people that have been put to work protecting and restoring the Great Lakes 

are working on projects that are producing results (from EPA’s 2014 congressional 

budget justification and 2013 report to Congress): 

—The Presque Isle, PA, Area of Concern (AOC) was delisted, the first since 2006, 

and the second U.S. AOC since they were established in 1987. The management 

actions necessary for delisting the Sheboygan, Wisconsin, AOC were also completed, Ashtabula, Ohio, is very close, and two more de-listings are expected in 

fiscal year 2015. (EPA 2014) 

—Between 2010 through 2013, 29 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) at 13 AOCs 

were removed in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, more than tripling the total number of BUIs removed in the preceding 

22 years. More BUIs have been removed since the GLRI began than between 

1987 and 2009. (EPA 2014) 

—From 2004 to 2009, the Great Lakes region was the only area in the country 

to show a gain in wetland acreage. Now the GLRI is building on that foundation 

with a goal to restore one million acres in the Basin. So far, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) (among others) restored, protected, or enhanced over 115,000 acres of 

wetlands and other habitat. (EPA 2014) 

—1,900 river miles were cleared of over 250 barriers resulting in fish swimming 

into stretches of river where they have been absent for decades. (EPA 2014) 

—Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service monitoring, GLRI-sponsored actions are 

increasing self-sustaining populations of native species important to the Great 

Lakes, like lake sturgeon. For example, efforts in the Saginaw River watershed 

have contributed to the now self-sustaining walleye population in Saginaw Bay, 

Michigan. (EPA 2013) 

—Nearly 800,000 acres of Great Lakes agricultural land were put into U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conservation contracts to reduce erosion and 

nutrient runoff into Great Lakes tributaries. (EPA 2014) 

These numbers are impressive. The stories behind them, however, are more illuminating as to the types of results that we are seeing and what is being accomplished. The Coalition has documented more than 100 restoration success stories 

across the region.1 Among them: 

—At the Ashtabula River in Ohio, a sediment cleanup and habitat restoration 

project has restored the lower two miles of the river and advanced efforts to get 

it de-listed as a Great Lakes Area of Concern. The project has improved water 

quality and deepened the river channel, making the lower Ashtabula suitable 

again for maritime commerce, fishing, and recreation boating. 

—The Grand Calumet River in Indiana, which flows through a heavily industrialized area south of Chicago, was for years considered America’s most polluted 

river. Thanks to a major cleanup, a large wetland was restored and more than 

575,000 cubic yards of toxic mud was removed from the Lake Michigan tributary. The restoration project addressed pollution that had led to fish consumption advisories, drinking water restrictions, beach closings, habitat destruction, 

and an array of other environmental problems. 

—At Clear Creek in Freedom, New York, excess stream erosion and sediment, instream barriers, elevated water temperatures, and competition from invasive 

fish restricted brook trout to a few tributaries in the watershed. A Great Lakes 
301 

2We anticipate that the GLRI Action Plan for fiscal year 2015–2019 will incorporate changes 

that address the concerns raised by GAO in 2013. Those concerns included, in part, recommending the initiative incorporate climate change into its goals and create metrics of success 

that better link the ecological change being sought to the actions being supported and undertaken. 3 Even with quick Federal action, the Great Lakes region has a shortened work season because of winter conditions. This can result in a longer time period for grantees to outlay GLRI 

funds rather than just the obligation of funds. 

Restoration Initiative project restored 1,200 linear feet of in-stream habitat and 

re-established fish passage over a sheet-pile grade control structure, reconnecting six miles of prime trout habitat. 

HOW WE ARE DOING THE WORK

How the region is accomplishing all this work is as impressive as what we are 

doing. The GLRI, which President Obama first proposed in 2010, is a model for 

large, land-scape scale restoration. It ensures that the focus remains on the highest 

regional priorities that were identified through a large stakeholder process in 2005, 

which was initiated by President George W. Bush. The initiative itself is implementing a restoration strategy called the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes that over 1,500 people helped build. It 

also provides an outlet for the United States to meet its obligations under the new 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada. The GLRI is a critical component towards ensuring that the goals we set for ourselves in both the agreement 

and comprehensive plan can be achieved. 

Additionally, the GLRI sought to fix problems the Government Accountability Office identified in 2003 when it complained that there was inadequate coordination 

among Federal agencies and between Federal and non-Federal stakeholders.2 Now, 

the EPA, working with other Federal agencies like the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

NOAA, NRCS, and the National Park Service, can quickly convert the funding they 

receive to supplement restoration activities through their existing, authorized programs. This structure allows for funds to move quickly from EPA through the interagency agreements EPA reaches with the other agencies and onto the ground to 

complete important restoration work. This model also ensures accountability 

through the establishment of an ‘‘orchestra leader’’ (EPA), helps accelerate progress, 

and avoids potential duplication, all of which help save taxpayers money while focusing efforts on the highest, consensus–based priorities.3

MAINTAINING RESULTS UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE

Unfortunately, the health of the Great Lakes continues to be seriously threatened 

by problems such as sewage overflows that close beaches, toxic pollution that poses 

a threat to the health of people and wildlife, algal blooms that harm local drinking 

water supplies, and invasive species that hurt fish and wildlife populations and our 

outdoor recreation economy. While we have cleaned up two AOCs, there are still 27 

more to go. Algal blooms in Lake Erie and other lakes still result in cancelled charter boat tours and closed beaches. Communities are still dealing with legacy pollutants that have led to drinking water restrictions, beach closings, and fish consumption advisories. Our work is not done so maintaining Federal funding is needed. 

Additionally, this Congress should remove all doubt that the region is on the right 

path and pass legislation that specifically authorizes the GLRI. Currently, EPA is 

using existing authorities coupled with the legislative language you provide as the 

statutory basis for its coordinating role. Passing legislation, such as that introduced 

by Representative David Joyce and Senator Carl Levin, creates greater certainty for 

the program and allows everyone to focus on getting the job done. 

Lastly, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) noted in a 2012 report that the GLRI 

Action Plan supported initial Federal investments to restore the Lakes because 

enough was known about the problems and potential solutions to impairments in 

the Great Lakes to initiate action; the Action Plan identified most of the key actions 

needed; and the Action Plan is largely consistent with previous plans and strategies. 

However, the SAB’s report pointed out that the GLRI needs to do better research, 

monitoring, and assessment. It also pointed out that the GLRI lacks a formal 

science-based framework for assessing progress and evaluating future priorities. We 

believe this science-based framework and independent science advice is critical to 

make Great Lakes restoration efforts as efficient and effective as possible; that the 

region’s scientists must be engaged in producing and helping implement that plan 

and not just asked to react to a federally-generated adaptive management blueprint; 

and that EPA must use an appropriate portion of GLRI funds to implement, coordi-
302 

nate, and better communicate the Federal and non-Federal research, monitoring, 

and assessment—ongoing and required—for future success. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you again for the opportunity to share our views with you. The GLRI is 

delivering results. But more work remains. Cutting restoration funding now will 

only make projects harder and more expensive the longer we wait. While we are 

greatly encouraged by the progress we are seeing in local communities across the 

region, we all must keep in mind that it will take time for all of us to see lakewide 

environmental improvement in an ecosystem the size of the Great Lakes. We are 

seeing hundreds of trees but it still will take time to make them into a forest. 

We also recognize the tough choices you face, but we believe that restoring the 

Great Lakes is not only good for the environment but also is good for the national 

economy as well. We hope you will maintain $300 million for the GLRI next year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOPI TRIBE

The Hopi Tribe: Issues of the Consolidated Tribal Government Programs: 

—Contract Support Cost.—The Hopi Tribe recommends that Congress amend the 

Contract Support Cost (CSC) issue to include (1) full funding (100 percent) for 

Indian tribes needed for CSC for fiscal year 2015; (2) that fiscal year 2015 contain a separate appropriation for CSC in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

budget structure; and (3) that the BIA propose the repeal of the term ‘‘not to 

exceed’’ in the appropriations statutory language with reference to the annual 

CSC appropriations. 

—The Hopi Tribe request the following from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.—Fiscal 

year 2015 operating plan funding level on internal transfers for Consolidated 

Tribal Government Program contracts, Federal pay costs, tribal pay costs, and 

other administrative cost. Pursuant to fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Department of the Interior was directed to submit an operating 

plan to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Our tribe is requesting this 

information so that we can better understand how fiscal year 2015 Indian Affairs funding levels will be determined. 

There are many other important issues that need to be addressed, including: 

—The impacts of the fiscal year 2013 sequester for the BIA and Indian Health 

Service. 

—The proposed ‘‘administrative cost savings’’ cuts that will reduce BIA staffing 

at BIA agencies and will reduce funding for future 638 contracts, in particular, 

the cuts to the real estate services program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (HSUS) 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance to our organizations. 

We urge the subcommittee to address these priority issues in the fiscal year 2015 

Department of Interior appropriation. 

ROCK CREEK PARK DEER

The HSUS requests that funds made available in this Act give preference to nonlethal deer management programs over lethal at Rock Creek Park. The National 

Park Service (NPS) has been using lethal methods for controlling the deer population in Rock Creek Park despite the availability of non-lethal methods that cost 

significantly less taxpayer money and result in a more effective long-term solution 

to human-wildlife conflicts in the park and its environs. In the future, we ask that 

priority be given to humane, non-lethal methods with respect to decisions regarding 

funding deer management programs. 

LARGE CONSTRICTOR SNAKES

In March 2010, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a proposed rule to 

list nine large constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. However, in January 2012 the Secretary announced that only four species would be listed. We encourage this subcommittee to direct the FWS to immediately move forward with the 

‘‘injurious’’ listing of the five remaining species, which will prohibit importation and 

interstate movement of these animals as pets. A comprehensive report by the U.S. 
303 

Geological Survey showed these non-native snakes all pose a medium or high risk 

to the health of our Nation’s ecosystems. Large constrictor snakes have been released or escaped into the environment and have colonized Everglades National 

Park, continue to threaten areas in Hawaii, and have established populations in 

Puerto Rico. Scientists warn they may also become established in other areas of the 

country. The Service must have the resources to respond quickly to prevent the 

spread and establishment of these snakes into new areas. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

Research focused on molecular screening has the potential to revolutionize toxicity 

testing, improving both its efficiency as well as the quality of information available 

for human safety assessment in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

(EDSP). These ‘‘next generation tools’’ hold considerable promise to speed up the assessments of chemicals in the EDSP and reduce, and ultimately, may replace animal use. We urge the subcommittee to incorporate the following report language, 

which is also supported by the American Chemistry Council: 

The subcommittee recognizes that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is implementing the use of Tox21 information in the prioritization of chemicals for screening in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). The subcommittee supports this activity as part of a pathway-based approach to endocrine 

assessment, and directs EPA to focus its efforts to develop adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for estrogen, androgen and thyroid modes of action and, when sufficient scientific confidence has been demonstrated, to utilize mechanistic information 

not only in prioritization, but also in hazard and risk assessment to reduce, refine 

or replace tests involving living animals. EPA is directed to develop a scientific confidence framework for AOPs and associated prediction models, and after public comment and peer review, implement this framework to assure confidence in specific 

AOPs is explicitly demonstrated for intended uses. 

The subcommittee also recognizes that EPA is continuing to extend existing longterm reproduction studies in birds, fish, and other species to two- or multi-generation tests for the EDSP. The subcommittee understands that EPA contributed to an 

international review of rat reproduction studies that showed the lack of utility of 

a second generation and supporting replacement of the two-generation mammalian 

study with a more efficient ‘‘extended one-generation’’ design. The subcommittee directs EPA to maximize the efficiency of each EDSP protocol and minimize unnecessary costs and animal use by assessing the utility (including sensitivity, specificity 

and value of information added relative to the assessment of endocrine disruption) 

of each endpoint in these multigenerational studies, including specifically the need 

to produce more than one generation of offspring in the bird, fish and amphibian 

EDSP Tier 2 tests and issue a public report on its findings for comment and peer 

review. The subcommittee also directs EPA to minimize or to eliminate unnecessary 

endocrine screening and testing, and to use existing scientific data in lieu of requiring new data, when possible and scientifically supportable. The subcommittee understands that EPA is currently working with OECD to develop and modify EDSP 

methods. EPA should work within the framework and timing of the OECD Test 

Guideline work plan to minimize duplicative efforts. 

Science and Technology Account—21st Century Toxicology In 2007, the National 

Research Council published its report titled ‘‘Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: 

A Vision and a Strategy.’’ This report catalyzed collaborative efforts across the research community to focus on developing new, advanced molecular screening methods for use in assessing potential adverse health effects of environmental agents. It 

is widely recognized that the rapid emergence of omics technologies, cell- and tissuebased methods and other advanced technologies offers great promise to transform 

toxicology from a discipline largely based on observational outcomes from animal 

tests as the basis for safety determinations to a discipline that uses knowledge of 

biological pathways and molecular modes of action to predict hazards and potential 

risks. We urge the Committee to incorporate the following language: 

The subcommittee supports EPA’s leadership role in the creation of a new paradigm for chemical risk assessment based on the incorporation of advanced molecular 

biological and computational methods in lieu of animal toxicity tests. The subcommittee encourages EPA to continue to expand its extramural and intramural 

support for the use of pathway-based approaches in environmental and human 

health research to further define toxicity and disease pathways and develop tools 

for their integration into evaluation strategies. Extramural and intramural funding 

should be made available for research and development of cell and tissue-based 

mechanistic methods, interpretation and prediction tools, including pilot studies of 
304 

1GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program, GAO/ 

RCED–90–110 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 20, 1990). 

pathway-based hazard and risk assessment. The data sets and prediction models 

generated should be transparent, publicly disseminated, consistent with corresponding international efforts, and, to assure readiness and utility for regulatory 

purposes, undergo public review and comment and independent scientific peer review to establish relevance and reliability. The subcommittee requests EPA provide 

a report on associated funding in fiscal year 2014 for such activity and a progress 

report in the congressional justification request, featuring a 5-year plan for projected budgets for the development of mechanism-based methods, including Tox21 

and other related activities and prediction models and activities specifically focused 

on establishing scientific confidence in them for regulatory purposes. The subcommittee also requests EPA prioritize an additional (1-3 percent) of its Science and 

Technology budget from within existing funds for such activity. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget requests $9.06 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) program which funds African and 

Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes like chimps and gorillas, and sea turtles. 

The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in support of the administration’s 

request while ensuring that the sales from the semi-postal stamps benefiting this 

program remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels. We also request 

$13 million for the Wildlife Without Borders and International Wildlife Trade programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Office of International 

Affairs. 

While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, we are concerned about past incidents and oppose any future use of funds from these conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses—including live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public display industry—under the guise of conservation for these animals. 

Grants made to projects under the MSCF must be consistent with the spirit of the 

law. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) is one of the leading advocates for the protection and welfare of wild horses and burros in the U.S. with a 

long history of working collaboratively with the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)—the agency mandated to protect America’s wild horses and burros—on the 

development of effective and humane management techniques. 

The HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in the number of wild horses 

and burros gathered and removed from our rangelands annually. We believe removing horses from the range without implementing any active program for suppressing 

the population growth rate has proven itself to be an unsustainable method of management of our Nation’s wild horses, and simply leads to a continual cycle of roundups and removals when more long-term, cost-efficient and humane management 

strategies, such as fertility control, are readily available. 

For years, the BLM has removed far more wild horses and burros from the range 

than it could possibly expect to adopt annually, and as a consequence, the costs associated with caring for these animals off the range have continued to skyrocket. 

The annual costs associated with caring for one wild horse in a long term holding 

facility is approximately $500, and the average lifespan of a wild horse in captivity 

is 30 years. Today, there are more than 50,000 wild horses and burros in these 

pens, and the agency spends more than 50 percent of its annual Wild Horse and 

Burro budget on holding costs. The BLM must balance the number of animals removed from the range annually with the number of animals it can expect to adopt 

in a given year if it hopes to effectively reduce off-the-range management costs. 

Further, the BLM’s current program of management of wild horses has negative 

effects that go beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. For instance, the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences 2013 report ‘‘Using Science to Improve 

the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward,’’ commissioned by the 

BLM itself, stated that it is BLM’s own practices of managing wild horses ‘‘below 

food-limited carrying capacity’’ by rounding up and removing a significant proportion of the herd’s population every three to 4 years that is facilitating high horse 

population growth rates on the range. 

As such, it is incumbent that the BLM move away from current management 

practices to create a long-term, humane and financially sustainable path. It is our 
305 

2 Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in wild horse populations. J. Wildl. 

Mgmt. 71(8):2811–2819. 

belief that the most cost-effective and humane approach is for the BLM to move aggressively forward with a contraceptive program which prioritizes on-the-range 

management of wild horses and burros. This path forward is supported by the National Academy of Sciences report, which called for an increased usage of on-therange management tools, including the usage of the fertility control vaccine PZP. 

Further, a 2008 paper determined that contraception on-the-range could reduce 

total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 percent, saving $6.1 million per 

year.2 Finally, the results of a paper describing an economic model commissioned 

by The HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses on one hypothetical Herd Management Area (HMA) with the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), 

the BLM could save approximately $5 million dollars over 12 years while achieving 

and maintaining Appropriate Management Levels (AML) of 874 horses. Since the 

BLM estimates that more than 40,000 wild horses roam on 179 HMAs in the United 

States, the use of PZP could result in a cost-savings of tens of millions of dollars 

if applied broadly across all HMAs. 

For these reasons, while we support the BLM’s request for a 2.8 million dollar 

budget increase to fund additional research on contraception and population growth 

suppression methods, we request that the agency be required to immediately begin 

usage of the NAS-recommended fertility control methods that are currently available. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT TRIBAL COURTS REVIEW TEAM

Thank you for the opportunity to address the serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian Country. I am the lead judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. 

We thank this subcommittee for the funding provided in prior years. These funds 

were a blessing to tribes. It is the strong recommendation of the Independent Tribal 

Courts Review Team that the Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased in fiscal year 2015 to support the needs of tribal judicial systems. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES, REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. ∂$10 million Increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

2. ∂$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993, Public 

Law 103–176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000 Public Law 106– 

559 (no funds have been appropriated to date). 

3. Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians. 

The increase will support: 

1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel. 

2. Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. 

3. Compliance with the VAWA Act of 2013. 

4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel. 

5. State-of-the-Art Technology for Tribal Courts. 

6. Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy of Case 

Information. 

7. Tribal Court Code Development. 

8. Financial Code Development. 

The Independent Court Review Team supports the proposed $1.35 million increase in the fiscal year 2014 President’s budget but do not support the $2.98 million internal transfer out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The fight against 

crime and drugs has led to more arrests which is increasing the caseload in the tribal court system. The continuing implementation of the Tribal Law and Order Act 

(TLOA) and the recent enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), further strains the capacity of the tribal judicial system which is underfunded, understaffed and ill-equipped to function effectively and in a manner comparable to nonIndian government judicial systems. Tribal courts are at a critical stage in terms 

of need. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior provides funding to tribal governments to supplement their justice systems including 
306 

courts. Tribal courts play a ‘‘vital role’’ in tribal self-determination and self-governance as cited in long-standing Federal policy and acts of Congress. Funding levels 

from BIA to support tribal justice systems have not met the Federal obligations. 

There is a great deal of variation in the types of tribal courts and how they apply 

laws. Some tribal courts resemble Western-style courts in that written laws and 

court procedures are applied. Others use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as peacemaking, elders’ councils, and sentencing circles. Some tribes 

have both types of courts. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) also manages a small 

number of C.F.R. (Code of Federal Regulations) courts. 

Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of Justice has administered the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, designed to provide funds for 

tribes to plan, operate, and enhance tribal judicial systems. They have made attempts to evaluate tribal courts but discovered their means of doing so was insensitive to American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people and unrealistic in the 

absence of elements that were key to Indian Country, such as: (1) the importance 

of tribal culture and traditions; (2) the inability to apply State and local criminal 

justice initiatives to tribal settings; (3) the lack of cooperation from non-tribal entities; and, (4) the lack of available data on tribal justice. 

The Independent Court Review Team has had more hands on success in reviewing 

tribal court systems than any other entities. For approximately 7 years, the Review 

Team travelled throughout Indian Country assessing how tribal courts operate. During this time, the Review Team completed 84 court reviews, and 28 Corrective Actions. There is no other entity with more hands-on experience and knowledge regarding the current status of tribal courts. 

JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST

1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.—Tribal courts make do with underpaid staff, under-experienced staff and minimal resources for training. (We 

have determined that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of staff to 

move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.); 

2. Compliance with the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.—To provide judges, 

prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys and who are bared to do ‘‘enhanced sentencing’’ in tribal courts; 

3. Compliance with the 2013 VAWA Act.—To provide tribal courts with the ability 

to provide non-Indians with all the rights under the U.S. Constitution in domestic violence actions in tribal courts (12 person juries, provide attorneys for 

non-Indians, provide attorneys and court personnel in domestic violence cases 

as in TLOA, etc.); 

4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.—Salaries should be 

comparable to local and State court personnel to keep pace with the non-tribal 

judicial systems and be competitive to maintain existing personnel; 

5. Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology.—(Software, computers, phone 

systems, tape recording machines.) Many tribes cannot afford to purchase or 

upgrade existing court equipment unless they get a grant. This is accompanied 

by training expenses and licensing fees which do not last after the grant ends; 

6. Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy of Case 

Information.—Most tribal courts do not even have a full-time bailiff, much less 

a state-of-the-art security system that uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to happen; 

7. Tribal Court Code Development.—Tribes cannot afford legal consultation. A 

small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys. These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development and code development does 

not take priority. Tribes make do with under-developed codes. The Adam 

Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who were forced to develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume jurisdiction. (States have never properly 

overseen law enforcement in a Tribal jurisdiction.); and 

8. Financial Code Development.—We have rarely seen tribes with developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for example, varies greatly from 

tribe to tribe. The usual process of who collects it, where it is collected and how 

much it is, is never consistent among tribes. 

TRIBAL COURTS

There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear that tribal courts 

and justice systems are vital and important to the communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud of their court systems. Tribes with even 

modest resources tend to allocate funding to courts before other costs. After decades 

of existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a level of 
307 

experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases surpassing, local nonIndian courts. 

Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly stopped the 

wholesale removal of Indian children from their families. Indian and non-Indian 

courts have developed formal and informal agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal 

governments have recognized the benefit of having law-trained judges, without 

doing away with judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems have Appellate Courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even the poorer 

tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most importantly, tribes recognize 

the benefit of an independent judiciary and have taken steps to insulate courts and 

judges from political pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically 

fired for decisions against the legislature. 

—Example.—At one tribal court 14 jury trials scheduled in 2013 never occurred 

due to the lack of sufficient funds to perform the following; the required number 

of potential jurors could not be summoned, a jury of six people could not be 

seated, and service to potential jurors could not be delivered. 

Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that received $23.241 million in Federal funding in 2014. The Review Team’s Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only funds tribal courts at 26 percent of the funding needed 

to operate. Tribes who have economic development generally subsidize their tribal 

courts. On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in the financial operations 

of the court are tasked with doing the best they can with what they have even at 

the expense of decreasing or eliminating services elsewhere. This while operating 

at a disadvantage with already overstrained resources and underserved needs of the 

tribal citizens. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts are both the busiest 

and most underfunded. 

The grant funding in the Department of Justice (DOJ) is intended to be temporary, but instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a drug court 

clerk who then is used as a court clerk with drug court duties. When the funding 

runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed many failed drug 

courts, failed court management software projects (due to training costs) and incomplete Code development projects. When the Justice funding runs out, so does the 

project. 

As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget in fiscal year 2005, our 

Reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In the seven 

fiscal years through September 31, 2011 there were only two isolated incidents of 

a questionable expenditure of Federal funds. It has been speculated that because 

of limited resources, tribal courts compromise a person’s due process and invoke 

‘‘speedy trials’’ violations to save money. To the contrary everyone who is processed 

through the tribal judicial system is afforded their constitutional civil liberties and 

civil rights. 

Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained and increased level of funding. There 

are strong indications that the courts will put such funding to good use. 

Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal Appellate Court Judges are mostly 

attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees that barely cover costs for 

copying and transcription fees. Tribal courts do offer jury trials. In many courts, one 

sustained jury trial will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize 

expenses is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have Defense Advocates. These advocates are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an individual’s 

rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are not violated.) However, this 

is a large item in court budgets and if the defense advocate, or prosecutor, should 

leave, the replacement process is slow. 

This Congress and this administration can do something great. Put your money 

where your promises have been and support the Acts you have passed by increasing 

funding for tribal courts. Thank You. Independent Review Team: Elbridge Coochise, 

Chief Justice Retired; Ralph G. Gonzales, Esq.; Charles D. Robertson, Esq. and 

Myrna R. Rivera, Court Reporter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I serve as Executive Director of the Interstate 

Mining Compact Commission (IMCC). I appreciate the opportunity to present this 

statement to the subcommittee regarding the views of the Compact’s 26 member 

States on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its 

proposed budget, OSM is requesting $53.2 million to fund title V grants to States 

and Indian tribes for the implementation of their regulatory programs, a reduction 
308 

1 In approving this amount for State grant funding in fiscal year 2014, Congress noted that: 

‘‘The bill provides $122,713,000 for regulation and technology. Within this amount, the bill funds 

regulatory grants at $68,590,000, equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The Committees 

find the budget proposal to reduce regulatory grants would undermine the State-based regulatory system. It is imperative that States continue to operate protective regulatory programs 

as delegation of authority to the States is the cornerstone of the surface mining regulatory program.’’ 

of $15.4 million or 22 percent below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. OSM also 

proposes to reduce mandatory spending for the abandoned mine lands (AML) program by $64 million pursuant to a legislative proposal to eliminate all AML funding 

for certified States and tribes. 

The Compact is comprised of 26 States that together produce some 95 percent of 

the Nation’s coal, as well as important noncoal minerals. The Compact’s purposes 

are to advance the protection and restoration of land, water and other resources affected by mining through the encouragement of programs in each of the party States 

that will achieve comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the 

usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient, productive and economically viable mining industry. OSM has projected an amount of $53.2 million for title V grants to States and 

tribes in fiscal year 2015, an amount which is matched by the States each year. 

These grants support the implementation of State and tribal regulatory programs 

under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are 

essential to the full and effective operation of those programs. Pursuant to these primacy programs, the States have the most direct and critical responsibilities for conducting regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal extraction operations 

on people and the environment. The States accomplish this through a combination 

of permitting, inspection and enforcement duties, designating lands as unsuitable 

for mining operations, and ensuring that timely reclamation occurs after mining. 

In fiscal year 2014, Congress approved $68.6 million for State title V grants pursuant to the Omnibus Appropriations bill.1 This continued a much-needed trend 

whereby the amount appropriated for these regulatory grants aligned with the demonstrated needs of the States and tribes. The States are greatly encouraged by 

amounts approved by Congress for title V grant funding over the past several fiscal 

years. These grants had been stagnant for over 12 years and the gap between the 

States’ requests and what they received was widening. This debilitating trend was 

compounding the problems caused by inflation and uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed program improvements and enhancements and 

jeopardizing our efforts to minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction 

operations on people and the environment. 

In its fiscal year 2015 budget, OSM has once again attempted to reverse course 

and essentially unravel and undermine the progress made by Congress in supporting State programs with adequate funding. As States prepare their future budgets, we trust that the recent increases approved by Congress will remain the new 

base on which we build our programs. Given fiscal constraints on State budgets 

from the downturn in the economy, some States have only recently been able to 

move beyond hiring and salary freezes and restrictions on equipment and vehicle 

purchases, all of which have inhibited States’ ability to spend all of their Federal 

grant money. A clear message from Congress that reliable, consistent funding will 

continue into the future will do much to stimulate support for these programs by 

State legislatures and budget officers who each year, in the face of difficult fiscal 

climates and constraints, are also dealing with the challenge of matching Federal 

grant dollars with State funds. Please keep in mind that a 22 percent cut in Federal 

funding generally translates to an additional 22 percent cut for overall program 

funding for many States, especially those without Federal lands, since these States 

can generally only match what they receive in Federal money. 

It is important to note that OSM does not disagree with the States’ demonstrated 

need for the requested amount of funding for title V regulatory grants. Instead, 

OSM’s solution for the drastic cuts comes in the way of an unrealistic assumption 

that the States can simply increase user fees in an effort to ‘‘eliminate a de facto 

subsidy of the coal industry.’’ No specifics on how the States are to accomplish this 

far reaching proposal are set forth, other than an expectation that they will do so 

in the course of a single fiscal year. OSM’s proposal is completely out of touch with 

the realities associated with establishing or enhancing user fees, especially given 

the need for approvals by State legislatures. IMCC’s polling of its member States 

confirmed that, given the current fiscal and political implications of such an initiative, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for most States to accomplish this feat at 

all, let alone in less than 1 year. OSM is well aware of this, and yet has every inten-
309 

2 It has taken OSM over 3 years to develop a proposal of its own for cost recovery that will 

apply to Federal and Indian lands programs where OSM is the regulatory authority. On March 

26 of last year, OSM republished a proposed rule (78 Federal Register 20394) that would adjust 

existing permit fees and assess new fees to recover the actual costs for permit review and administration and permit enforcement activities provided to the coal industry. Comments on the 

proposal were due on May 28, 2013. OSM has asserted that the rule could serve as a template 

for similar efforts by the States (even though, to date, the agency has still not promulgated a 

final rule). Regardless of whether OSM’s assertion is true, and contrary to OSM’s implication 

that the States should have already moved forward with similar proposals of their own based 

on the fact that OSM has included this suggested approach in its last four proposed budgets, 

OSM is well aware of the complexities associated with a proposal of this magnitude for the 

States based on extensive information we have provided to the agency. We are happy to share 

that information with the subcommittee. It will clearly take more than a single fiscal year for 

the States to seriously consider and undertake such an effort. And most importantly, the subcommittee has directed OSM in each of the past 4 fiscal years ‘‘to discontinue efforts to push 

States to raise fees on industry as the bill provides the funds necessary for States to run their 

regulatory programs.’’ 3The Congress agreed with this assessment when it commented as follows on OSM’s proposed 

increase in fiscal year 2014: ‘‘The [Omnibus Appropriations] agreement does not provide funds 

to expand and enhance Federal oversight activities of State programs.’’ Furthermore, the States 

are confounded by OSM’s desire to increase its staff by 12 FTEs when it currently has more 

than twice that number of unfilled positions in the agency. Is OSM attempting to add 12 new 

FTEs, or fill a portion of the vacancies? In either event, the $4 million intended for this purpose 

is better spent by the States in their role as the primary enforcement and permitting SMCRA 

authority, rather than by OSM oversight to second-guess State decisions. 4We continue to be concerned about recent OSM initiatives, primarily by policy directive, to 

duplicate and/or second-guess State permitting decisions through the reflexive use of ‘‘Ten-Day 

Notices’’ (TDNs) as part of increased Federal oversight or through Federal responses to citizen 

complaints. Aside from the fact that these actions undermine the principles of primacy that unContinued 

tion of aggressively moving forward with a proposal that is doomed from its inception. We strongly urge the subcommittee to reject this approach and mandate that 

OSM continue to work through the complexities associated with any future user fees 

proposal in close cooperation with the States and tribes prior to cutting Federal 

funding for State title V grants.2 Some of these efforts have recently begun and may 

prove useful. 

At the same time that OSM is proposing significant cuts for State programs, the agency is proposing sizeable increases for its own program operations (almost $4 

million) for Federal oversight of State programs, including an increase of 12 fulltime equivalents (FTEs). In making the case for its funding increase, OSM’s budget 

justification document contains vague references to the need ‘‘to improve the implementation of existing laws’’ and to ‘‘strengthen OSM’s skills base.’’ More specifically, 

OSM states in its budget justification document that ‘‘with greater technical skills, 

OSM anticipates improved evaluation of permit-related actions and resolution of 

issues to prevent unanticipated situations that otherwise may occur as operations 

progress, thereby improving implementation of existing laws’’. In our view, this is 

code language for enhanced and expanded Federal oversight of State programs and 

reflects a move by OSM to exert a more direct role in State programs, especially 

regarding permitting decisions, thereby weakening State primacy. However, without 

more to justify the need for more oversight and the concomitant increase in funding 

for Federal operations related thereto, Congress should reject this request. The overall performance of the States as detailed in OSM’s annual State program evaluation 

reports demonstrates that the States are implementing their programs effectively 

and in accordance with the purposes and objectives of SMCRA.3

In our view, this suggests that OSM is adequately accomplishing its statutory 

oversight obligations with current Federal program funding and that any increased 

workloads are likely to fall upon the States, which have primary responsibility for 

implementing appropriate adjustments to their programs identified during Federal 

oversight. In this regard, we note that the Federal courts have made it abundantly 

clear that SMCRA’s allocation of exclusive jurisdiction to the States was ‘‘careful 

and deliberate’’ and that Congress provided for ‘‘mutually exclusive regulation by either the Secretary or State, but not both.’’ Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Ass’n, 248 

F. 3d 275, 293–4 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1113 (2002). While the 

courts have ruled consistently on this matter, the question remains for Congress 

and the administration to determine, in light of deficit reduction and spending cuts, 

how the limited amount of Federal funding for the regulation of surface coal mining 

and reclamation operations under SMCRA will be directed—to OSM or the States. 

For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to approve not less than $69 million 

for State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented in the States’ and 

tribes’ estimates for actual program operating costs.4
310 

derscore SMCRA and are therefore likely to have debilitating impacts on the State-Federal partnership envisioned by the act, they also have very direct impacts on limited State and Federal 

resources that must be devoted to addressing all TDNs, regardless of their veracity. 

With regard to funding for State title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State title IV grants are funded primarily by mandatory 

appropriations. As a result, the States should have received a total of $250 million 

in fiscal year 2015. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $186 million based 

on an ill-conceived proposal to eliminate mandatory AML funding to States and 

tribes that have been certified as completing their abandoned coal reclamation programs. This $64 million reduction repudiates the comprehensive restructuring of the 

AML program that was passed by Congress in 2006, following over 10 years of congressional debate and hard fought compromise among the affected parties. We urge 

the Congress to reject this unjustified, ill-conceived proposal, delete it from the 

budget and restore the full mandatory funding amount of $250 million. We also endorse the statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs 

(NAAMLP), which goes into greater detail regarding the implications of OSM’s legislative proposal for the States and tribes. 

We further ask the subcommittee to support funding for OSM’s training program, 

including moneys for State travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as they provide necessary training and continuing education for State agency personnel. We note that the States provide nearly half of the instructors for OSM’s training course and, through IMCC, sponsor and 

staff benchmarking workshops on key regulatory program topics. IMCC also urges 

the subcommittee to support funding for Technical Innovation and Professional 

Services (TIPS), a program that directly benefits the States by providing critical 

technical assistance. Finally, we support funding for the Watershed Cooperative 

Agreements in the amount of $1.5 million. 

With regard to the proposal contained in OSM’s budget to establish a hardrock 

AML program, the States have consistently advocated for legislation that would 

allow them to address historic hardrock AML problem areas, beginning with the inclusion of section 409 of SMCRA in 1977. There is clearly a need to establish both 

the funding mechanism and the administrative program to address these legacy 

sites, be it through a fee or through a meaningful Good Samaritan program that 

provides liability protection for those undertaking this type of work. We believe that 

OSM is in the best position to administer a hardrock AML program, given its 35 

years of experience in operating the title IV program under SMCRA. Our only concern is that, while on the one hand OSM is advocating for the establishment of a 

hardrock AML program, it is also pushing for the elimination of funding for certified 

States and tribes to accomplish this very work. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on the Office of Surface 

Mining’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015. We would be happy to answer any 

questions or provide additional information at your request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Rigdon, president of the 

Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and deputy director of natural resources for the 

Yakama Nation. The ITC offers the following recommendations for fiscal year 2015 

Indian forestry-related activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWF), and the USDA 

Forest Service (USFS): 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

1. Increase BIA forestry by $25 million as a first step to providing the $100 million 

needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry programs, as recommended 

by the Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT) III report. 

2. Increase BIA forestry projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III. 

3. Increase BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation funding to $20 million to support tribal participation. 

4. Increase the BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million. 

5. Support the BIA Invasive Species request of $6.7 million. 
311 

OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

6. Support the Preparedness increase of $37 million. 

7. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million. 

8. Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal. 

9. Support the $30 million Resilient Landscapes initiative. 

UNITED STATE FOREST SERVICE

10. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative. 

11. Encourage the USFS to make implementation of the Tribal Forest Protection 

Act (TFPA) a ‘‘priority.’’ 

INDIAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT TEAM III

Many of our comments and recommendations reflect the third IFMAT report, the 

statutorily required (Public Law 101–630, Sec. 312) decadal review and report on 

tribal forests and forestry conducted by an independent Indian Forest Management 

Assessment Team (IFMAT). Previous IFMAT reviews and reports were done in 1993 

and 2003. The 2013 report, IFMAT III, was mailed to this subcommittee about a 

month ago. We urge the subcommittee to review the report and consider its findings 

and recommendations in your fiscal year 2015 deliberations. 

The IFMAT III report examines tribal forests using a ‘‘FIT’’ framework: Fire, Investment and Transformation: 

—′′Fire’’ represents the increasingly large role wildland fire and other threats 

present to the health and productivity of tribal forests; —′′Investment’’ represents the need for Federal funding and trust support to meet 

forest-related fiduciary obligations and ensure a sustainable future for Indian 

forests; and —′′Transformation’’ represents the emergence of Indian forestry as a model for 

sustainable landscape management. 

IFMAT III examines eight specific review areas required by the statute, including 

staffing and funding, and also looks at additional issues such as climate change, the 

Anchor Forests initiative, and implementation of the TFPA. 

IFMAT III found that chronically insufficient funding and worsening staff shortages pose threats to tribal forests and communities from both foregone economic opportunities and resource losses due to wildland fire, insects, disease, and climate 

change. Federal trust management funding of Indian forests is still only one-third 

of that for National Forests; an additional $100 million is needed to bring Indian 

forestry and wildfire management to parity. Staffing shortfalls are jeopardizing the 

capacity to care for forest resources; IFMAT III found that 800 additional positions 

in a wide variety of skill areas are needed to provide adequate staffing and $12.7 

million is needed annually for recruitment, training and retention. 

Against this background, the ITC makes the following comments and requests for 

fiscal year 2015: 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

1. Increase BIA forestry by $25 million as a first step to provide the $100 million 

needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry programs, as recommended 

by IFMAT III. 

We request that the fiscal year 2015 BIA forestry budget be increased by $25 mil- lion, to $70.9 million, to begin to reduce the glaring $100 million funding disparity 

with other Federal forestry programs as discussed in the IFMAT III report. Of the 

$25 million increase, allocate $20 million to Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA) Forestry to strengthen base BIA and tribal forest staffing and management activities 

and $5 million to forestry projects to reduce the Forest Development planting and 

thinning backlog that covers one-sixth of the trust forest area. As additional staffing 

capacity is developed (see item 2 below), further budget movement toward parity 

funding can be accommodated. 

2. Increase BIA forestry projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III. 

BIA and tribal forestry are facing a staffing crisis. The IFMAT III report states 

800 additional BIA forestry positions are needed, and an increasing number of existing positions are unfilled due to retirements and funding shortfalls. Trained personnel are needed to enable the sustainable trust management of our forests, including the harvest of timber needed to maintain forest health and support economies that provide jobs and income for tribal communities. For example, on the 

Yakama Reservation, 33 of the 55 BIA forestry positions have not been filled for a 
312 

long time, despite repeated tribal pleas. Harvest targets sought by the tribe are not 

being met, forest health is suffering, and economic opportunities are being lost. To 

begin to address this large and growing personnel shortage and its negative consequences on the Federal trust and tribal economies, $12.7 million is needed to start 

a program to attract, train and retain forestry staff. 

3. Increase BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation (CLC) funding to $20 million 

to develop tribal capacity. 

We request that CLC funding be increased by $10 million, with the additional 

amount dedicated to supporting sustained tribal technical and administrative engagement in DOI’s climate initiatives. Because of dependence on place and natural 

resources, tribes are particularly vulnerable to climate change. The BIA’s fiscal year 

2015 CLC budget of less than $10 million is inadequate to support the needs of the 

566 federally-recognized tribes to monitor and address the impacts of climate change 

over the long term. 

4. Increase BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million. 

ITC requests BIA ESA be funded at $10 million so the myriad listed species throughout Indian Country nationwide can be better addressed. BIA’s $2.7 million 

request for ESA is an improvement over past years, but the proposal is just half 

of the ESA per-acre funding for BLM and still below the $3 million appropriated 

for BIA ESA in fiscal year 2002. A further significant increase in BIA ESA to $10 

million is fully warranted. 

5. Support the BIA Invasive Species request of $6.7 million. 

Invasive species are inflicting increasing damage on tribal trust resources, including tribal forests. The $6.7 million request is needed and welcome to help stem the 

invasive species encroachment that is threatening trust resources. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

6. Support the $37 million Preparedness increase. 

The increase will alleviate the penalty BIA and the tribes now bear in absorbing 

contract support costs (CSCs) for carrying out Preparedness functions. This is in 

line with the policy goal of fully funding CSCs without harming services. The requested increase also strengthens tribal wildfire management capacity and provides 

for recruitment and training of future generations of Native American wildland fire 

fighters, whose jobs are a source of pride and economic opportunity in tribal communities and provide a national asset in wildland fire fighting. 

7. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million. 

ITC supports fiscal year 2015 Fuels Management funding restored to its fiscal 

year 2010 $206 million level. The Department’s fuels reduction backlog remains 

huge, preventative projects are much more cost effective than suppression, and fuels 

funding has never come close to the projected amount needed to reduce risks of 

fuels. Within the fiscal year 2015 Fuels Management appropriation, ITC strongly 

supports the designation of $10 million for tribal resource management landscape 

restoration, to allow tribes to engage in proactive fuels and forest health projects 

on or off trust lands to protect tribal trust assets and treaty rights. The ITC wishes 

to extend our gratitude to OWF for moving beyond the difficult Hazardous Fuels 

Prioritization and Allocation System (HFPAS) fuels fund allocation process, and its 

efforts to seek the involvement of tribes in determining how available funding can 

best be allocated to protect tribal communities and values. 

8. Support the Disaster Fire Funding legislative proposal. 

ITC supports the legislative proposal to treat extreme fire costs (above 70 percent 

of the 10 year average) as the natural disasters that they are, reducing the consequences of fire costs both on DOI’s operations and budgets. 

9. Support the $30 million Resilient Landscape initiative. 

With the initiative, fuels and health projects can be more broadly applied beyond 

the wildland-urban interface (WUI). 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

10. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative. 

We ask that you support, and encourage continued Forest Service support of, the 

ITC’s Anchor Forest initiative. The initiative is fostering long-term collaborative active forest management across the landscape to maintain ecological functions and 

sustain economically viable infrastructure for harvesting, transportation, and proc-
313 

essing forest products. Tribes, with long-term commitment to stewardship, can and 

must play a key role in fostering Anchor Forests. Currently, the ITC Anchor Forest 

initiative involves three study areas in the States of Washington and Idaho (involving Yakama, Colville, and the Spokane and Coeur d’Alene Tribes), with 

participatory and resource support from the USFS Regional Office. The project is 

bringing diverse interests to the table to begin to develop the collaborative process 

of working together in common purpose. Now, tribes in the Lakes States, the Midwest and the Southwest are expressing interest in the Anchor Forest concept for 

landscape-based forests. We ask the subcommittee to encourage the USFS and other 

agencies within the Department of Agriculture, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development Administration, to support and participate in Anchor Forests. 

11. Encourage the USFS to make implementation of Tribal Forest Protection Act 

(TFPA) a ‘‘priority.’’ 

Finally, we ask that you urge the USFS to make reform and implementation of 

the TFPA (Public Law 108–278) a ‘‘priority.’’ The TFPA was enacted to enable tribes 

to undertake fuels management and forest restoration projects on Forest Service or 

BLM lands that pose a fire, disease or other threat to tribal trust forests, reserved 

rights and cultural resources. But only a handful of TFPA projects have been implemented in the decade since the authority was enacted. USFS has been painfully 

slow in adoption of the recommendations of an ITC review of TFPA implementation, 

done in collaboration with the USFS and BIA. An effective TFPA will help restore 

the landscape to a healthy and resilient condition. We ask that you urge the Forest 

Service to make the TFPA a ‘‘priority’’ to save landscapes at high risk to climate 

change. 

INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND

The ITC is a 38-year-old association of some 60 forest owning tribes and Alaska 

Native organizations that collectively manage more than 90 percent of the 18 million acres of BIA trust timberland and woodland. These forests cover about one 

third of the Indian trust land base and provide thousands of jobs and significant 

economic activity in and around Indian Country. Beyond their economic importance, 

forests also store and filter the water and purify the air to sustain life itself. They 

sustain habitats for the fish and wildlife, produce foods, medicines, fuel, and materials for shelter, transportation, and artistic expression. In short, our forests are 

vital to our economies, cultures and spiritual well being. 

Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members, we invite you to come visit our reservations and our forests to see what we have done and what we hope to do in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE

On behalf of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, I respectfully submit these requests 

and recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets to honor the trust responsibility and support 

tribal prosperity and well-being. We renew our request that Congress work together 

to achieve a balanced approach to the budget which includes raising new revenue 

sources and do not rely solely on cuts to discretionary spending. We request the following: 

1. Move BIA and IHS contract support costs to mandatory spending. 

2. Provide advanced appropriations for the Indian Health Service. 

3. Increase Tribal Priority Allocation funding, and provide $15 million for the 

Housing Improvement Program within that fund. 4. Provide a $181.2 million increase for Purchased/Referred Care. 

The Federal approach to deficit reduction has been significantly unbalanced with 

non-defense Federal programs shouldering the fiscal burden of these budget cuts. 

Discretionary programs have already experienced $2.5 trillion in spending cuts as 

a result of reductions in the fiscal year 2011 Continuing Resolution, the Budget 

Control Act, the American Taxpayer Relief Act, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, 

and the Farm Bill. At the same time, revenue has increased by only $778 billion. 

Tribes are funded out of the non-defense discretionary budget and have experienced 

significant hardship with the imposed budget reductions for tribal programs. Additional budgetary restrictions would devastate our tribal economies impacting not 

only our tribal citizens but also the surrounding non-Native communities whom we 

employ and provide with much needed services, such as, public safety, education, 

health and dental care. 
314 

1 Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012). 

In addition to the items detailed below, our tribe would like to reiterate that we 

are a direct beneficiary of the collective tribal efforts and continuing efforts of the 

National Congress of American Indians, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, 

the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. The tribe supports the requests and recommendations of those 

organizations specifically. 

1. Ensure that Contract Support Costs are Mandatory Spending.—We are pleased 

that the administration has sought to fully fund contract support costs (CSC) under 

the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) in fiscal year 

2015, and we urge Congress to support that goal. We acknowledge that the administration’s request is a direct response to Congress’ actions with regard to fiscal year 

2014 appropriations, which removed historical caps on CSC funding and rejected the 

administration’s proposal—put forward without tribal consultation and vehemently 

opposed by tribes—to individually cap contract support costs recovery at the contractor level. Contract support costs funds vital administrative functions that allow 

us to operate programs that provide critical services to our members—programs like 

our full-service OB–GYN facilities in the Jamestown Health Clinic, our comprehensive dental services in our dental clinic, and the many services provided by our 

Community Health & Wellness Program. If contract support costs are not fully 

funded, our programs and services are directly impacted because we are forced to 

divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries 

through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding for CSC must 

not come with a penalty—namely, a reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. That result would have the same 

devastating effect on our service delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, noted that ‘‘since [contract support costs] fall under 

discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all other programs funded 

under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, including other equally important tribal programs.’’ Without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, 

payment of CSC remains subject to agency ‘‘discretion’’ from year to year, even 

though tribes are legally entitled to full payment of CSC under the ISDEAA. Noting 

these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult with tribes 

on a permanent solution. 

In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress is empowered 

to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ‘‘Entitlement’’ as ‘‘A legal obligation of the Federal 

Government to make payments to a person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which 

the budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.’’ Further, 

‘‘Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through those programs’ eligibility 

criteria and benefit or payment rules.’’ 1 CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation acts—as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States. Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA—to end Federal domination of Indian programs and allow for 

meaningful control by Indian tribes over their own destinies in the face of Federal 

bureaucratic resistance—will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that 

allow the statute to function are considered ‘‘discretionary.’’ 

From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory 

nature of CSC and the current appropriation approach leaves both the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations in the ‘‘untenable position of appropriating 

discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.’’ 

As the Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ‘‘Typically obligations of this nature 

are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring 

the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize 

CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis. 

2. The Need for Indian Health Service Advance Appropriations.—The Federal 

health services to maintain and improve the health of American Indians and Alaska 
315 

Natives are consonant with and required by the Federal Government’s historical 

and unique legal relationship with, and resulting responsibility to, the American Indian and Alaska Native people. Since fiscal year 1998 there has been only 1 year 

(fiscal year 2006) when the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill has been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year. Even after enactment 

of an appropriations bill (or a series of increasingly confusing continuing resolutions), there is an apportionment process involving the Office of Management and 

Budget and then a process within the IHS for allocation of funds to the IHS Area 

Offices. 

Seriously delayed funding causes the IHS and tribal healthcare providers great 

challenges in planning and managing care for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It significantly hampers tribal and IHS healthcare providers’ budgeting, recruitment, retention, provision of services, facility maintenance and construction efforts. Receipt of funds late also severely impacts our tribe’s ability to invest the 

funds and generate interest which can be used to offset the chronic underfunding 

of the region’s health programs. Providing sufficient, timely, and predictable funding 

is needed to ensure the Government meets its obligation to provide healthcare for 

Native people. We—and all tribes and tribal organizations—are hampered by the 

uncertainty as to whether Congress will provide funding for built-in costs, including 

inflation and pay increases, what amount of funding we might receive with regard 

to signing outside vendor/and or medical services contracts, ordering supplies, and 

making crucial hiring decisions. 

Advance Appropriations Explanation.—As you know, an advance appropriation is 

funding that becomes available 1 year or more after the year of the appropriations 

act in which it is contained. For instance, if fiscal year 2016 advance appropriations 

for the IHS were included in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, those advance appropriations would not be counted 

against the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations Subcommittee’s funding allocation but rather would be counted against its fiscal year 2016 allocation. It would 

also be counted against the ceiling in the fiscal year 2016 Budget Resolution, not 

the fiscal year 2015 Budget Resolution. 

To begin an advanced appropriations cycle there must be an initial transition appropriation which contains (1) an appropriation for the year in which the bill was 

enacted (for instance, fiscal year 2015) and (2) an advance appropriation for the following year (fiscal year 2016). Thereafter, Congress can revert to appropriations 

containing only 1 year advance funding. If IHS funding was on an advance appropriations cycle, tribal healthcare providers, as well as the IHS, would know the 

funding a year earlier than is currently the case and would not be subject to Continuing Resolutions. However, we note that advance appropriations are subject to 

across-the-board reductions. 

The Veterans Administration Experience.—In fiscal year 2010 the Veterans Administration (VA) medical care programs achieved advance appropriations. This 

came after many years of veterans’ organizations advocating for this change, including enactment of the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111–81) which authorized advance appropriations and specified 

which appropriations accounts are to be eligible for advance appropriations. The Act 

required the Secretary to include in documents submitted to Congress, in support 

of the President’s detailed budget estimates, the funds necessary for the medical 

care accounts of the VA for the fiscal year following the fiscal year for which the 

budget is submitted. 

The fact that Congress has implemented advance appropriations for the VA medical programs provides a compelling argument for tribes and tribal organizations to 

be given equivalent status with regard to IHS funding. Both systems provide direct 

medical care and both are the result of Federal policies. Just as the veterans groups 

were alarmed at the impact of delayed funding upon the provision of healthcare to 

veterans and the ability of the VA to properly plan and manage its resources, tribes 

and tribal organizations have those concerns about the IHS health system. Currently there are to bills (H.R. 813/S. 932) seeking to expand VA advance appropriation to all discretionary accounts not just medical. We also note that there is legislation (H.R. 3229 and S. 1570) pending in this Congress that would expand advance 

appropriations to the IHS. We thus request this subcommittee’s active support for 

any legislation that may be needed to authorize IHS advance appropriations, to protect such funding from a point of order in the Budget Resolution, and to appropriate 

the necessary funds. 

3. $15 Million Increase for HIP Program in Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) Funding in the BIA Budget.—Tribal priority allocations fund essential core governmental 

services. We use these dollars to provide the most basic needs for our tribal citizens: 

food, clothing and shelter and to provide critical services, including, law enforce-
316 

ment, education, transportation, natural resources and economic development. Since 

1996, tribal government core services are operating with over a 30 percent reduction 

in base funds. We urge you to adequately fund TPA to enhance the health and wellbeing of our communities. 

Restore Funding to the Housing Improvement Program.—The HIP program is an 

important component of TPA funding. It serves the neediest population—those at 

125 percent of the Federal income poverty guidelines. The President requests only 

$8 million for this fund—even funding from last year, which was a drastic reduction 

from the nearly $12 million in fiscal year 2013. This reduction is based on the false 

presumption that the program is duplicative of HUD programs. The assumption is 

wrong, and we urge you to provide $15 million in funding for this program that provides an essential service to our tribal citizens: safe and sanitary housing. 

4. $ 181.2 Million Increase Funding for Purchased/Referred Care (formally called 

Contract Health Services).—Most IHS and tribally operated direct care facilities do 

not provide the required emergency and specialty care services, so tribes are forced 

to turn to the private sector to fulfill this critical need. Purchased/Referred Care 

funds are used to purchase essential healthcare services, including inpatient and 

outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care, transportation and medical 

support services (like diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, laboratory, nutrition, 

and pharmacy services). 

Thank you on behalf of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JICARILLA APACHE NATION

MARCH 31, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

TY VICENTI, 

President. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. BARBARA KING

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee: My name is Barbara King and I am a resident of Texas, an owner of rural property in Colorado, 

and an advocate for land exchange reform. I testified in 2011 before the U.S. House 
317 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Environment, Interior and Related Agencies, and 

appreciate your willingness to consider this additional testimony on the same subject. I am convinced of the need for revising BLM land exchange regulations to protect the public, based on what my neighbors and I experienced as participants in 

the 2007, Emerald Mountain Land Exchange (EMLEX.) Your committee can prevent 

the recklessness by which the land exchange program is being managed by interviewing the officials responsible for overseeing it to assess their actual knowledge 

of land exchange regulations and the Land Exchange Handbook policies on public 

notification and working with land exchange facilitators (specifically for-profit real 

estate brokers.) I believe you will be astounded at what you find, and will see an 

immediate need to revise these regulations so they are clear and reasonable. 

At the State level, land managers such as Colorado’s John Beck should be asked 

why they admittedly do not follow the BLM Land Exchange Handbook policies, 

cavalierly putting your constituents’ historic land use patterns and land values at 

risk. Mr. Beck had told me that the Handbook is only a guide, and no case law enforces it. Obviously, the very wide discretion given to land managers to ignore these 

policies can easily lead to poor decisions with enormous consequences. Specifically, 

as shown in the EMLEX, BLM does not exercise the Full Disclosure policy whereby 

land exchange facilitators must reveal all purchase contracts they hold with prospective owners of the Federal land prior to land appraisals. If BLM does not provide this information to appraisers, as they failed to do in the EMLEX, Federal land 

appraisals cannot be guaranteed to meet regulation standards. Why does BLM not 

make this a regulation given the reports year after year of the inadequacy of the 

appraisal process? Nor, in the EMLEX, were the names of all prospective owners 

added to the mailing list, ignoring a Handbook requirement to include everyone expressing an ownership interest in the Federal land. This action is crucial to the public, but irrelevant to and ignored by BLM. Failure to obtain full disclosure, according 

to the very critical 2009, Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, ‘‘BLM and 

the Forest Service Have Improved Oversight of the Land Exchange Process, but Additional Actions Are Needed,’’ has predictable results. GAO writes ‘‘Without consistent application, the agencies fail to obtain critical information and potentially 

risk losing the ability to control the exchange process.’’ A big part of the problem 

is lack of trained staff. As GAO wrote ‘‘The agencies cannot ensure that realty staff 

develop and maintain necessary skills.’’ 

The two problems, inadequate public notification and failure to provide appraisers 

with complete information, are serious, but the solutions are so straightforward and 

cost-neutral that I believe your subcommittee will support revising land exchange 

regulations as you consider funding for the FLPMA this year. Your answers to two 

questions should determine whether you are willing to do so. First, should BLM notify rural landowners adjacent to Federal land when BLM plans to dispose of it? 

The Department of the Interior (DOI), and most vehemently, the acting Inspector 

General, Mary Kendall, says ‘‘NO!’’ That is a clue there is a big problem with common sense at DOI. 

Second, do you believe a Federal land appraisal can be guaranteed to be accurate 

if the appraiser is unaware of its intended use by those holding purchase contracts 

for it? Of course not! However, DOI says, yes. 

I believe that your subcommittee, charged with oversight of the BLM land exchange program, will serve the public well by challenging the Administration’s 

counterintuitive thinking. 

The public needs you to find out why BLM officials do not follow their Handbook 

and its checklist of procedures critical to running a program that, if mismanaged, 

can literally ruin your constituents’ livelihoods. Who can’t follow a checklist? 

Interviewing two current Department of the Interior (DOI) officials who are responsible for oversight within DOI will reveal why these problems persist. Challenging them directly by asking them detailed questions will show you the remarkable lack of competence and interest within the DOI to do any oversight of this program. Since my Congressional representative, John Culberson (R–TX) and I began 

our inquiries about the program in 2009, DOI employees have revealed a systemic, 

evidently coordinated, refusal to examine the problems with the BLM land exchange 

program identified in the 2009, GAO report. I was told by BLM Deputy Secretary 

Ned Farquhar in 2009 that he had neither the time nor staff to look into the fact 

that the Colorado BLM office had not followed its policies regarding public notification or working with facilitators in the EMLEX. Subsequently, he relied on a report 

from the Colorado office defending their management of the exchange. No one at 

DOI ever challenged its accuracy by examining case file records or documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests which clearly 

showed that all BLM officials, including Director Bob Abbey simply repeated numerous demonstrably false statements about the exchange to Mr. Culberson and me. Fi-
318 

nally, and shockingly, the acting Inspector General, Mary Kendall, somehow ‘‘confirmed’’ Mr. Abby’s false statements, and refused to offer a shred of support for her 

conclusion that BLM had, indeed followed its policies. If Democrats on your subcommittee take an interest in this, it will be an outstanding example of principle 

over partisanship. If not, the reverse is apparent. 

Why does the land exchange program need your oversight? When Federal officials 

make false statements to congressional appropriators who question them, they must 

believe you do not have the staff or time to hold them accountable for what is either 

gross incompetence or willful disregard for facts in order to protect the administration. Thorough public notification of BLM’s actions and obtaining fair value for Federal land are of critical importance to the public, so the regulations and policies addressing those issues should be written clearly for everyone to understand. BLM’s 

cavalier disregard for your own fundamental property rights will be apparent to 

members and staff who talk with administration officials about land exchange regulations and policies. Mr. Farquhar and Ms. Kendall should be asked to explain their 

interpretations of and opinions about the following: 

1. Public notification regulations and Handbook policies. 

2. Regulations and Policies regarding oversight of facilitators: GAO report 09–611 

made excellent recommendations for improving oversight of facilitators that could 

be implemented fairly easily if BLM would simply acknowledge the problem. Unfortunately, DOI’s response included in that report, written by Acting Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Mr. Ned Farquhar does not even acknowledge the problems with oversight noted in the report, or comment on GAO’s suggestions to correct them. In the report, GAO states the need for additional documentation by the National Land Exchange Team that the Full Disclosure provision of the 

agreement to initiate (ATI) is indeed exercised in a facilitated land exchange. BLM 

still refuses to do so. The influence of lobbyists for facilitators may be the reason 

for this because the risk of inaccurate appraisals is clear. 

3. Oversight of land exchange and appraisal processes within BLM and DOI: GAO 

report 08–106 ‘‘Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Restrictions and Management Weaknesses Limit Future Sales and Acquisitions and 10–259T ‘‘Challenges to 

Implementing the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act’’ identify management 

weaknesses and the lack of staff. ‘‘BLM officials reported that they lacked knowledgeable realty staff to conduct land acquisitions, as well as other BLM or department staff to conduct appraisals, surveys, and resource studies. The turnover of 

management in the State Office conducting the most exchanges, Colorado, is remarkably high. Colorado has had seven State Directors during the period 2002–2014 

(Wenker, Koza, Wisely, Hunsaker, Barden, Hankins, Welch). The turnover at the 

Federal level just with the Obama administration shows the need for clear regulations and policies that these officials and the public can understand. Hopefully, DOI 

Secretary Jewell, BLM Director Kornze and Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Schneider will, unlike their predecessors, accept public and congressional scrutiny and make the changes that need to be made. Ironically, it was 

Secretary Salazar who stated, in his 2011, ‘‘Plan for Retrospective Regulatory Review’’ that ‘‘Through this process, we want to gather the best ideas from the public 

on how to fix regulations that need fixing, eliminate those that are no longer needed, and make government work better for the people we serve.’’ Your subcommittee 

has the power to take these problems seriously and fix them. Here is a start. Ms. 

Kendall’s refusal to provide Mr. Culberson with a full report on her ‘‘appraisal review’’ of one of the EMLEX parcels indicates her profound lack of transparency and 

contempt for Congressional scrutiny. 

4. Suggested Revisions to land exchange regulations and Handbook 

a. Regulations CFR 43 2201. 2 and 2201.7–1 should be amended such that the 

category of those ‘‘appropriate’’ includes 

1. adjacent landowners 

2015 Appropriations Bill Language proposed by Representative John 

Culberson (R–TX): ‘‘Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716) is amended by adding at the end the 

following new subsection: ‘(j) In the case of any exchange involving public 

land or National Forest System land to be carried out (whether directly or 

through a third-party) under this Act or other applicable law, the Secretary 

concerned shall provide written notice of the proposed land exchange to 

each owner of non-Federal land adjoining the parcel of public land or National Forest System land proposed for exchange and each owner of nonFederal land adjoining the non-Federal land proposed to be acquired in the 
319 

exchange. The Secretary shall determine adjoining landowners using the 

most-recent available tax records. For purposes of providing notification 

under this subsection, adjoining land means land sharing any length of border with the public land, National Forest System land, or non-Federal land 

subject to the proposed exchange, including contact solely at a boundary 

corner. 

2. ‘‘interested parties’’ defined as (a) parties who requested information about 

the exchange directly from BLM (as required by the Handbook) (b) any party 

known to the facilitator to have an ownership interest in the BLM land shown 

by a contract with the facilitator or a related agreement to purchase all or part 

of the newly exchanged BLM property. This information is required to be provided to BLM through the Full Disclosure provision of the ATI. 

b. Implement these Specific Directives regarding Land Exchanges based on the 

GAO report GAO–09–611 through revising regulations to require this: 

—ensure careful and fully documented reviews by National Land Exchange Team 

(NLET) that identify key problems and record their resolutions 

—Clearly define third-party facilitators 

—Consistently apply disclosure policies to them an, crucially, include documentation of the disclosure in the case file and verification of the disclosure by NLET 

c. Revisions to the BLM Land Exchange Handbook Chapter 11E. 

Role of Facilitators in Assembling Multiple Parcels or Multiple Ownerships. 

BLM should plainly define the meaning of words used in their regulations, 

policy and personal communications such as ‘‘interested party,’’ ‘‘participant’’ 

and ‘‘client.’’ Exchange facilitators must be required to be aware of all exchange 

regulations and policy. BLM realty staff must review all facilitator’s Employment Agreements to verify that the Scope of Work offered to clients is consistent with exchange policy. BLM should add an additional step to the land 

exchange review process, as GAO–09–611 recommends (p. 42) so that the National Land Exchange Team documents that the Full Disclosure provision was 

exercised, shown by BLM realty staff having reviewed all contracts the 

facilitator holds. Both the State realty office and the NLET reviews should be 

in the exchange case file. 

—BLM should distribute a Land Exchange Fact Sheet to ‘‘interested parties’’ 

holding a contract or related agreement with the facilitator, clarifying the 

roles of BLM and its facilitator and the exchange parameters. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN ORCHESTRAS

The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2015 funding 

for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. We ask 

Congress to continue supporting the important work of this agency, which increases 

public access to the arts, nurtures cultural diversity, promotes the creation of new 

artistic works, and cultivates a sense of cultural and historic pride, all while supporting millions of jobs in communities nationwide. 

The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions America’s orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its diverse membership of approximately 800 orchestras runs the gamut from world-renowned symphonies to 

community groups, from summer festivals to student and youth ensembles. Orchestras unite people through creativity and artistry, fuel local economies and civic vitality, and educate young people and adults. The League remains committed to helping 

orchestras engage with their communities, and the NEA plays an invaluable role 

through its direct grants, Federal/State partnerships, and research on trends in public participation and workforce development. 

The award of a competitive NEA grant is widely considered an affirmation of national artistic significance. The ability to present nationally recognized programs is 

highly valued by communities large and small, and being an NEA grant recipient 

is critical in securing additional funding for a variety of programming and operations. In fiscal year 2013, the NEA’s Grants to Organizations included 100 direct 

grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America categories. In the current fiscal year 2014 period, the following eleven highlighted awards total $200,000 

in NEA grants, supporting orchestras that together employ more than 800 musicians and 360 full- and part-time staff. 
320 

NEA FUNDING INCREASES ACCESS FOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES

Together with the organizations it supports, the NEA is dedicated to improving 

public access to the arts. With a Challenge America grant, the Gulf Coast Symphony 

Orchestra produced ‘‘Something Old, Something New,’’ a classical music concert featuring trombonist Joe Alessi. The project was created to serve a low-income, rural 

community. In addition to the public performance, there was also a public dress rehearsal, a master class for a local high school, and free community outreach performances held in Gulfport and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. The public dress rehearsal attracts a full range of local citizens—from high school and college students 

to residents of retirement homes and local veterans. The Gulf Coast Symphony and 

its musicians accomplish all of this with the help of just three staff members and 

an active board. 

Another Challenge America recipient serving many with a modest grant is the 

Bismarck-Mandan Symphony Orchestra (BMSO), the only full symphony orchestra 

in western and south central North Dakota. With two full-time and two part-time 

staff, roughly 75 musicians, and more than 40 volunteers, the BMSO will present 

a series of concerts and activities with guest violinist Michael Ludwig in Bismarck, 

the orchestra’s home base, and Mott, a rural community of 732 people. The orchestra and Mr. Ludwig will work with local partners in Mott to present a classroom 

program for student musicians at Mott-Regent Junior/Senior High School, a recital 

for residents of the Good Samaritan Society-Mott, which provides shelter and supportive services to older persons and others in need, and perform a free evening recital at Mott’s Playhouse Theater. These activities will benefit a community that 

would otherwise need to travel more than 100 miles to Bismarck in order to enjoy 

professional music performances. 

Orchestras are finding ways to engage underserved communities that are nearby 

as well as those many miles away. The Seattle Symphony Orchestra (SSO), which 

employs 150 full-time staff including 84 musicians, will utilize its NEA Art Works 

grant to help support the New Music Works performance project, which employs 

music composition as a tool to increase public participation in the arts and creates 

skill development opportunities for youth. The project will feature compositions that 

bridge traditional and contemporary cultures. Among these works is a new piece cocreated by northwest Native American youth and artists through the SSO’s Cultural 

Exchanges, which are hosted at tribal venues on a quarterly basis to foster closer 

relationships and collaborative work with the tribes. 

NEA GRANTS HELP ORCHESTRAS ENGAGE, EDUCATE, AND EQUIP AMERICA’S YOUTH

The experience of live music can bring disparate communities and partners together, united in the purpose of educating and encouraging young people. The 

Greensboro Symphony’s OrKIDStra program, for example, partners with Guilford 

County Head Start to serve preschoolers throughout the Piedmont Triad. Tying together literacy skills with classical music, the symphony provides more than 600 

Head Start children with free books related to a specific concert theme. Head Start 

educators work with the children, who later see the book brought to life in an interactive concert featuring the symphony’s Percussion Ensemble and a professional storyteller. Building upon the great success of last year’s program, the Greensboro 

Symphony, with its 13 full and part-time staff and more than 80 musicians, is expanding its OrKIDStra program this year to include several public performances at 

the Greensboro Science Center’s new Carolina SciQuarium facility in May 2014. 

The Kansas City Symphony, with 80 full-time musicians, 31 full-time staff members, and as many as 200 part-time/seasonal employees, offers more than 170 performances and also education programs that connect with more than 40,000 children 

and teachers each year, many of whom are in rural and underserved areas. The 

Kansas City Symphony’s ‘‘Festival of Rhythm’’ program featured performances by 

percussionist Martin Grubinger playing John Corigliano’s percussion concerto Conjurer, and the Festival also included a free community concert of percussion works, 

a public lecture by Corigliano, and a master class and pre-concert discussions with 

Grubinger, all reaching more than 6,000 people. In addition, nearly 17,000 students 

and teachers from 20 communities in northwest Missouri and 21 communities in 

northeast Kansas learned about rhythm and percussion at 12 KinderKonzerts and 

Link Up performances. 

Thanks to an NEA Challenge America grant, the Fort Smith Symphony Orchestra, which employs four full-time staff and 93 per-service professional musicians, 

was able to offer for free, an interactive educational program called EARQUAKE!TM. 

In partnership with both public and private schools, this award-winning, live concert series reached 3,500 sixth-graders in a five county region in western Arkansas 

and eastern Oklahoma, engaging them in a total symphony experience designed to 
321 

encourage music appreciation and future participation in the arts. EARQUAKE!TM

concerts featured exciting music by the full orchestra, complete with video projection, audience participation, and performances by violist Tazonio Anderson. Nearly 

one-fourth of the Fort Smith students live in poverty, and participating rural Arkansas and Oklahoma schools have acute economic disadvantages with limited arts education budgets. 

The San Francisco Symphony Youth Orchestra will use its Art Works grant from 

the NEA to support the Artistic Development Program. The program complements 

the youth orchestra’s core activity of weekly rehearsals and concert performances by 

providing students with coaching, mentorship, and specialized training in chamber 

music. Students will receive free tickets to San Francisco Symphony performances 

and participate in master classes with guest artists such as composer John Adams, 

violinist Joshua Bell, and pianist Garrick Ohlsson. Participants will also rehearse 

at least twice a year with San Francisco Symphony Music Director Michael Tilson 

Thomas. The San Francisco Symphony currently employs 107 full-time orchestra 

members and 123 full-time staff. 

NEA FUNDING ENCOURAGES NEW WORKS AND LOCAL ARTISTRY

NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative work of American composers 

and musicians. Whether the music is newly composed, inspired by classics, or blends 

music from different genres, the artistry supported by the NEA is as diverse as the 

communities that surround their grantees. The Utah Symphony « Utah Opera, whose 

56 full-time and 20 part-time employees and 85 full time musicians help bring 

music to 450,000 residents in Utah and the Intermountain region, received an Art 

Works grant to support the premiere performance of a percussion concerto by Andrew Norman. Mr. Norman chose the percussion as the solo medium due to its 

physicality, which he feels compellingly demonstrates the theatrical aspect of live 

orchestral performance. The world premiere performance of his concerto will feature 

guest artist Colin Currie in Abravanel Hall, Salt Lake City. 

The Portland Symphony Orchestra, led by 82 musicians along with 12 full-time 

and 5 part-time staff, received an Art Works grant to support audience engagement 

with both traditional and contemporary compositions in celebration of the orchestra’s 90th anniversary season. The orchestra will perform all nine of Beethoven’s 

symphonies over the next three concert seasons, with the upcoming season’s February concert to feature Beethoven’s Symphony No. 3 and a Beethoven-inspired 

commissioned piece by a young American composer. A national, competitive application process will held to help launch and promote the career of the selected young 

American composer, who will also participate in a ‘‘mini-residency’’ which will involve participating in community events such as education symposiums, master 

classes in local schools, and Q&A events for concert audiences. 

Also supporting the work of living composers is the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra, which will use its Art Works funding to support a residency, commission, and 

premiere of a new work by American composer Christopher Theofinidis. In addition 

to working with orchestra musicians prior to the premiere, Mr. Theofinidis will also 

work with underserved students in central Arkansas and take part in pre-concert 

lectures. The orchestra, which employs eleven full-time musicians, eighty part-time 

musicians, and twelve full-time staff members, serves over 120,000 Arkansans a 

year with live music and is proud to premiere the work of Mr. Theofinidis. 

The Chicago Sinfonietta, with its 62 musicians, a staff of 4 full-time and 7 parttime employees, and 30-member board, will use its Art Works grant to present 

unique programming that blends musical and cultural genres. The Cross-Cultural 

Genre Fusion concert, with related educational activities, is a multicultural exploration of the intersection between symphonic and electronic music and will feature 

a Bhangra DJ together with two guest conductors—one Brazilian and one African 

American. Each conductor will conduct one half of the concert and will focus on 

their individual cultural heritage. Educational activities will include pre-concert discussions and school visits. 

Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of NEA support 

for orchestras and communities across the Nation. These are but a sampling of the 

innovative compositions, thoughtful programming for underserved regions and populations, and lifelong learning opportunities orchestras provide in service to adults 

and children from all walks of life. The Endowment’s unique ability to provide a national forum to promote excellence and engagement through high standards for artistic products and the highest expectation of accessibility remains one of the strongest arguments for a Federal role in support of the arts. We urge you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving $155 million in funding for the National 

Endowment for the Arts. 
322 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MANIILAQ ASSOCIATION

Summary.—The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native regional non-profit organization representing twelve tribes in Northwest Alaska. We provide health services through a self-governance agreement with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and 

social services through a self-governance agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We make the following recommendations regarding fiscal year 2015 IHS 

funding. —Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic leases in Alaska by at leaset $8.5 

million 

—Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending. 

—Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians 

—Fund the IHS budget with advanced appropriations. 

—Provide a $50 million allocation to the IHS from the ACA’s mandatory Prevention and Public Health Fund for tribal behavioral health grants. 

—Improve the safety of Alaska Native communities by affirming tribal jurisdiction. 

FUNDING FOR VILLAGE BUILT CLINICS IN ALASKA

Maniilaq urges Congress to provide full funding for Village Built Clinics (VBCs) 

in Alaska. VBCs are vital to the provision of basic healthcare in rural Alaska, as 

they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) 

under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). The CHAP, which IHS is 

directed by the IHCIA to carry out, utilizes a network of community health aides 

and practitioners to provide primary healthcare services in rural and isolated areas 

where access to those services might not otherwise exist. 

Despite the statutory requirement in the IHCIA that the IHS carry out the CHAP 

in order to ensure access to healthcare in rural Alaska, over the years the IHS has 

failed to fund VBC leases anywhere near the level of current need. Instead, the IHS 

has insisted that its funding for VBC leases is capped at $3 million—the amount 

appropriated by Congress for VBC leases in 1989. The 1989 appropriation was not 

a cap restricting IHS allocation of funds in later years, however, and the IHS has 

discretion to fund VBCs from its lump sum appropriation. The failure of the IHS 

to allocate funding to VBC leases to meet its statutory obligations under the IHCIA 

has forced Maniilaq to divert funding from critical healthcare programs to make up 

the difference, meaning that Maniilaq must offer fewer healthcare services to our 

communities. 

Maniilaq, along with other tribes and tribal organizations in Alaska, has discussed this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and has proposed solutions that 

the IHS continues to ignore. Accordingly, Maniilaq has recently sought to restructure funding for its VBC facilities by requesting that the IHS enter into leases for 

those facilities under its Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) Section 105(l) leasing authority, and that the leases be incorporated into 

Maniilaq’s ISDEAA funding agreement. Section 105(l) and its implementing regulations at 25 C.F.R. Part 900 require that the Secretary enter into a lease with a tribe 

or tribal organization, on a mandatory basis upon the request of the tribe or tribal 

organization, for a facility used by the tribe or tribal organization for the administration and delivery of services under an ISDEAA compact. The statute and implementing regulations also require the Secretary to compensate the tribe or tribal organization for certain costs associated with the lease. 

The IHS, however, refused the lease proposal, stating that the agency will not 

enter into leases with ISDEAA tribal contractors for VBC facilities. IHS also took 

the position that even if it were to approve the lease, the Secretary may unilaterally 

elect to provide essentially meaningless ‘‘non-monetary compensation’’ in lieu of the 

costs listed in the statute and regulations for a Section 105(l) lease. In response, 

and with the support of several other major tribal organizations, Maniilaq filed suit 

in Federal District Court early last year asking the court to affirm that the IHS 

is required by statute to enter into a Section 105(l) lease and to negotiate monetary 

compensation as provided in the implementing regulations. 

If Maniilaq prevails, the case could establish legal precedent that will allow tribal 

contractors in Alaska to negotiate for full funding for VBCs as part of their funding 

agreements under the IHS’s ISDEAA leasing authority. Such a victory could address 

the issue of IHS recalcitrance that has plagued the VBC program, since full compensation would finally be mandatory. However, support is still needed from Congress to ensure that adequate funding is available for VBC leases regardless of how 

the leases are structured. The CHAP in Alaska is critical to the provision of basic 

and essential healthcare services in isolated and rural areas, but the program 

hinges on the continued availability of properly maintained VBC space for program 
323 

operation. Maniilaq therefore urges Congress to appropriate at least an additional 

$8.5 million in dedicated funds to fully fund the VBC leasing program. 

MANDATORY FUNDING FOR CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

We are pleased that Congress chose to fully fund contract support costs (CSC) 

under the ISDEAA in fiscal year 2014, and that the administration has supported 

that effort in fiscal year 2015. CSC fund vital administrative functions that allow 

us to operate programs that provide critical services to our community members. If 

contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our programs and services are 

adversely affected because we are forced to divert limited program funding to cover 

fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal 

year 2014 and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. However, 

full funding for CSC must not come with a penalty—tribes should not have to see 

a reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. Without any permanent measure to ensure full funding, payment of 

CSC remains subject to agency ‘‘discretion’’ even though tribes are legally entitled 

to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult with tribes on a permanent solution. 

There is a logical permanent solution Congress can implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. Under the ISDEAA, the full payment of 

CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Yet the budget for CSC is currently funded and controlled through appropriation acts—as if it were a discretionary program. Congress, in the Joint Explanatory 

Statement for the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations, recognized that the 

current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory nature of CSC and the current approach leaves the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the 

‘‘untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.’’ Congress also noted that, ‘‘Typically obligations of this nature are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. Maniilaq therefore strongly urges the Congress to appropriate 

funding for CSC on a mandatory basis. 

REAUTHORIZE THE SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM

While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians 

(SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those funds are administered 

through the IHS. With the recent enactment (Public Law 113–93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the Medicare ‘‘doc fix’’ bill, it is funded through fiscal 

year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112–240). This funding 

level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven highly effective in Indian 

Country, and has produced excellent results. For example, in the 4 years preceding 

the last report on the SDPI in 2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly 

a percentage point overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye, 

kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you support ongoing 

efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period at increased funding levels. 

FUND THE IHS THROUGH ADVANCED APPROPRIATIONS

Last year we provided extensive testimony to this subcommittee requesting advanced appropriations for the IHS budget. We refer you to that testimony for a full 

description of the benefits of such an approach. In sum, the goal is for the IHS and 

tribal healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late 

funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for 

parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Young and 

S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We submitted testimony to the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs’ April 2, 2014, hearing on S. 1570. We request that 

you support such efforts, and work with these sponsors and tribal representatives 

to move the IHS to an advanced appropriations framework. 
324 

INCREASE FUNDING FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, SUICIDE PREVENTION, AND ALCOHOL &

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

Alaska faces particular hardships in providing for our communities’ behavioral 

and mental health. There is a dire need for more prevention funding for suicide 

intervention as well as alcohol and substance abuse prevention, particularly for our 

youth. These efforts go hand in hand, as the problems often overlap. Alaska has 

twice the national rate of suicide, and ranks second in the Nation in suicide attempts requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit suicide at a rate nearly 6 times that of non-Native teenagers. The suicide rate among all Alaskans increased by 33 percent between 2005–2008—a period when the national rate remained steady. Compounding and complicating the suicide epidemic is alcohol and 

substance abuse, or a mental health disorder. The overwhelming majority of the 

people we lose to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or substance abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 9 

months, and due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people, particularly young people. 

Alcohol and substance abuse contributes to myriad other problems as well, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect. Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska 

have a difficult time working through the State of Alaska to provide these services, 

which adds layers of guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We have found 

that tribes and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly, because 

programs that implement traditional cultural values are more successful than those 

that don’t. Included in the Affordable Care Act is mandatory funding ($17.7 billion 

over 10 years) for a Prevention and Public Health (PPH) Fund from which Congress 

may allocate funding to various programs. In fiscal year 2012 the administration requested that $50 million of it be allocated to a new tribal behavioral health grant 

program; unfortunately Congress did not provide that allocation. We urge that Congress allocate $50 million from the PPH to the IHS in fiscal year 2015 for this purpose and that it be recurring. 

SUPPORT TRIBAL JURISDICTION TO PROTECT ALASKA COMMUNITIES

We support the ongoing efforts to amend S. 1474, the Alaska Safe Families and 

Villages Act, in a manner that would recognize Alaska tribes’ jurisdiction to protect 

their communities by dealing locally with domestic violence, sexual assault and drug 

and alcohol abuse. At the same time, we greatly appreciate the provision that is already in S. 1474 which would repeal section 910 of the Violence Against Women Act 

Reauthorization that left Alaska tribes out of the expanded tribal jurisdiction over 

domestic violence affirmed in that law. These changes will require additional Bureau of Indian Affairs resources regarding law enforcement and courts. We look forward to continued work with our congressional delegation and others on this legislation of such crucial importance to Alaska Native communities. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. PETER MEINECK

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Peter Meineck and 

I am a professor of classics at New York University, the founding director of the 

Aquila Theatre Company and a proud member of the Bedford Fire Department in 

New York where I serve as a volunteer Firefighter and EMT. I write to testify on 

behalf of the National Humanities Alliance and Aquila Theatre in enthusiastic support for the Alliance’s fiscal year 2015 request of $154.5 million in funding for the 

National Endowment for the Humanities—which is nothing less than a great American treasure. 

I mentioned in my introduction that I am a volunteer Firefighter in Bedford, New 

York. My hamlet of Katonah, part of the town of Bedford, includes the home of John 

Jay, the author of several of the Federalist Papers, member of the Continental Congress, signatory to the Declaration of Independence and our first Chief Justice. Like 

almost all the members of the Continental Congress, Jay received a classical education and could read both Greek and Latin. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was so enthusiastic he exclaimed, ‘‘I thank on my knees, him who directed my early education, for having put into my possession this rich source of delight; and I would 

not exchange it for anything which I could then have acquired, and have not since 

acquired.’’ John Jay’s works and those of his colleagues reflect the profound influence the classical world had on the conception and creation of the United States of 

America. 
325 

This is strikingly apparent in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton and Madison, Jay’s 

fellow New York delegates to the Continental Congress, devoted the entirety of Federalist no. 18 to a sophisticated objective appraisal of why the Ancient Greek city 

states failed to coalesce into one nation. This became a powerful historical argument 

in support of the confederation of the 13 colonies into a Federal United States. They 

wrote, ‘‘Had Greece been united by a stricter confederation, and persevered in her 

union, she would never have worn the chains of Macedon; and might have proved 

a barrier to the vast projects of Rome.’’ Right from the start, Americans drew inspiration from their knowledge of the classical past. 

John Jay well understood that knowledge was essential if the American experiment was to succeed. In a letter to Pennsylvania delegate Benjamin Rush in 1785 

he wrote, ‘‘Knowledge is the soul of the Republic and the only way to diminish the 

weak and wicked.’’ Later in 1789, he echoed this theme by writing to Timothy Matlack that ‘‘Knowledge is essential for the duration of liberty,’’ and in the same year, 

he felt confident that the American Revolution would succeed because ‘‘In my opinion more light and knowledge are diffused through the mass of the people of this 

country than any other.’’ 

Jay received his classical education at Kings College in New York, renamed as 

Columbia University, and I was able to read Jay’s letters in his own hand because 

of a superb digital archive held there. These historic papers are available online for 

all and funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the agency which 

embodies the sentiments of John Jay that ‘‘Knowledge is the soul of the Republic’’ 

and essential for the survival of liberty. 

Long before there was the NEH to help scholars undergo important research and 

disseminate their knowledge, support documentary film makers and archives, and 

fund important public programs in libraries, museums, galleries, VA hospitals and 

community centers, the classics provided many early Americans with the historical 

exemplars and literary metaphors by which they examined their own lives. Abigail 

Adams wrote countless letters from Boston to her husband John, far away in Philadelphia, during the war. She signed them ‘‘Diana,’’ after the Roman goddess of the 

hunt and later ‘‘Portia,’’ the wife of the Roman republican, Brutus. Adams wrote 

back as ‘‘Lysander,’’ the famous Spartan General who ended the Peloponnesian War. 

Abigail’s passion for the classics was evidently so great that John felt compelled to 

write, ‘‘Amidst your Ardor for Greek and Latin I hope you will not forget your mother Tongue. Read Somewhat in the English Poets every day. . . . You will never be 

alone, with a Poet in your Pocket. You will never have an idle Hour.’’ Now, there 

are a fair few more Americans than in 1780, and it is the National Endowment for 

the Humanities that brings us ‘‘Poetry in Motion’’ on the subway and places living 

poets in communities throughout America, offering access, education, inspiration 

and knowledge. 

With that in mind, I would like to briefly describe the NEH funded program that 

I directed called Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives that used the works of Homer, 

Aeschylus Sophocles and Euripides to foster informed public discussions on the veteran in American society. Between 2010–2013, the program toured to 106 communities in 31 States, staging 244 live events, comprising staged readings and discussions, public lectures, reading groups, film screenings and theatre workshops. We 

hired 62 classics professors and sent them out into the field where they worked with 

professional actors, librarians, museum curators, performing arts center staff and 

members of veteran organizations. 110,865 people attended the live events. This 

works out to a cost to the Federal Government of only $7.22 per person, and if we 

add the program web site’s recorded hits of 678,000, it only comes to around one 

dollar per person. 

The stated aim of the program was to use ancient dramatic literature to bring 

members of the veteran community and the public together around the common 

themes found between the ancient literature and the experiences of war and homecoming. We staged these free events in public spaces dedicated to reading, art and 

culture—places that were right in the heart of the inner city, rural and underserved 

communities we visited. Here, Americans had the opportunity to freely exchange 

ideas framed by the deeper context of the classical texts. 

One program participant, a U.S. Army Ranger sergeant who has served in several 

tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, summed up the way in which classical texts can be 

a context for modern military experience: ‘‘With the Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives 

project I liked that the experiences were filtered through classical myth. This distance allows both performers and audience members to use their imaginations in 

an empathetic way, rather than merely evoking sympathy. The use of myth (or perhaps any fictionalized narrative) also helps free us from anachronistic terms such 

as PTSD or psychological wound, or whatever else they want to use to describe 

someone who has undergone a significant change due to military service. Classical 
326 

myth places the emphasis back on character and story, and helps reject the laziness 

of labels. Arguably, the abstract nature of myth also allows individuals to reflect on 

their own experiences with the subject at hand, and to flesh out the experience with 

some combination of memory and imagination.’’ 

Of course, there are as many responses and experiences as there are veterans but 

one veteran of the Vietnam war felt that the program was helping to make American’s literate about war, something he believed was essential in any democracy. It 

was always remarkable to see how the classical stories elicited deeply personal and 

heartfelt responses. At one event in a military museum in Iowa, a long serving non 

commissioned officer of the Iowa National Guard latched on to the tension inherent 

in the moment in Book 23 of Homer’s Odyssey, when the hero is finally reunited 

with his wife, Penelope. This Iowan and his wife recognized the intimacy of something simple between them that could suddenly transcend the long separations of 

multiple deployments. Like Odysseus himself, who is moved to tears when he hears 

tales of the Trojan War sung by a bard, there were many sniffles in the audience 

at this beautifully simple and completely human moment that was captured and 

written down in a foreign land some 2750 years ago: for the humanities constantly 

remind us what it means to be human. 

In Mississippi, a leather-clad member of Rolling Thunder—the veteran motorcycle 

group—responded quite differently to the same passage. After hearing the Homeric 

simile of how Odysseus felt like a drowning man, he stood up and said ‘‘I have told 

nobody this, not even my wife here, but when I came home from Vietnam I threw 

my uniform in the trash at the airport and went home in disguise, just like Odysseus and I too felt like a drowning man—all that death —I didn’t think I could love 

any one or be loved by anyone again—I felt like I was drowning, until my girlfriend, 

my wife here, gave me her hand and rescued this drowning man. How did Homer 

know this?’’ 

As the program progressed, we met more veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, 

mostly keeping silent at first, perhaps even suspicious, but we noticed the veterans 

of the Vietnam War making contact and talking to them after the event. New mutually supportive relationships were formed—veterans helping veterans. We also started to encounter female combat veterans, nurses from Vietnam who had been deployed in the field, Army personnel working with front line troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes telling us about two enemies—the one they were there to 

fight and the enemy within—harassment, sexual assault and rape. The ancient 

plays resounded even amongst the most difficult and uncomfortable of topics and 

allowed us to talk about them. These classical works became ‘‘our mirror held up 

to nature,’’ advice Hamlet gives the players after he has been moved himself by 

watching one of them perform a classical piece about Queen Hecuba at the fall of 

Troy. 

We met veterans from World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War and those 

who served in between, and we learned so much about the meaning of these classic 

plays from them. Their insights were often so keen and insightful that many of our 

classics scholars came to see aspects of these works in a completely new light. VA 

Psychologist Dr. Jonathan Shay in his book, Odysseus in America, wrote that Greek 

drama was theatre by combat veterans, performed by combat veterans for an audience made up of combat veterans—perhaps this was one reason why these ancient 

works resounded. 

The NEH has provided us with funds for a new humanities/veterans project called 

YouStories: Classics, Conversation, Connection. Here, we take the devices that 

worked so well on Ancient Greeks/Modern Lives and are creating a combination of 

live events and a new story collecting app, where veterans and the public can 

upload their own video stories. These are spoken into a smart phone, tablet or computer after being inspired by the ancient materials included with the app. These stories will then be collected, curated and displayed online and also archived at the 

Library of Congress. This program has a special focus on female veterans and we 

hope that these ancient plays might inspire, provoke and provide a context for their 

stories—their experiences as Americans serving their country at a time of war. 

The aim of my testimony today has been to try to convince you of the continuing 

power of the classics in American life and how the National Endowment for the Humanities has allowed a truly national and human program to flourish. Their prestigious award helped create media and institutional interest in the program and attract additional funding from private foundations and individuals. Their selection 

process is highly rigorous and the expert advice and tireless help of their program 

staff is nothing short of priceless. 

I conclude with the words of a great man far more eloquent than I. In his last 

speech delivered in Memphis on April 3, 1968—the day before my first birthday— 
327 

Martin Luther King took us on a monumental and historic flight of fancy telling 

us: 

‘‘I would move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And 

I would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed the great and eternal issues 

of reality.’’ 

The National Endowment for the Humanities does just this—it enables those discussions of great and eternal issues of reality and via its excellent public programming sends them out across the Nation helping to empower our democracy with that 

most valuable of human resources—knowledge. 

Thank you very much. 

THE NATIONAL HUMANITIES ALLIANCE

Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national humanities 

policy in the areas of research, preservation, public programming, and teaching. 

More than one hundred organizations are members of NHA, including scholarly associations, humanities research centers, colleges, universities, and organizations of 

museums, libraries, historical societies, humanities councils, and higher education 

institutions. 

THE AQUILA THEATRE

Founded in 1991, Aquila Theatre’s mission is to bring the greatest theatrical 

works to the greatest number. To this end Aquila presents a regular season of plays 

in New York, at international festivals, and tours to approximately seventy American towns and cities each year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee: 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) encourages 

the subcommittee’s support for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management. The BLM Budget requests $45.352 million for this Subactivity. This Subactivity includes Colorado River Salinity Control 

as a primary focus area. For fiscal year 2015, Federal funding of $5.2 million for 

general water quality improvement efforts within the Colorado River Basin and an 

additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects is needed in this primary focus 

area to prevent further degradation of Colorado River water quality and increased 

downstream economic damages. 

The concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause approximately $300 million in damages to water users each year. While this figure is significant, had it 

not been for the efforts of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Salinity Control Program), salinity concentrations of Colorado River water today would 

have been about 90 milligrams per liter (mg/L) higher, which has avoided additional 

damages of approximately $200 million per year. 

Metropolitan is the regional water supplier for most of urban southern California, 

providing supplemental water to retail agencies that serve over 18 million people. 

Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct has the highest level of salinity 

of all of Metropolitan’s sources of supply, averaging around 630 mg/L since 1976, 

which leads to economic damages. For example, damages occur from: 

—A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for 

leaching in the agricultural sector; 

—A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—An increase in the cost of cooling operations, and the cost of water softening, 

and a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

—An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector; 

—A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

—Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation 

of salts in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to 

groundwater quality deterioration; and 
328 

—Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled water in the municipal sector. 

Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for many years. To 

deal with the concern, the International Boundary and Water Commission signed 

Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of 

the Salinity of the Colorado River in 1973, and the President signed into law the 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 (Act). High total dissolved solids 

in the Colorado River as it enters Mexico and the concerns of the seven Colorado 

River Basin States regarding the quality of Colorado River water in the United 

States drove these initial actions. To foster interstate cooperation and coordinate the 

Colorado River Basin States’ efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States 

formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum. 

The salts in the Colorado River system are indigenous and pervasive, mostly resulting from saline sediments in the Basin that were deposited in prehistoric marine 

environments. They are easily eroded, dissolved, and transported into the river system, and enter the River through both natural and anthropogenic sources. 

The Salinity Control Program reduces salinity by preventing salts from dissolving 

and mixing with the River’s flow. Irrigation improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, 

lined ditches) and vegetation management reduce the amount of salt transported to 

the Colorado River. Point sources such as saline springs are also controlled. 

The Salinity Control Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits the Upper Colorado 

River Basin water users through more efficient water management, increased crop 

production, benefits to local economies through construction contracts, and through 

environmental enhancements. The Salinity Control Program benefits Lower Basin 

water users, hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, 

through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California’s Colorado River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the hundreds 

of millions of dollars per year due to the River’s salinity. 

The Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall ‘‘develop a comprehensive 

program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.’’ BLM is the largest landowner in the 

Colorado River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management 

practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion processes from which 

soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited in various stream beds 

or flood plains. As a result, salts are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality problems downstream. 

Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River. BLM’s rangeland improvement 

programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. These measures significantly complement programs and activities being considered for implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through its Basinwide Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

Over the past years, the Salinity Control Program has proven to be a very cost 

effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado 

River. Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide program is essential. 

BLM proposes a 20 percent increase in Colorado River Salinity Control funding 

in the budget request over the 2014 level. Metropolitan encourages the subcommittee’s support for sufficient funding in the Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management to allow for expenditure of $5.2 million for general water quality improvement 

efforts in the Colorado River Basin and an additional $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2015. These amounts are needed to prevent further degradation of 

the quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic damages. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND

PROGRAMS

My name is Bruce Stover and I serve as the Director of the Inactive Mine Reclamation Program within the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. I am submitting this statement on behalf of the National Association of Abandoned Mine 

Land Programs (NAAMLP) for which I currently serve as president. The NAAMLP 

represents 31 States and tribes with federally approved abandoned mine land reclamation (AML) programs authorized under title IV of the Surface Mining Control 

and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Title IV of SMCRA was amended in 2006 and significantly changed how State and tribal AML grants are funded. These grants are 

still based on receipts from a fee on coal production, but beginning in fiscal year 
329 

1While a certified State or tribe confirms at the time of certification that it has completed 

all of the coal sites on its current inventory, the certification contemplates that new, formerly 

unidentified high priority coal AML sites may occur in the future and the State/tribe commits 

to addressing these sites immediately. All AML States and tribes, including those that are certified, have identified additional previously unknown high priority coal sites as a result of ongoing field investigations, new information and features that have been expressed to the surface. 2 In this regard, we should note that funding to certified States and tribes was already capped 

at $15 million annually pursuant to an amendment to SMCRA as part of the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Public Law 112–14) in 2012. Furthermore, on October 2, 

2013, SMCRA was amended once again to increase the annual distribution amount for each cerContinued 

2008, the grants are funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result, the 

States and tribes should receive $250 million in fiscal year 2015. In its fiscal year 

2015 proposed budget, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) is requesting $186 million for State and tribal AML grants, a reduction of $64 million. OSM’s budget also 

includes three legislative proposals, the first of which would eliminate funding to 

States and tribes that have ‘‘certified’’ completion of their highest priority abandoned coal reclamation sites; the second of which would return the AML reclamation fee paid by coal operators to pre-2006 levels; and the third of which would establish a hardrock AML fee and accompanying program. 

Over the past 35 years, the accomplishments of the States and tribes under the 

AML program has resulted in tens of thousands of acres of abandoned mine lands 

having been reclaimed, thousands of mine openings having been closed, and safeguards for people, property and the environment having been put in place. Be assured that States and tribes continue to be committed to address the unabated hazards at both coal and noncoal abandoned mines. We are united in achieving the 

goals and objectives as set forth by Congress when SMCRA was first enacted—including protecting public health and safety, enhancing the environment, providing 

employment, and adding to the economies of communities impacted by past coal and 

noncoal mining. In this regard, a newly updated ‘‘Safeguarding, Reclaiming, Restoring’’ accomplishments report prepared by State and tribal administrators of AML 

programs under SMCRA is available at http://naamlp.net/documents/, which provides several on-the-ground examples of the type of work that is being done around 

the country. 

When passed in 1977, SMCRA set national regulatory and reclamation standards 

for coal mining. The act also established a Reclamation Trust Fund to work towards 

eliminating the innumerable health, safety and environmental problems that existed 

throughout the Nation from mines that were abandoned prior to the act. The Fund 

generates revenue through a fee on current coal production. This fee is collected by 

OSM and distributed to States and tribes that have federally approved regulatory 

and AML programs. The promise Congress made in 1977, and with every subsequent amendment to the act, was that, at a minimum, half the money generated 

from fees collected by OSM on coal mined within the boundaries of a State or tribe, 

referred to as ‘‘State Share’’, would be returned for the uses described in title IV 

of the act if the State or tribe assumed responsibility for regulating active coal mining operations pursuant to title V of SMCRA. The 2006 amendments clarified the 

scope of what the State Share funds could be used for and reaffirmed the promise 

made by Congress in 1977. 

If a State or tribe was successful in completing reclamation of abandoned coal 

mines and was able to ‘‘certify’’ under section 411 of SMCRA,1 then the State share 

funds could be used to address a myriad of other abandoned mine issues as authorized by SMCRA and as further defined under each State’s or tribe’s Abandoned 

Mine Reclamation Plan, each of which is approved by OSM. Like all abandoned 

mine reclamation, the work of certified States and tribes eliminates health and safety problems, cleans up the environment, and creates jobs in rural areas impacted 

by mining. In this regard, the certified States and tribes have been good stewards 

of the AML funds they receive, especially with regard to addressing dangerous 

noncoal mines. 

The elimination of funding for certified State and tribal AML grants not only 

breaks the promise of State and tribal share funding, but upsets the balance and 

compromise that was achieved in the comprehensive restructuring of SMCRA accomplished by the 2006 amendments following more than 10 years of discussion and 

negotiation by all affected parties. The funding reduction is inconsistent with the 

administration’s stated goals regarding jobs and environmental protection. We 

therefore respectively ask the subcommittee to support continued funding for certified States and tribes at the statutorily authorized levels, and turn back any efforts by OSM to amend SMCRA in this regard.2
330 

tified State and tribe to $28 million in fiscal year 2014 and $75 million in fiscal year 2015 (Helium Stewardship Act of 2013, Public Law 113–40, section 10(d)). 

Over the course of the past few years, State and tribal AML program have seen 

heightened concern by some in Washington that the States and tribes are not 

spending the increased AML grant moneys that they have received under the 2006 

amendments in a more expeditious manner, thus resulting in what the administration has characterized as unacceptable levels of ‘‘undelivered orders.’’ There seems 

to be a fundamental disconnect between the way the States and tribes are required 

to administer, manage, and record the dispersal of their AML grant funds and the 

way Federal agencies like the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) report the usage of 

grant funds. 

From the perspective of OSM, there appears to be a substantial balance of ‘‘undelivered orders’’, money that has been allotted by the Federal program but has not 

yet been ‘‘spent’’ by the State or tribe (i.e. withdrawn from Treasury). In fact, this 

is a mischaracterization of the current status of these ‘‘undelivered’’ AML moneys. 

As the following table demonstrates (see the figure on the next page), the vast majority of the allotted AML grant fund money is already committed to reclamation 

projects at various stages. The States and tribes define their use of the term ‘‘committed funds’’ as those which have been exclusively applied to or reserved for a specific project or purpose, and thus are unavailable for any other purpose. This is consistent with the regulations which define ‘‘expended’’ as ‘‘moneys have been obligated, encumbered, or committed by contract... ’’. It is therefore more appropriate to view grants in terms of committed funds rather than undelivered orders, 

with regard to accurate tracking of grant distribution. 
331 
332 

A second dimension to the disconnect between how the States and tribes track 

grant expenditures and how OSM accounts for these funds is the amount of time 

and the number of regulatory obligations required to administer the AML contracting process in a responsible manner. A typical AML site requires a long and 

stringent process related to design, engagement of local citizens and leaders, interagency governmental review and coordination; bidding and contracting; and of 

course construction on the site—all of which must take place before the funds are 

drawn down, and are therefore finally considered ‘‘spent’’ by OSM. 

Further complicating the matter from the State/tribal perspective is the fact that 

the 2006 increases in mandatory funding required an increase in the staff and other 

administrative resources required to continue administering the program at the 

same level of efficiency and effectiveness. State and tribal AML programs have 

made these adjustments in a prudent manner over the last 5 years of funding expansion, and though there may have been some apparent initial lag, the programs 

have in fact maintained their ability to efficiently and responsibly commit program 

funding. It should also be kept in mind that AML administrators utilize a complex 

system for prioritizing AML sites in order to meet the mandates of the law and ensure that the grant funds are spent in the most effective and productive manner 

possible. Any analysis of AML grant expenditures must therefore be balanced 

against appropriate program management and the responsible improvement of the 

safety and health of our citizens and the environment, as set forth in SMCRA. We 

welcome the opportunity to brief your subcommittee in more detail regarding this 

issue should you so desire. 

One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML restoration work is 

through leveraging or matching other grant programs, such as the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 319 program. In fiscal year 2014, language was included 

in OSM’s appropriation that encouraged the use of these types of matching funds, 

particularly for the purpose of environmental restoration related to treatment or 

abatement of acid mine drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is an ongoing, 

and often expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests 

the subcommittee to once again include language in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for any non-Federal cost share required by the Federal Government for AMD abatement. 

We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM’s training program 

and Technical Innovation and Professional Services (TIPS), including moneys for 

State/tribal travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of 

State and tribal AML programs as they provide necessary training and continuing 

education for State/tribal agency personnel, as well as critical technical assistance. 

These programs saw drastic cuts as a result of sequestration and we are hopeful 

that Congress will restore the necessary funding for these critical programs in the 

fiscal year 2015 appropriation. Finally, we support funding for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.5 million because it facilitates and enhances 

State and local partnerships by providing direct financial assistance to watershed 

organizations for acid mine drainage remediation. 

With regard to the proposal contained in OSM’s budget to establish a hardrock 

AML program, the States and tribes have consistently advocated for legislation that 

would allow us to address historic hardrock AML problem areas, beginning with the 

inclusion of section 409 of SMCRA in 1977. There is clearly a need to establish both 

the funding mechanism and the administrative program to address these legacy 

sites. We believe that OSM is in the best position to administer this program, given 

its 35 years of experience in operating the title IV program under SMCRA. Our only 

concern is that, while on the one hand OSM is advocating for the establishment of 

a hardrock AML program, it is also pushing for the elimination of funding for certified States and tribes to accomplish this very work. Granted, OSM’s position is 

based on its belief that SMCRA funding should be restricted to high priority coal 

problems only. However, Congress clearly felt differently from the outset of 

SMCRA’s formation and, while there have been many recent opportunities to adjust 

its views and amend SMCRA accordingly, Congress has chosen not to do so. To the 

contrary, Congress has adopted legislation that would clarify the use of SMCRA 

AML funds to address noncoal problems. Nonetheless, we would welcome an opportunity to work closely with OSM in examining the potential for a hardrock AML 

program, wherever it may reside and however it may be constituted. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement regarding OSM’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2015. We would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have or provide additional information. 
333 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), thank you 

for this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly grants to State and local air 

pollution control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, which 

are part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. Specifically, 

NACAA recommends that: (1) grants to State and local air quality agencies be increased by $35 million above the President’s fiscal year 2015 request, raising the 

total to $278.2 million; (2) State and local air pollution control agencies be provided 

with the flexibility to determine how best to use any additional resources; and (3) 

grant funds for fine particulate matter monitoring remain under Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105 authority, as EPA is proposing. 

NACAA’s recommendations will be explained more fully in this testimony. 

NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of air pollution control 

agencies in 42 States, the District of Columbia, four territories and 116 metropolitan 

areas. The members of NACAA have the primary responsibility under the Clean Air 

Act for implementing the Nation’s clean air program. The air quality professionals 

in the member agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air quality in 

the United States. These observations and recommendations are based upon that 

experience. The views expressed in this document do not necessarily represent the 

positions of every State and local air pollution control agency in the country. 

1. NACAA RECOMMENDS A $35-MILLION INCREASE ABOVE THE PRESIDENT’S REQUEST

The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2015 proposes to increase Federal 

funding for State and local air quality grants by $15 million over fiscal year 2014 

levels (for a total of $243.2 million). Within the request, there is a proposed increase 

of $24.3 million for implementing greenhouse gas (GHG) activities. While NACAA 

supports additional funding for new GHG activities that will be required of State 

and local air agencies, the members are disappointed that part of this increase 

would be obtained by shifting—essentially cutting—$9 million from the ‘‘core’’ programs of State and local air pollution control agencies, which are the foundation of 

their clean air implementation efforts. NACAA is gratified that the budget request 

recognizes the important work of State and local agencies to protect public health; 

however, a net increase of $15 million above fiscal year 2014 levels is not nearly 

enough. Accordingly, NACAA requests an increase of $50 million above the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2014—or $35 million above the President’s fiscal year 

2015 request—for State and local air agencies to carry out their responsibilities. 

State and Local Air Quality Agencies Face Many Challenges 

Section 101(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act finds that air pollution control is the ‘‘primary responsibility of States and local governments.’’ Accordingly, these agencies 

are continuously required to implement numerous, extremely important programmatic responsibilities to obtain and maintain healthful air quality for this 

country. These include not only new programs, but also ongoing activities that constitute the ‘‘core’’ of their clean air efforts, that is, the day-to-day responsibilities 

that are the foundation of their programs. 

One new initiative facing State and local air agencies, for which EPA is proposing 

increased funds, is the implementation of regulations to address greenhouse gases 

under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. State and local agencies will be required 

to lay the groundwork to develop approvable State plans to meet Section 111(d) 

emission guidelines for reducing carbon dioxide. Additionally, State and local agencies will need funds for the collection, review and use of GHG emission data, as well 

as to support State and local permitting activities for new and existing sources of 

GHG emissions that trigger permitting requirements as established in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule. 

In addition to these new efforts, State and local air agencies must also continue 

their ongoing activities and core programs. These are the foundation of their clean 

air implementation efforts. For example, among the many tasks facing air quality 

agencies are those associated with the implementation of (1) the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards, including particulate matter, ozone, sulfur 

dioxide, lead and carbon monoxide; (2) air toxics rules; (3) motor vehicle and fuels 

programs; and (4) permitting programs, including for ‘‘minor’’ sources. 

For both the new activities and the ongoing programs, State and local air agencies 

must carry out a variety of resource- and labor-intensive activities. These include, 

among others, developing plans, including State Implementation Plans (SIPs); compiling comprehensive emission inventories; carrying out complex modeling; analyzing extensive data; expanding and operating monitoring networks; adopting and 
334 

1 Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of State and Local Air Pollution 

Control Agencies, (April 2009), NACAA, www.4cleanair.org/Documents/reportneedssurvey 

042709.pdf. 2Fiscal year 2015 EPA Budget in Brief (March 2014), page 13. 

3www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/allabout.html. 

enforcing regulations; addressing complicated transport issues; and informing and 

involving the public in air quality decisions and issues. 

State and Local Air Agencies Have Long Been Underfunded 

State and local air quality agencies have struggled with insufficient resources for 

many years. A study NACAA conducted several years ago revealed an annual shortfall of $550 million in Federal grants for State and local air programs.1 The adverse 

economic situation at the State and local levels strains already overburdened budgets and causes air agencies to make painful choices to cut air pollution programs 

that are important for public health and/or eliminate staff. Due to these economic 

hardships, States and localities increasingly rely on Federal contributions. 

Section 105 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government to provide 

grants for up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air programs, while States 

and localities must provide a 40-percent match. In reality, State and local air agencies provide over three-fourths of their budgets (not including permit fees under the 

Federal title V program), while Federal grants constitute only one quarter. State 

and local agencies are certainly providing more than their fair share of the resources necessary, as the following table demonstrates: 

In addition to this inequity, the purchasing power of Federal grants has decreased 

due to inflation. In fact, between fiscal year 2000 and 2014, purchasing power has 

decreased by nearly 16 percent. All this has taken place while State and local responsibilities have expanded each year. 

While the current economic climate does not allow for full Federal funding of all 

the necessary air programs, NACAA hopes that Congress will recognize the critical 

importance of public health and air quality and provide much-needed increases to 

these important programs. 

Our Air Pollution Problem Has Not Been Solved 

Federal, State and local efforts to implement the Clean Air Act have been hugely 

successful in providing significant health and welfare benefits throughout most 

areas of the country. Yet, notwithstanding this progress, much remains to be done. 

According to EPA, 

[S]ince passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, nationwide air 

quality has improved significantly. Levels of those pollutants linked to the 

greatest health impacts continue to decline. From 2003 to 2012, populationweighted ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter and ozone have 

decreased 26 percent and 13 percent, respectively. Even with this progress, 

in 2012 approximately 45 percent of the U.S. population lived in counties 

with air that did not meet health-based standards for at least one pollutant.2

With respect to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), Federal rules, implemented by 

State and local air pollution control agencies, are estimated to reduce HAP emissions by approximately 1.5 million tons per year.3 However, in spite of this progress, 

EPA’s latest HAP data showed that the entire population of the United States had 
335 

4 National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005—Fact Sheet, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/ 

05pdf/sumlresults.pdf. 5http://epa.gov/ncer/science/pm/. 

6Draft fiscal year 2014–2018 EPA Strategic Plan (November 19, 2013), page 8. 

an increased cancer risk of over 10 in one million (one in one million is generally 

considered ‘‘acceptable’’) in 2005, due to exposure to a variety of HAPs included in 

EPA’s analysis.4

The sad fact is more people die or get sick from air pollution than from almost 

any other problem under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction. Tens of thousands of people die prematurely each year 5 and many others suffer serious health problems as 

a result of exposure to air pollution. According to EPA, ‘‘[l]ong-term exposure to elevated levels of certain air pollutants has been associated with increased risk of cancer, premature mortality, and damage to the immune, neurological, reproductive, 

cardiovascular, and respiratory systems.’’ 6 Additionally, air pollution exposure is associated with adverse effects on learning, memory, IQ and behavior. 

2. NACAA RECOMMENDS FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE OF GRANT INCREASES

While NACAA is pleased that the budget request includes increased grant funding 

for climate-related responsibilities facing State and local air agencies, some of it 

would come at the expense of State and local core programs, which are essential 

to their efforts. NACAA strongly believes that significant increases are required for 

both. Rather than target specific amounts for climate or other air programs, NACAA 

recommends that State and local air agencies be given the flexibility to use any additional grants for whatever efforts are of the highest priority to them, whether they 

are climate-related or other clean air activities, including core programs. 

3. NACAA RECOMMENDS THAT AUTHORITY FOR MONITORING GRANTS REMAIN UNDER

SECTION 103

EPA has once again proposed to begin shifting funds for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) monitoring from Section 103 authority, where no match is needed, to Section 105, which would require additional matching funds. In the past, Congress responded favorably to requests to keep these funds under Section 103 authority, 

which is very much appreciated. NACAA is making the same request for fiscal year 

2015. For individual agencies that have concerns about the matching requirements, 

this will ensure that they do not have to refuse these critically needed monitoring 

funds simply because they do not have the resources to provide the required match. 

NACAA recommends that Congress call for these grants to be provided under Section 103 authority. 

CONCLUSION

While NACAA appreciates the proposed increase to State and local air grants contained in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget, it is insufficient for the State and 

local air agencies that are being called upon to take on significant new responsibilities and continue their current activities and it does not provide sufficient flexibility 

on how the funds are spent. Accordingly, NACAA recommends that Congress provide an increase of $35 million above the President’s request for fiscal year 2015 

for grants to State and local air agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean 

Air Act, for a total of $278.2 million, and that State and local agencies be given the 

flexibility to use any additional funds for the highest clean air priorities in their 

areas. Additionally, NACAA recommends that grant funds for fine particulate matter monitoring remain under Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105 authority, as EPA is proposing. 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on this important issue and 

for considering the funding needs of State and local air quality programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee, 

I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National Association of State Energy 

Officials (NASEO). NASEO represents the 56 energy offices in the States, territories 

and the District of Columbia. NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of 

funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the Climate Protection Division of 

the Office of Air and Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

NASEO supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific report language 

directing that the funds be utilized only for the ENERGY STAR program. The EN-
336 

ERGY STAR program is successful, voluntary and cost-effective. With increasing 

electricity prices and volatile natural gas markets, ENERGY STAR can help consumers and businesses control expenditures over the long term. The program is 

strongly supported by product manufacturers, and ENERGY STAR leverages the 

States’ energy efficiency actions. 

The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce the use 

of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and works with States, 

local governments and business to achieve these goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA and over 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners. With very limited funding, EPA’s ENERGY STAR program 

works closely with the State energy offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make better energy decisions, and catalyzes product efficiency improvements by manufacturers without regulation or mandates. 

ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as buildings. In 2013, 

nearly 300 million ENERGY STAR products were purchased across more than 70 

product categories. The ENERGY STAR label is recognized across the United 

States. It makes the work of the State energy offices much easier, by working with 

the public on easily recognized products, services and targets. In order to obtain the 

ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet established guidelines. ENERGY 

STAR’s voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY STAR Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small Business, and ENERGY STAR Labeled 

Products. The program operates by encouraging consumers and working closely with 

State and local governments to purchase these products and services. Marketplace 

barriers are also eradicated through education. State energy offices are working 

with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR products, ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public housing, etc. In Alaska, the State’s Home Energy 

Rebate Program leverages ENERGY STAR products in delivering this successful 

program. Another example of leveraging this key national program is the Nebraska 

Energy Office, which since 2005 has utilized ENERGY STAR as the standard for 

certifying home and office electronics that are eligible under the State’s successful 

and long-running Dollar and Energy Savings Loan program (approximately $300 

million in loans with only $106,000 in defaults). The Montana Alternative Energy 

Revolving Loan Program utilizes a 3.5 percent interest rate, with a 15-year time 

limit. 

In addition to the State partners, the program has over 16,000 voluntary partners 

including over 2,000 manufacturers using the label, more than 1,000 retail partners, 

more than 5,000 builder partners, 4,500 businesses, 550 utilities and thousands of 

energy service providers. The ENERGY STAR New Homes program works with 

States and home builders to develop the next generation of technologies and approaches to make homes more comfortable, healthy, and energy efficient. To date, 

over 1.5 million homes across the country have been certified by the ENERGY 

STAR New Homes program. In California, over 150,000 homes have been ENERGY 

STAR certified. Additionally, States such as Alaska, Rhode Island, Vermont, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Missouri all have had at least 3,300 

homes participating in the program. We are also working closely with EPA in the 

implementation of the ENERGY STAR Challenge, which is encouraging commercial 

and industrial building owners to reduce energy use by 10 percent or more, usually 

through very simple actions. There are over 4,300 participants in the ENERGY 

STAR Challenge, representing every State in the country. We are working with the 

building owners to identify the level of energy use and compare that to a national 

metric, establish goals and work with them to make the specified improvements. 

Again, this is being done without mandates. 

The State energy offices are very encouraged with progress made at EPA and in 

our States to promote programs to make schools more energy efficient, in addition 

to an expanding ENERGY STAR business partners program. In Kentucky, the State 

has partnered with school districts and engineering firms to advance ENERGY 

STAR rated schools, resulting in more than 250 ENERGY STAR rated schools in 

the State, a 400 percent increase since 2010. Other States that have over 150 ENERGY STAR rated schools include California, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, 

and Michigan. Other types of buildings can receive ENERGY STAR certification; for 

example, a new data center in South Dakota recently obtained the ENERGY STAR 

certification, joining only 59 other data centers in the country with this distinction. 

EPA has been increasing the technical assistance work with the State energy offices in such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target, and financing options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is 

used extensively by State energy offices to benchmark performance of State and mu-
337 

nicipal buildings, saving taxpayer dollars. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s commercial building space utilizes Portfolio Manager. 

The State energy offices are working cooperatively with our peers in the State environmental agencies and State public utilities commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies are developed recognizing both energy and 

environmental concerns. We have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues. We encourage these continued efforts. 

CONCLUSION

The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every year. The 

payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding in fiscal year 2015. 

Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified. NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy offices are working very closely with EPA to cooperatively 

implement a variety of critical national programs without mandates. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the opportunity 

to submit written public testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies regarding our fiscal year 2015 appropriations recommendations. Our priorities focus primarily on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs. 

State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along with forest 

health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-thirds of the Nation’s 751 

million acres of forests. The Forest Service S&PF mission area provides vital support for delivering these services alongside other socioeconomic and environmental 

health benefits in both rural and urban areas. The comprehensive process for delivering these services is articulated in each State Forest Action Plan, authorized in 

the 2008 Farm Bill and continued in the recently passed Agriculture Act of 2014. 

S&PF programs provide a significant return on the Federal investment by 

leveraging the boots-on-the-ground and financial resources of State agencies to deliver assistance to forest landowners, tribes, and communities. As we continue to 

face difficult financial challenges, State foresters, in partnership with the S&PF 

mission area of the Forest Service, are best positioned to maximize the effectiveness 

of the resources available to respond to priority forest issues and focus efforts in 

those areas where they are needed most. 

Your support of the following programs is critical to helping States address the 

many and varied challenges outlined in State Forest Action Plans. 

WILDLAND FIRE AND FOREST FUELS

Wildland Fire Funding.—The Forest Service and Department of the Interior were 

forced to transfer a combined $636 million in fiscal year 2013 to fund fire suppression activities. We greatly appreciate your support in reimbursing the Forest Service 

and Department of the Interior these transferred amounts through the continuing 

resolution last fall. Unfortunately early estimates for the cost of wildland fire suppression in fiscal year 2014 indicate that costs could once again exceed the 10-year 

average. 

In the span of only 2 years—from fiscal year 2012 to 2013—the agencies were 

forced to transfer more than $1 billion, funds that Congress had appropriated to 

other priority programs, to fund wildland fire suppression. In order to avoid these 

disruptive transfers in the future, we urge you to include language mirroring the 

bi-partisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, introduced in the House and Senate, in 

the fiscal year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. This important change to fire funding at the Federal level is needed to enable the Forest Service to deliver on its own 

land management objectives and to deliver critical Research and State & Private 

Forestry Programs to the Nation’s non-Federal forests without any further disruption from fire transfers. 

State Fire Assistance.—More people living in fire-prone landscapes, high fuel 

loads, drought and unhealthy landscapes are among the factors that led State foresters to identify wildland fire as a significant priority issue in their Forest Action 

Plans. These factors have created a wildland fire situation that has become increasingly expensive, complex, and, in many cases, threatens human life and property. 
338 

1 National Interagency Fire Center, Historical Wildland Fire Summaries, pg. 9. Last accessed 

March 3, 2014 at http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2013lStatssumm/introl summary13.pdf. 2 National Interagency Coordination Center. 

3 National Association of State Foresters, Communities at Risk Report Fiscal Year 2013. 

4Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2014 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/ 

ConditionsReportl2011.pdf. 5Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive Summary. Last accessed on 

March, 5, 2014 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012lRiskMaplExecl 

summary.pdf. 6Society of American Foresters. The State of America’s Forests. 2007. 7Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests. 2009. 

In 2013, more than 47,500 wildland fires burned over 4.3 million acres.1 In the 

wake of these larger fires, more than 2,135 structures were destroyed, including at 

least 1090 residences.2 Of the 72,681 communities across the country currently at 

risk of wildland fire, only 12,434 (17.5 percent) are prepared for wildland fire.3

State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism that assists 

States and local fire departments to respond to wildland fires and conduct management activities to mitigate fire risk on non-Federal lands. Further, SFA helps train 

and equip local first responders who are often the first resources to arrive at a 

wildland fire incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their costs 

small. By directing resources to actions that help reduce the number of large 

wildland fires—including prevention education, preparedness activities, and fuels 

mitigation—the SFA program directly addresses concerns over rising wildland fire 

suppression costs, while also reducing wildland fire risk to communities. In fiscal 

year 2013, SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments on nearly 130,000 acres 

(with another 119,120 acres treated with leveraged funding) and provided assistance 

to over 23,600 communities as they prepare for and mitigate the risk of wildland 

fire. NASF supports funding the State Fire Assistance program at $86 million in 

fiscal year 2015. 

FOREST PESTS AND INVASIVE PLANTS

Among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action Plans are exotic forest 

pests and invasive species. The growing number of damaging pests is often a result 

of the introduction and spread by way of wooden shipping materials, movement of 

firewood, and through various types of recreation. These pests have the potential 

to displace native trees, shrubs and other vegetation types in forests. The Forest 

Service estimates that hundreds of native and nonnative insects and diseases damage the Nation’s forests each year. In 2010, approximately 6.4 million acres suffered 

mortality from insects and diseases4 and there is an estimated 81.3 million acres 

at risk from insects and disease over the next 15 years.5 These losses impact the 

availability of clean and abundant water, wildlife habitat, clean air, and other environmental services. Further, extensive areas of high insect or disease mortality can 

set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic wildfire. 

In response, the Cooperative Forest Health Management program provides technical and financial assistance to States and territories to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest lands. Funding for the Program supports activities related to prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring through pest surveys. The Forest Health program helps protect communities already facing outbreaks and helps prevent exposure of more of the Nation’s forests and trees to the 

devastating and costly effects of exotic and invasive pests and pathogens. NASF 

supports funding the Forest Health—Cooperative Lands Program at $48 million in 

fiscal year 2015. 

WORKING FOREST LANDSCAPES—FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape and provide an 

estimated 900,000 jobs, in addition to clean water, wood products, and other essential services to millions of Americans. For instance, 80 percent of renewable biomass 

energy comes from wood, 53 percent of all freshwater in the U.S. originates on forest 

land and more than $200 billion in sales of consumer products and services are provided through the Nation’s forests each year.6

Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the United States and 

support an average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.7 The ability of working forests to 

continue providing jobs, renewable energy, clean and abundant water and other important services is in jeopardy as private forests are lost to development. The Forest 
339 

8The program has not yet been fully implemented in all States including Interior Alaska. 

Service estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at risk of 

conversion to urban development over the next two decades. The Forest Stewardship 

Program, Forest Legacy Program, and other programs within USDA are key tools 

identified in the Forest Action Plans to keep working forests intact. 

The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the most extensive family forest-owner 

assistance program in the country. Management assistance is delivered in cooperation with State forestry agencies through technical assistance services and the development and implementation of Forest Stewardship Plans. In fiscal year 2013, nationwide, more than 20 million acres of private forest lands were managed according 

to Forest Stewardship Plans. The program provides information to private landowners to help them manage their land for wildlife, recreation, aesthetics, timber 

production, and many other purposes. The technical assistance provided through the 

FSP is a gateway to other effective USDA, State, and private sector programs designed to help keep working forests intact. For instance, the FSP enables landowners to participate in USDA programs including the Forest Legacy Program and 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program. NASF supports funding the Forest 

Stewardship Program at $29 million in fiscal year 2015. 

URBAN AND COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

Urban forests provide environmental, social, and economic benefits to the more 

than 84 percent of Americans who live in metropolitan areas. Forest Action Plans 

identified a number of benefits associated with urban forests including energy savings, improved air quality, neighborhood stability, aesthetic values, reduced noise, 

and improved quality of life for communities across the country. At the same time, 

the plans reported a number of threats to urban and community forests including 

fire in the wildland urban interface (WUI), urbanization and development, invasive 

plants and insects, diseases and others. 

Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1990 

(CFAA), the Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) program has 

provided technical and financial assistance to promote stewardship of urban forests 

in communities of all sizes across the country. The program is delivered in close 

partnership with State foresters and leverages existing local efforts that have 

helped thousands of communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their 

tree cover and green spaces. This ‘‘green infrastructure’’ is a cornerstone for neighborhood stability and revitalization and the numerous contributions this program 

provides the urban environment should not be under estimated. In fiscal year 2013, 

the U&CF program delivered technical, financial, educational, and research assistance to 7,292 communities in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories 

and affiliated Pacific Island nations. The program reached over 198 million Americans (i.e., over 60 percent of the U.S. population) in fiscal year 12. NASF supports 

funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at $31 million in fiscal year 

2015. 

IMPORTANCE OF FOREST INVENTORY DATA IN MONITORING FOREST ISSUES

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest Service Research, is the Nation’s only comprehensive forest inventory system for assessing the 

health and sustainability of the Nation’s forests across all ownerships.8 FIA provides 

essential data related to forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest 

health data and delivers baseline inventory estimates used in State Forest Action 

Plans and by many others to understand forest trends and support investment in 

forest products facilities that provide jobs and needed products to society. The program provides unbiased information that serves as the basis for monitoring trends 

in wildlife habitat, wildfire risk, insect and disease threats, predicting spread of 

invasive species, and for responding to priorities identified in the Forest Action 

Plans. 

The Farm Bill directed the Forest Service to revise the FIA strategic plan, and 

State Foresters are actively engaged with the Agency as they consider a new strategic plan for this crucial program. This program has wide bipartisan support and 

NASF supports funding the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $72 million 

in fiscal year 2015. 

LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION

We appreciate the support of the subcommittee for State Forest Action Plans demonstrated through the establishment of the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) 
340 

budget line item in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. State foresters look 

forward to working with members of the subcommittee and the Forest Service to 

make sure that, through LSR, we prioritize funds and resources to maximize return 

on investments to conserve, protect, and enhance our Nation’s forests. The LSR line 

item codifies the competitive allocation of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act 

(CFAA) funds which began under direction from the 2008 Farm Bill—but State foresters believe that LSR can and should do more. 

In the fiscal year 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act Conference Report, the 

subcommittee directed the Forest Service to develop a process allowing State foresters flexibility, with appropriate accountability, to reallocate a percentage of authorizations for CFAA programs to address State priorities consistent with State 

Forest Action Plans. NASF has worked closely with the Forest Service to explore 

how States could utilize funding flexibility to meet their own unique and changing 

needs; however issues around the need to request reprogramming of funds has been 

a barrier to implementing funding flexibility. State foresters believe that LSR provides a perfect opportunity to demonstrate the value in providing States the flexibility to meet these unique needs through the allocation of their CFAA funds. Such 

a model would include continued funding for the competitive allocation of CFAA 

funds with the addition of an allocation to States to further implementation of each 

State Forest Action Plan. 

NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at $23.5 million 

in fiscal year 2015 and would like to work with the subcommittee to direct that a 

portion of LSR funds be made available to State forestry agencies, based on overall 

percentage of CFAA funds received, to further implement their State Forest Action 

Plan. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICERS

Fiscal Year 2015 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Total Request: 

—$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs); 

—$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs); 

—$6 million for survey, inventory and digitization of records; 

—$5 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented populations; 

and 

—$10 million for a bricks & mortar competitive grant program. 

Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16 U.S.C. 

470h) U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Park Service Historic Preservation 

Fund (HPF). 

UNIQUE AND SUCCESSFUL FEDERAL-STATE PARTNERSHIP

In 1966 Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA16 U.S.C. 470), which established historic 

preservation as a priority of the Federal Government. Recognizing that States are 

the experts of their own history, instead of using Federal employees to carry out 

the Act, the Department Of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation partner with the States and use SHPOs to: (1) locate and record historic resources; (2) nominate significant historic resources to the National Register of Historic Places; (3) cultivate historic preservation programs at the local government 

level; (4) provide funds for preservation activities; (5) comment on Federal rehabilitation tax credit projects; (6) review all Federal projects for their impact on historic 

properties; and (7) provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, State and local 

governments and the private sector. And, States provide a forty percent minimum 

match to the Federal appropriation. 

JOBS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

From the West to the East coasts, historic preservation plays a key role in creating, maintaining, and growing communities while preserving their historical significance. The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) program, administered by 

the State Historic Preservation Offices in cooperation with the National Park Service, is an important driver in economic development. The program benefits communities by: 

—Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property by returning vacant or underutilized structures to the tax roles and stimulating adjacent development 

projects. 
341 

1 U.S. Cultural and Heritage Tourism Study (October 2009) conducted by Mandala Research, 

LLC for U.S. Cultural & Heritage Tourism Marketing Council, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

and Gozaic/Heritage Travel Inc., a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 

—Encouraging protection of landmarks through the promotion, recognition, and 

designation of historic structures, and acting as a catalyst for further community renewal. 

—Revitalizing downtowns and neighborhoods and often increasing the amount of 

available housing within the community. 

Since inception, the HTC has rehabilitated nearly 39,000 buildings, created 2.4 

million jobs and leveraged $109 billion in private investment nationwide. On average, the HTC leverages $5 dollars in private investment for every $1 dollar in Federal funding creating highly effective public-private partnerships. In 2013, the HTC 

spurred $3.39 billion in rehabilitation work, created nearly 63,000 skilled, local jobs 

and over 25,000 new or renovated housing units. All of which brings short and longterm economic opportunities for the community. 

A recent successful example is the $100 million rehabilitation of Building 91 of 

the former R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. manufacturing plant in Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina. This 242,000 square foot building now houses the research department 

arm of the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center along with space for 

other biotechnology start-up companies. Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines said of 

the project, ‘‘It’s been extremely gratifying to watch this solid old building bounce 

back to life. It lets us preserve some of the city’s tobacco heritage while putting us 

on a path toward a knowledge based future.’’ 

Heritage tourism also creates jobs, new businesses, builds community pride and 

can improve quality of life. SHPOs are essential, ground level partners in identifying historic places and providing research for tourism interpretation. A minimal 

$3 million increase in SHPO funding would allow SHPOs to expand their public outreach and assistance, enabling communities to take greater advantage of heritage 

tourism opportunities. Cultural and heritage travelers spend an average of $994 per 

trip and contribute more than $192 billion annually to the U.S. economy.1

COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION

Nationwide, communities have experienced how historic preservation plays a 

prominent and effective role in community and neighborhood revitalization. In many 

cases, historic preservation combats the effects of vacancy by using the historic built 

environment as a catalyst for community change. These changes result in historic 

downtown districts and neighborhoods becoming ‘‘destinations’’ consisting of restaurants, office space, art galleries, specialty shops, living spaces, and civic centers. 

The City of Franklin, Tennessee has identified historic preservation as one of the 

main priorities in their Land Use Plan. Because of their preservation efforts and 

the ensuing economic development, the American Planning Association named the 

Downtown Franklin Neighborhood as one of the ‘‘Great Places in America.’’ Franklin 

believes that taking care of their built environment does more than just save old 

buildings. It provides economic development, community pride, and a sense of belonging that helps build the future. 

The rehabilitation of the American Brewery building in Baltimore, Maryland is 

another success. The $25 million rehabilitation project is located in the Broadway 

East neighborhood, a low-income area of row houses and small commercial storefronts that suffer from abandonment and blight. The tenants in the newly restored 

structure include Humanim, a social services organization, which is providing workforce development services and job creation opportunities directly to the surrounding 

neighborhood. In addition to relocating its 250 employees there, the organization 

made 40 local hires and the once abandoned structure is now spurring greater developer confidence in the community. 

FINDING AND SAVING AMERICA’S HERITAGE

While historic preservation generates economic development and community revitalization, it of course also saves old buildings and significant places. These sites 

represent the many people, places, and events that have left marks on and shaped 

our national landscape. The authors of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act 

wrote: 

‘‘the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation should be preserved 

as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a 

sense of orientation to the American people;’’ 
342 

The first step in preserving and protecting America’s heritage is identifying it— 

which comes through survey, inventory and creating digital records. This information forms the fundamental building blocks of our Nation’s historic preservation program and is a key program area that’s lacking at the current level of appropriation. 

The NCSHPO requests a minimum of $6 million a year, for each of the next 10 

years, specifically for survey, inventory, and records digitization. 

Having accurate, up-to-date, digitally accessible information on our Nation’s historic resources would drastically increase the efficiency and effectiveness of all local, 

State, and Federal projects. From deciding on the design of local in-fill development, 

to State transportation planning projects, to Federal large-scale energy projects and 

disaster recovery efforts—every single project, and the American people would benefit. 

Once identified and documented, America’s historic resources are primarily recognized at the local, State, and national levels through historic districts and listing 

on National and State Historic Registers. State Historic Preservation Officers, 

through the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act assist, support and 

encourage communities with their efforts. National Register recognition by the Secretary confirms citizens’ belief in the significance of their community. 

The National Historic Preservation program is primarily one of assistance, not acquisition. The Federal Government does not own, manage, or maintain responsibility for most of the historic assets in the National Historic Preservation program. 

Instead, the program, through the SHPOs, provides individuals, communities, and 

local, State, and Federal Governments the tools they need to identify preserve and 

utilize the historic assets of importance to them. 

To that end, in addition to the $6 million for survey, inventory, and digitization, 

the NCSHPO requests a minimum of $50 million for SHPOs, to simply sustain their 

current operating levels. The NCSHPO also requests $3 million for a competitive 

grant program to survey and nominate to the National Register of Historic Places 

or National Landmark Program, sites associated with populations that are currently 

underrepresented. SHPOs have created many programs and activities to support 

this effort but the current funding level restricts their ability to be fully implemented. Three million will provide a positive step in their implementation. The 

NCSHPO also supports $10 million for a competitive grant program that provides 

seed money for bricks & mortar rehabilitation projects listed at the local, State, and 

national levels of significance. There is currently no Federal funding provided for 

this activity. 

The NCSHPO also requests that in 2015, the subcommittee supports a reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund that includes full and permanent funding 

at $150 million a year. 

2013 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS

SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2013. While virtually every State continues to experience staffing and operational reductions, SHPOs are still charged 

with implementing the requirements of the NHPA to the fullest extent. Highlights 

of 2013 historic preservation accomplishments include: 

—Reviewing nearly 103,000 Federal undertakings within 30 days. 

—Leveraging over $3.39 billion of private investment in the rehabilitation of commercial historic properties under HTC program. 

—An estimated 70,000 jobs created by the HTC program in 2013. 

—Over 7,000 low and moderate income housing units created through the HTC. 

—Approximately 16.3 million acres surveyed for the presence or absence of cultural resources. 

—1,175 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places. 

—82,100 National Register eligibility opinions. 

—29 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs). 

—Under local law, CLG’s newly designated 54,500 properties, and 93,900 properties took part in local preservation review, programs, and incentives. 

CONCLUSION

On behalf of all 59 SHPOs, I’d like to thank you Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary in the past 

is often rare and precious today, and what is common and ordinary today may be 

extraordinary—50, 100 or 500 years from now. I would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to historic preservation. The Federal Government 

plays an invaluable role in preserving our Nation’s history and our collective sense 
343 

1 National Congress of American Indians. (January 2014). Fiscal year 2015 Indian Country 

Budget Requests: An honorable budget for Indian country. Washington, DC: Author. 

of place. Through our partnership, SHPOs remain committed to working together 

to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation’s historic heritage. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), we thank you 

for the opportunity to submit written testimony on Native American programs in 

the Interior appropriations bill. NCAI is the oldest and largest American Indian organization in the United States. Tribal leaders created NCAI in 1944 as a response 

to termination and assimilation policies that threatened the existence of American 

Indian and Alaska Native tribes. As the most representative organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, NCAI serves the broad interests of tribal governments across the Nation. As Congress considers the fiscal year 2015 budget and 

beyond, leaders of tribal nations call on decision-makers to ensure that the promises 

made to Indian Country are honored in the Federal budget. 

NCAI includes recommendations for Interior bureaus, the Indian Health Service, 

and the Environmental Protection Agency, but the fiscal year 2015 Indian Country 

Budget Request 1 includes many more specific recommendations and we urge this 

subcommittee to use it as a resource during this appropriations cycle. NCAI also 

supports the testimony of the National Indian Health Board, National Indian Child 

Welfare Association, National Indian Education Association, and American Indian 

Higher Education Consortium. 

INTRODUCTION

Annual funding decisions by Congress are an expression of our Nation’s moral priorities. Numerous treaties, statutes, and court decisions have created a fundamental 

contract between tribal nations and the United States: tribes ceded millions of acres 

of land that made the United States what it is today, and in return tribes have the 

right of continued self-government and the right to exist as distinct peoples on their 

own lands. And for its part, the United States has assumed a trust responsibility 

to protect these rights and to fulfill its solemn commitments to Indian tribes and 

their members. Part of this trust responsibility includes basic governmental services 

in Indian Country, funding for which is appropriated in the discretionary portion 

of the Federal budget. The Federal budget for tribal governmental services reflects 

the extent to which the United States honors its promises to Indian people. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA)

The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Operation of Indian Programs account 

is $2.4 billion, an increase of $33.8 million, or 1.4 percent, above the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Construction account is 

$109.9 million; a decrease of $216,000 below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. 

The fiscal year 2015 budget proposes a total of $922.6 million in Tribal Priority 

Allocations, an increase of $19.3 million over the fiscal year 2014 level, a 2 percent 

increase. 

The budget request for contract support is $251 million; including funding for the 

Indian Self-Determination Fund, an increase of $4 million above the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level. The requested amount will fully fund estimated fiscal year 2015 contract support costs, according to BIA based on the most recent analysis. NCAI commends the administration for requesting full funding for Contract Support Costs in 

fiscal year 2015. NCAI recommends that the Tribal Grant Support Costs for tribally 

controlled schools and residential facilities should also be fully funded. Tribal Grant 

Support Costs (formerly referred to as Administrative Cost Grants) funding is provided to the schools to cover administrative and indirect costs incurred in operating 

contract and grant schools. In school year 2012–2013, tribally controlled grant 

schools received an estimated 64 percent of the grant support funding needed as defined by the administrative cost grants formula. 

Major Initiatives 

The Tiwahe (Family) Initiative would provide an additional $11.6 million to expand Indian Affairs’ capacity to address Indian child and family welfare and job 

training issues and implement processes to better sustain Indian families. Increases 

include: $10 million to build on social services and Indian child welfare programs 

that provide culturally-appropriate services toward health promotion, family sta-
344 

2 Indian Law & Order Commission. (November 2013). A roadmap for making Native America 

safer: Report to the President & Congress of the United States, Executive Summary, p. xxx. 

bility, and strengthening tribal communities; $550,000 to expand job placement and 

training programs; BIA law enforcement would begin a pilot program to implement 

a strategy for alternatives to incarceration and increased treatment; $1 million to 

develop and institutionalize a program for evaluating social service and community 

development needs and to inform programmatic design, evaluation, management, 

and budgeting. 

Tribal leaders through the Tribal Interior Budget Council have repeatedly called 

for increases to Social services and Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) funding. NCAI 

also supports increases to these two activities. ICWA was enacted in 1978 in response to the troubling practices of public and private child welfare agencies that 

were systematically removing American Indian and Alaska Native children from 

their homes, communities, and culture, and placing them in non-Indian foster and 

adoptive homes. The Act not only provides protections for Native children in State 

child welfare and judicial systems but recognizes the sovereign right of tribes to care 

for their children. The crippling of Native economies before the Self-Determination 

Era left tribal citizens overwhelmingly impoverished, facing high unemployment 

compared to non-Native people, and with few economic opportunities. The barriers 

to employment vary region-to-region in Indian Country, but include geographic remoteness, a weak private sector, poor basic infrastructure, and even a lack of basic 

law enforcement infrastructure. This, coupled with the recent economic down turn, 

makes the Social Service program an essential yet underfunded part of anti-poverty 

programming on reservations nationwide. For these reasons, NCAI supports the increase BIA Social Services. 

Education increases include: $500,000 for Johnson O’Malley education assistance 

grants to support a new student count in 2015 and provides funding for the projected increase in the number of students eligible for grants; $1 million to support 

the ongoing evaluation of the BIE school system. NCAI also recommends $263.4 million for School Construction and Repair, $73 million For Tribal Grant Support 

Costs; $431 million for Indian School Equalization Program Formula Funds; $73 

million for Indian student transportation; and $42 million for Johnson O’Malley 

funding (justification is included in the fiscal year 2015 Indian Country Budget). 

Public Safety.—Indian Country has long struggled with high crime victimization 

rates. Violent crimes impose economic costs on the victims and their families, in the 

form of medical and other expenses and the loss of earnings. Areas with high crime 

also experience reduced investment. Safe communities are necessary for economic 

development. Moreover, the Indian Law and Order Commission found that tribal 

nations throughout our country would benefit enormously if locally based and accountable law enforcement officers were staffed at levels comparable to similarly situated communities off-reservation. In 2010, DOI established a High Priority Performance Goal (HPPG) initiative to reduce violent crime by at least 5 percent over 

24 months on four reservations that were experiencing high rates of violent crime. 

In fiscal year 2010, all four locations received an increase in base funding to support 

additional sworn staff. The additional resources assisted in closing the staffing gap 

and bringing each location up to national sworn staffing levels as listed under the 

U.S. Department of Justice Uniform Crime Report staffing averages. The effort resulted in a 35 percent decrease in violent crime across the four sites. The Indian 

Law and Order Commission report states, ‘‘[d]espite the current budget reality, the 

results of the HPPG Initiative should not be forgotten: parity in law enforcement 

services prevents crime and reduces violent crime rates.’’ 2 NCAI also recommends 

an increase for BIA tribal courts. 

BIA Overall.—NCAI appreciates recent support for some tribal programs over the 

last few years, especially for the Indian Health Service, contract support costs, and 

law enforcement. In the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget, DOI’s current appropriations would increase 2.6 percent, without BIA. For BIA to at least match the 

2.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2014 for DOI’s current appropriation level 

would require an additional $69.2 million. About 91 percent of the funding proposed 

that that would benefit Indian tribes in DOI is through BIA and Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians (OST) and 9 percent of funds to tribes (excluding 

fire) are in other bureaus. 
345 

3 Analysis of Appendix A of the Fiscal Year 2015 Interior Budget in Brief, retrieved at http:// 

www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2015/highlights/upload/A001.pdf and March 26 Testimony of 

Asst. Sec. Washburn before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, retrieved at http:// 

www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/upload/files/ 

032614%20Kevin%20Washburn%20FINAL.pdf. 

[Dollars in thousands] 

Agency 2015 Request Tribes Percent of 

Agency 

US Geological Survey (USGS) ................................................................................... $1,073,268 $7,600 0.7 

Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) .............................................................................. 1,476,202 10,700 0.7 

National Park Service (NPS) .................................................................................... 2,614,599 13,500 0.5 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ....................................................................... 1,113,542 16,900 1.5 

Dept. Wide Programs ............................................................................................... 876,053 35,000 4.0 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) ................................................................................. 1,042,995 186,500 17.9 

The other Interior agencies certainly provide assistance to Indian tribes. The 

President’s budget includes funds for tribes such other DOI budgets: 0.7 percent of 

the USGS budget, 0.7 percent of the USFWS budget, 0.5 percent of the NPS budget, 

and 18 percent of the BOR budget.3 NCAI appreciates that, for instance, USGS is 

increasingly engaging with tribes to develop climate adaptation programs and working to meet tribes’ needs for scientific and planning information. 

The USFWS also is improving its work with tribes, such as with the North Pacific 

Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NPLCC). Increased tribal engagement is good, 

to the extent that non-BIA bureaus are assisting tribes, providing resources and upholding the Federal trust responsibility. 

But BIA provides the primary resources for carrying out the core governmental 

services to about 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Funding for tribal 

capacity building is critical. Individual projects, such as the NPLCC, do not provide 

the long-term capability that tribes need to be able to address climate issues. The 

$9.947 million in the BIA’s budget for Cooperative Landscape Conservation does not 

go far for 566 federally recognized tribes. Even as other agencies work to improve 

meeting their obligations to tribes, NCAI urges Congress to ensure that the BIA 

budget can provide the resources that modern and sophisticated tribal governments 

require. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

NCAI requests that for fiscal year 2015, Congress truly restore the sequestration 

cuts remaining from fy 2013, and adjust for inflation and population growth. 

Though discretionary spending is not facing sequestration in fiscal year 2015, NCAI 

urges this subcommittee to continue to advocate for a permanent, full exemption 

from sequestration, as well as rescissions, for Tribal programs for fiscal year 2016 

and beyond. NCAI supports the recommendations of the Tribal Budget Formulation 

Workgroup for fiscal year 2015 as well as the National Indian Health Board’s testimony. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) Grants.—GAP would receive a $31 million increase in base funding in the President’s budget, which would increase the 

average size of grants made to eligible tribes while providing tribes with a stronger 

foundation to build tribal capacity; and further the EPA’s partnership and collaboration with tribes to address a wider set of program responsibilities and challenges. 

As the largest single source of the EPA’s funding to tribes, the Tribal GAP grants 

assist tribes to establish the capacity to implement programs to address environmental and public health issues in Indian Country. NCAI supports this proposed increase. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns on programs that fulfill treaty and trust obligations in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. We look forward to working with this subcommittee on a bipartisan 

basis once again this year. 
346 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION

The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national American 

Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) nonprofit organization. NICWA has over 30 years of 

experience providing leadership in the development of public policy that supports 

tribal self-determination in child welfare and children’s mental health systems. We 

urge Congress, as they make budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2015, to not forget 

the unique interest of AI/AN children and families. This testimony will provide recommendations for the following programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior: Indian Child Protection and Family Violence 

Prevention ($43 million), Social Services ($40.8 million), Welfare Assistance ($80 

million), and Indian Child Welfare Act Program (Tribal Priority Allocation—$15.6 

million; Self-Governance—$16.5 million; Off-Reservation Program—$5 million). 

Tribes have an important relationship with their children and families; they are 

experts in the needs of AI/AN children, best-suited to effectively serve those needs, 

and most able to improve these children’s child welfare outcomes (NICWA & Pew 

Charitable Trust, 2007). In addition, statistics show that AI/AN children face elevated rates of child abuse and neglect (Department of Health and Human Services, 

2012). The key to successful tribal child welfare is a budget that avoids unnecessary 

restraint on tribal decisionmaking and accounts for the elevated need in tribal communities. 

PRIORITY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act recommendation.— 

Appropriate $43 million for the three discretionary grant programs under this law: 

(1) $10 million for the Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant Program; (2) $30 million for the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program; 

and (3) $3 million for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers so that 

tribes will finally get this vital funding. 

The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (ICPFVP; Public 

Law 101–630), was enacted to fill gaps in tribal child welfare services—specifically 

child protection and child abuse treatment—and to encourage coordination between 

child abuse and domestic violence programs. 

AI/AN women are more likely than any other racial group to experience intimate 

partner violence (IPV); 39 percent of AI/AN women report having experienced IPV 

at some point in their lives (Black and Breiding, 2008). Studies show that in 49 percent-70 percent of cases, men who abuse their partners also abuse their children 

(White Eagle, Clairmont, and Hunter, 2011). The ICPFVP programs are the only 

funds specifically authorized for tribes to address these issues. The three programs 

authorized under this line item provide funding for child abuse treatment and prevention; investigation of child abuse reports; family violence treatment services; and 

the establishment of BIA Indian child resource and family service centers to assist 

tribes with the investigation, prevention, and treatment of victims of child abuse 

and domestic violence. In spite of the great need, and these programs’ authorization 

in 1991, only the BIA Indian child resource and family centers have ever received 

funding and that was only in one fiscal year. 

This year the President introduced an important Indian Country budget initiative: 

the Tiwahe (Family) Initiative. This initiative aims to empower tribal communities 

in order to strengthen AI/AN families by ‘‘directing additional resources to support 

culturally appropriate social services and a more holistic approach toward family 

stability’’ (U.S. DOI Budget Justifications and Performance Information Indian Affairs fiscal year 2015 (‘‘Greenbook’’), 2014, p. IA–ES–2). This initiative will provide 

additional funding to the BIA Social Service Program, the Indian Child Welfare Act 

(ICWA) program, and to BIA job training and job placement programs. Omitting the 

funding for ICPFVPA programs leaves a gap in the President’s initiative. For this 

reason, and as a part of this Tiwahe Initiative, the programs under this grant 

should be fully appropriated. 

OTHER PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Social Services recommendation.—Increase funding by $5 million as recommended 

by the President’s proposed Tiwahe Initiative for a total appropriation of $40.8 million so that child protective services can be fortified. 

The BIA Social Services line item funds contracted/compacted tribal social workers who help families get assistance and protect children and elders, BIA social 

work staff at regional and agency offices, support programs for AI/AN individuals, 

and training and technical assistance to tribal social service programs. 
347 

This line item is, therefore, an essential part of tribal child welfare systems. The 

Social Service line item helps AI/AN families meet their basic needs which prevents 

involvement with the child welfare system. It provides the only BIA funding available for child protective services in Indian Country (because the ICPFVPA remains 

unfunded). 

The President has proposed a $5 million increase in Social Service funding in his 

fiscal year 2015 budget as part of the Tiwahe (Family) Initiative. These funds are 

to be used ‘‘to add much needed additional social workers for both tribal and [BIA] 

operated programs’’ (Greenbook, 2014, p. IA–HS–2). These social workers are to be 

dedicated to child protection, and it is the hope of the President that this increase 

in capacity will allow tribal child welfare systems to ‘‘focus on long-term strategies 

to address the impact of family violence on the break-up of the families’’ and ‘‘to 

provide more prevention, intervention, and outreach activities’’ (Greenbook, 2014, p. 

IA–HS–2). We commend the President for the Tiwahe Initiative and this proposed 

increase in funding for tribal social services and ask that Congress fund Social Services at $40.8 million as recommended by the President. 

Welfare Assistance recommendation.—Increase current funding levels to $80 million to provide a safety net for Native families and assist grandfamilies and other 

kinship caregivers in tribal communities. 

The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of funding to AI/ 

AN families: General Assistance, Child Assistance, Non-Medical Institutional or 

Custodial Care of Adults, Burial Assistance, and Emergency Assistance. General Assistance, Emergency Assistance, and Child Assistance are particularly important to 

tribal child welfare programs. 

General Assistance provides financial assistance for essential needs such as food, 

clothing, shelter, and utilities while individuals who are ineligible for all other financial assistance programs work towards independence as outlined in a self-sufficiency plan. AI/AN children are more likely to live in households that are below the 

poverty line. Thirty-four percent of AI/AN children live in households with incomes 

below the poverty line as compared to 20.7 percent of children nationwide (Maternal 

and Child Health Bureau, 2012). In addition, nearly 19 percent of the AI/AN labor 

force is unemployed on reservations (2006–2010 American Community Survey)— 

twice the rate for the total population. These funds are essential to the basic wellbeing of the families who receive them and also an important tool for child welfare 

agencies working to keep families together. These funds, like Emergency Assistance, 

also funded under this line item, often provide the financial assistance necessary to 

prevent neglect and the removal of a child. 

Child Assistance provides payments on behalf of children who are placed outside 

their homes in foster, adoptive, or guardianship care. Because tribal governments 

have a responsibility to support the placement of AI/AN children that live on tribal 

lands under their jurisdiction who cannot remain safely at home, these funds are 

critical. Currently only three tribes have access to title IV–E, the funding stream 

States use to support out-of-home placements. Other tribes rely on Child Assistance 

funds for this purpose. Without these funds, tribes would have to place children in 

unsubsidized substitute care homes. This would put an undue burden on tribal foster families and make foster care recruitment in AI/AN communities all the more 

difficult. 

The current funding level for these important services just begins to meet the 

need in tribal communities. For this reason, the funds should be increased by $5 

million. This amount will provide necessary support to AI/AN families at risk of 

being torn apart, to children in relative placements, and to AI/AN individuals and 

families who need a hand up. 

ICWA Funding recommendation.—Increase the ICWA On or Near Reservation 

Program appropriations by $5 million and the Self-Governance and Consolidated 

Tribal Government ICWA On or Near Reservation appropriations by $5 million, for 

a total increase of $10 million to help tribes meet the needs of their communities. 

Appropriate an additional $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, Off-Reservation ICWA Program to ensure ICWA protects all children. 

At the time that ICWA was passed, Congress estimated that between $26 million 

and $62 million was required to fully fund tribal child welfare programs on or near 

reservations during the first years of the grant program (U.S. Senate Report 95– 

597). ICWA funding is used for family reunification and rehabilitation, case management, foster care recruitment and retention, and adoption services. As the President 

has recognized in his Tiwahe (Family) Initiative, increased ICWA funding is essential for strong AI/AN families and communities. This funding is designed to ‘‘prevent 

the breakup of Indian families or reunite them if break-up occurs’’ (Greenbook, 2014 

p. IA–HS–3). This funding is also used to ‘‘expand the capabilities of tribes to intervene in involuntary court proceedings and ensure the children are not separated 
348 

from their cultural base’’ (Greenbook, IA–HS–3). Despite its importance to so many 

facets of tribal child welfare, it remains underfunded, even as tribes remain ineligible for other important child welfare funding like CAPTA State Grants, and Title 

XX Social Service Block Grants to which States have access. 

Specifically, as part of the Tiwahe Initiative, the President recommends a $5 million increase to ICWA on-reservation funding to be shared between Tribal Priority 

Allocation and Self-Governance/638/Consolidated Tribal Government Programs. This 

would amount to an approximate increase of $2.5 million to each of these ICWA onreservation programs. We commend the President for this initiative and for his recognition of the important of ICWA funding to tribal communities and families. 

Spreading the $5 million increase between both Tribal Priority Allocation tribes and 

Self-Governance/638/Consolidated Tribal Government Programs, however, will prevent a significant increase in actual ICWA funding for all tribes. ICWA is such a 

foundation to the Tiwahe Initiative that we recommend a $5 million increase to 

each of the ICWA on-reservation funding programs. This would mean a $5 million 

increase to the Tribal Priority Allocation as well as a $5 million increase to SelfGovernance/638/Consolidated Tribal Government Programs for ICWA purposes. 

The protections of ICWA apply to AI/AN children on-reservation and children who 

live in urban areas. For this reason, ICWA authorizes child welfare funding for 

urban ICWA programs. From 1979–1996, funding was allocated for ICWA grants to 

urban organizations serving AI/AN peoples. This off-reservation ICWA program has 

not since been funded since, despite the fact that, according to the 2010 Census, 67 

percent of AI/AN people lived off-reservation. Urban programs provide important 

ICWA services including recruitment of AI/AN foster homes, case management, 

identification of at-risk families for services, and in-home services that help children 

stay in their homes or be reunified with their parents. As a result of the loss of 

funding, the majority of these programs have disintegrated. It is for this reason that 

to truly fulfill the Tiwahe Initiative, funding for off-reservation ICWA programs 

must be reinstated and appropriated at $5 million to ensure that all AI/AN children 

are protected by the ICWA. 

INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT 

Fiscal year 

2012 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2013 * enacted 

Fiscal year 

2014 enacted 

Fiscal year 2015 

President’s Budget 

Fiscal year 2015 

recommended 

On-Reservation: Tribal Priority Allocation .................................................. $10,850,000 $10,628,000 $10,710,000 ∼$13,128,000 $15,628,000 

On-Reservation: Self-Gov/638/Consol. 

Tribal Gov’t Program ....................... 11,300,000 11,480,000 number not 

available 

∼$13,980,000 16,480,000 

Off-Reservation .................................... 0 0 0 0 5,000,000 

* Reflects sequestration effects. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

The National Indian Education Association (NIEA) was incorporated in 1970 and 

is the most representative Native education organization in the United States. 

NIEA’s mission is to advance comprehensive and equal educational opportunities for 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students. NIEA supports 

tribal sovereignty over education as well as strengthening traditional Native cultures and values that enable Native learners to become contributing members of 

their communities. As the most inclusive Native education organization, NIEA 

membership consists of tribal leaders, educators, students, researchers, and education stakeholders from all 50 States. From communities in Hawaii, to tribal reservations across the continental U.S., to villages in Alaska and urban communities 

in major cities, NIEA has the most reach of any Native education organization in 

the country. 

Tribes and Native communities have a tremendous stake in an improved education system, because an improved system equates to better services for Native 

people and students. As tribes work to increase their footprint in education, there 

must be support for that increased participation. Established through treaties, Federal law, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, this relationship includes a fiduciary 

obligation to provide parity in access and equal resources to all American Indian 

and Alaska Native students, regardless of where they attend school. National fiscal 

and policy concerns should not be addressed by decreasing funds and investment to 

Native students or the programs that serve them. Rather, Native education, includ-
349 

ing those programs and services under the Department of the Interior (DOI), is one 

of the most effective and efficient investments the Federal Government can make. 

As tribes and Native communities work with Congress for parity in access to increase their role and responsibility in administering education, Federal support for 

tribal governments and Native education institutions has continued to shrink as a 

percentage of the Federal budget. Historical funding trends illustrate that the Federal Government is abandoning its trust responsibility by decreasing Federal funds 

to Native-serving programs by more than half in the last 30 years. Sequestration 

only exacerbated those shortfalls. 

THE STATE OF NATIVE EDUCATION

Partly as a result of insufficient access to resources, Native education is in a state 

of emergency. Native students lag far behind their peers on every educational indicator, from academic achievement to high school and college graduation rates. Just 

over 50 percent of Native students are graduating high school, compared to nearly 

80 percent for the majority population nationally. For students attending Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE) schools, rates are even lower. According to the latest results 

from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the BIE’s tribally 

controlled schools (approximately 120 facilities) are among the worst performing 

schools in the Nation due to an array of issues often caused by inadequate access 

for tribal involvement as well as insufficient resources. Due to the inability of elementary and secondary schools to adequately prepare our children, only 40 percent 

of Native college enrollees in 2004 actually graduated college with a bachelor’s degree by 2010. For Native students to succeed in post-secondary education and careers, they must have a strong education foundation, whether they attend public, 

tribally-controlled, or direct service BIE schools. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION REFORM

For too many years, DOI made other programs priorities while Native education 

programs and the BIE were afterthoughts. In addition to the disparaging September 

2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on the BIE school system, the 

work of this subcommittee and education partners has built momentum around 

much-needed BIE reform. NIEA is enthusiastic about the renewed collaboration 

among Secretaries Sally Jewell and Arne Duncan in the Departments of the Interior 

and Education (ED) and for their support to create the American Indian Education 

Study Group (Study Group). We are also excited to strengthen our work with BIE 

Director Dr. Charles ‘‘Monty’’ Roessel to ensure BIE moves in the right direction. 

We are already happy to see the hiring of a coordinator within the Bureau to start 

work on the 2014 Johnson O’Malley (JOM) student count, which was last officially 

updated in 1995. 

However, much work lies ahead. The Study Group is currently behind schedule 

in producing their report, so it is important to maintain pressure for results. Further, as the Study Group works with tribal communities this spring and summer 

to release a report, NIEA hopes this subcommittee will analyze our recommendations and take concrete steps to support the reforms required for increasing the capacity of tribes to govern their education systems. These include (1) providing the 

BIE the ability to manage its budget; (2) strengthening tribal capacity to administer 

education services; and (3) providing budgetary support for programs, such as tribal 

grant support costs and school construction, so the BIE can provide safe environments for our students as well as sufficiently support tribes as they contract education services. 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 RECOMMENDATIONS

BIE Budget Authority 

For too long, bureaucratic issues among the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

the BIE have decreased the ability of the BIE to meet the educational needs of our 

youth. Congress and Federal agencies should make funding for BIE a priority to increase available resources for addressing the needed systemic changes and issues 

highlighted in the September 2013 GAO Report. DOI should transfer budget authority from the BIA to the BIE to increase efficiency and effectiveness, as BIE officials 

better understand needed funding within their programs. 

As a result of BIA authority over the BIE budget, the BIE is often low in priority 

as compared to other programs. As a result of internal BIA fiscal year 2014 Operating Plan reallocations, the BIA reduced JOM Assistance Grants by $170,000 as 

well as cut BIE higher education scholarships. NIEA is fully supportive of the hard 

work tribes and Native communities put forth to achieve full funding for contract 
350 

support costs in fiscal year 2014. However, such achievements should not come by 

forfeiting funds from critical education programs and services. 

Furthermore, while the reduced lines were under tribal priority allocations, such 

reductions were not authorized by tribal leaders but were a result of internal redistributions. While the reductions are small as compared to the overall increase in the 

BIA budgets, rescissions without appropriate consultation are unacceptable. Providing the BIE the ability to develop its own budget would ensure the BIA cannot 

reallocate funds from the BIE as it would be a separate Bureau with its own budget 

authority. 

Strengthen Tribal Capacity —$5 million 

Tribes should be provided more opportunity to collaborate and participate in their 

children’s education systems. Since the late 20th Century, Congress has worked to 

strengthen tribal capacity to directly serve their citizens. The BIE should become 

a capacity builder to help tribes administer education services. While an authorization under the U.S. Department of Education for tribal capacity building in public 

schools on reservations has been funded since fiscal year 2012, the program only 

addresses one aspect of existing need. 

The State-Tribal Education Partnership Program (STEP) in ED is a solid start for 

increasing collaboration among States and tribes for increasing the tribal role in a 

Native student’s education. However, additional funding of $5 million within both 

DOI and ED totaling $10 million is needed to ensure more tribes can participate 

in providing education services via their tribal education agencies in local triballycontrolled grant schools. Because tribes and their education agencies understand 

their students’ cultural and academic needs best, this local authority would allow 

tribes to efficiently and effectively reverse the negative academic outcomes currently 

pertaining to Native students. 

Capacity and Collaboration—$5 million 

As the BIE is increasingly able to support tribes and their education agencies, 

BIE reform would be strengthened by providing funds for a competitive grant pilot 

that incentivizes capacity building in tribally-controlled grant schools. This grant 

program would be modeled on best practices from existing competitive grants in use 

within the Department of Education. For $5 million, the BIE could participate in 

a pilot to help spur urgent and abrupt systemic reform that will substantially improve student success, close achievement gaps, improve high school graduation 

rates, and prepare students for success in college and careers. 

The three-year competitive incentive-based grant, similar to existing Race to the 

Top initiatives for which BIE continues to be excluded, would provide resources for 

tribes to accelerate their local reforms and align education services to tribal education priorities that include language and culture as well as meet challenging academic standards. Further, performance metrics for the grant would include student 

attendance rates, graduation rates, college enrollment rates, measures on educator 

accountability, and performance on standardized assessments. In order to catalyze 

reform efforts and create a set of high-performing, tribally-controlled grant schools, 

the BIE would also provide on-going technical assistance to help build the capacity 

of those schools that applied for, but did not receive, a grant. 

Construction Funding—$263.4 million 

Similar to previous years, NIEA is requesting increased funding for BIE school construction and repair with an allocation to be set at $263.4 million. That level ensures funds for new school construction, facilities improvement and repair, and replacement school construction. NIEA was excited to see new funding appropriated 

by Congress in fiscal year 2014 and 2015 to begin work on the first phase of the 

Beatrice Rafferty School located in Maine. However, it is time bring all vested 

stakeholders to the table to work on a plan for providing enough resources to actually replace dilapidated BIE schools. 

DOI Secretary Sally Jewell recently stated on March 25, 2014 before the House 

of Representatives’ Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies that, ‘‘[DOI] is focusing more on the classrooms, than the buildings.’’ 

This limited concentration is unacceptable. As the first DOI budget under her leadership, the administration’s budget request for replacement construction continues 

to be inadequate. The administration must support efforts to drastically increase replacement funds and address the long-outdated list of more than 60 BIE school 

buildings in disrepair and unsatisfactory conditions. The Federal Government understands the need to bring all DOD schools to a good or fair rating by 2018, yet 

the BIE school system is ignored. While focusing on the classroom is to be applauded, no child can be expected to successfully learn while the structure around 

them is potentially dangerous. 
351 

Tribal Grant Support Costs—$73 million 

NIEA was happy to see IHS and BIA contract support costs fully funded under 

self-determination and self-governance this year. However, Public Law 100–297 

grant or Public Law 93–638 self-determination contracted BIE schools were exempt 

from full funding, which will result in budget shortfalls. Full funding for tribal grant 

support costs in fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years is critical as these dollars 

help tribes expand self-governance and tribal authority over education programs by 

providing funds for administrative costs, such as accounting, payroll, and other legal 

requirements. The BIA currently funds only 65 percent of support costs in the 125 

tribally controlled schools and residential facilities under the BIE purview. This 

forces schools to divert critical education funding in order to cover shortfalls in operational costs, which make it unrealistic to improve educational outcomes and bridge 

the achievement gap among Native and non-Native students. 

CONCLUSION

NIEA appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony into the record and 

we look forward to increasing the success of the BIE and tribes as they work together to educate Native students. Thank you again and if you have any questions, 

please contact Ahniwake Rose, NIEA Executive Director, at arose@niea.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WATER RESOURCES

Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: I am Brian Haggard, Director 

of the Arkansas Water Resources Center at the University of Arkansas. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR), in support of the Water Resources Research Act program. The program is funded as part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s budget. I specifically want 

to thank you for the subcommittee’s continuing strong support for the Water Resources Research Act. 

This year is the 50th anniversary of the Act. In 1959, a Senate select committee 

was formed to investigate the adequacy of the Nation’s water resources. As a result 

of its findings, a bill was introduced to create a national water resources research 

program designed to expand and provide more effective coordination of the Nation’s 

water research. The bill authorized the establishment of water resources research 

institutes at land grant colleges in each State. On July 12, 1964, when President 

Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law he said, 

‘‘The Water Resources Research Act of 1964, which I have approved today, 

fills a vital need...it will create local centers of water research. It will enlist 

the intellectual power of universities and research institutes in a nationwide effort to conserve and utilize our water resources for the common benefit.’’ 

The Act authorized the establishment of Water Resources Research Institutes in 

each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico. Later, Institutes were authorized in Washington DC, Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. The Institutes 

were created to fulfill 3 main objectives: 

—to develop through research new technology and more efficient methods for resolving local, State and national water resources problems; 

—to train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job participation in research; and 

—to facilitate water research coordination and the application of research results 

by means of information dissemination and technology transfer. 

Today the Water Resources Research Institutes, in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, continue to fulfill the three roles assigned by Congress in 1964 They 

have funded cutting-edge water research, have conducted innovative information 

and technology transfer programs, and have provided training to over 25,000 students over their 50-year history. 

The Water Resources Research Act program is a State-based network of institutes 

dedicated to solving problems of water quantity (supply) and quality in partnership 

with universities, local governments and the general public and is the only federally 

authorized research network that focuses on applied water resources research, education, training and outreach. The institutes are a direct, vital link between Federal 

water interests and needs and the academic expertise located within the States’ research universities. It provides a mechanism for ensuring State, regional and national coordination of water resources research, the education of future water professionals, and the transfer of results and outcomes to State and Federal water profes-
352 

sionals. The matching requirements of the program ensure that each State invests 

in water research and training. 

The Water Resources Research Act established two grant components of the 

USGS Water Resources Research Institutes program, where Federal funds cannot 

be used to pay indirect costs at the universities. The first component is the base 

grant program which is divided up equally among the institutes. The Act requires 

that each Federal dollar must be matched by two non-Federal dollars, and this is 

the strictest match requirement of any Federal research program. Each Institute 

uses these funds to leverage research and/or student training through a statewide 

competitive grants process. The National Institutes for Water Resources requests 

the subcommittee to provide continued funding for the base grant program, which 

provides grants focused on water supply and quality, technology transfer, professional education, and outreach to faculty at universities within each State. The base 

program provides seed grants, which are used to develop future research proposals 

and secure additional external funds. 

The second grant component is a national competitive grants program, supporting 

research on water resources problems that are regional or national in nature. In 

2012 this program received 46 applications, which underwent rigorous peer review 

from a national panel. The national review panel selected a total of six projects from 

Alabama, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and West Virginia, addressing water 

supply and quality issues facing our Nation. 

The Water Resources Research Act is what holds all of this together. The Institutes specialize in identifying problems within their States, developing solutions to 

those problems, and engaging with the public to implement those solutions. One of 

the Institute program’s greatest strengths is that the research funded by each Institute is tailored to that State’s needs, based on priorities set by consultation with 

an advisory panel. These funded projects are State focused but also address water 

issues relevant to our Nation. The following are several examples of research conducted and projects managed by Institutes across the country. 

My Institute, the Arkansas Water Resources Center, has focused on how water 

quality is changing over time, particularly in two watersheds where the poultry industry has been sued over elevated nutrients and aesthetic conditions—the Illinois 

River Watershed and Eucha-Spavinaw Basin. We used data collected through our 

monitoring program, as well as by the U.S. Geological Survey, to show how nutrient 

concentrations and loads in these critical watersheds have changed since the implementation of nutrient management practices in municipal wastewater treatment facilities and on the land. Our analysis clearly showed nutrients have decreased over 

time, moving closer to our water quality goals. The institutional stability of my center and its base funding made it possible to manage long-term databases and 

produce results. 

The Rhode Island Water Resources Center has supported cutting-edge research on 

industrial pretreatment of wastewater before it discharge to municipal facilities. 

This research project produced a solution to the problem, developing a nano-technology based system capable of removing pollutants from industrial wastewater. The 

system uses grapheme oxide and carbon nanotubes which are capable of adsorbing 

high amounts of pollutants, and this polymer system is reusable. The research was 

applied in nature, solving a real-world problem in a sustainable way. 

The Alabama Water Resources Research Institute hosted the 2013 annual water 

conference, focusing on the important role of Alabama’s water resources in economic 

development. Over 300 participants attended this event, including Governor Bentley 

as the keynote speaker. This institute specializes in outreach activities, which has 

also included the Tallapoosa Basin Conference, the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint (ACF) Stakeholders Conference, municipal and legislative assistance in water 

resources planning, the Auburn University campus stormwater management plan, 

and co-sponsoring water policy forums throughout the State. 

The Alaska Water and Environmental Research Center at the University of Alaska-Fairbank has been collecting and analyzing critical hydrologic data needed for 

planning a transportation corridor to the Ambler Mining District and the Umiat region north of Brooks Range. The river flow and ice measurements are essential information in the design bridges and environmental impact statements. This center 

has established itself as an entity capable of collecting and evaluating hydrologic 

data for projects in Alaska’s most remote and challenging settings. 

The California Institute for Water Resources has sponsored research on irrigation 

efficiency, which is critical component of water conservation strategies as our climate continues to change. The researchers supported by the institute are collecting 

data on transpiration, local weather conditions, and soil water retention and evaporation to identify trends that can be used to adjust irrigation methods for specific 

crop needs; these researchers are also analyzing nearly 40 years of irrigation survey 
353 

data to understand changes in irrigation methods across the State and over time. 

This research quantifies the amount of water used, on which crops it was used, and 

where those crops were located—the ultimate goal is to improve water conversation 

and sustain crop yields. 

The Maryland Water Resources Research Center has supported research that will 

ultimately benefit the Maryland’s two most important economic resources, Agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay. With increasing food markets and interest in 

biofuels, agriculture production is expanding and changing along with environmental impacts such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment input into the bay. This 

research projects developed low-cost anaerobic digesters that treat dairy manure 

while producing methane as a source of renewable energy—transforming animal 

waste into an environmental and economic benefit for the Chesapeake Bay region. 

The Montana Water Center at Montana State University has funded research 

projects on the health of wetland ecosystems, and how fluctuations in the amount 

of evapotranspiration and groundwater available influence this important aquatic 

resource. Groundwater and evapotranspiration are two unknowns in any water 

budget and are often ignored in regional groundwater flow models. This research 

has used the Gartside Reservoir prairie fen to model groundwater availability and 

evapotranspiration and developed methods for defining aquifer conditions affecting 

evapotranspiration. 

The New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute played a leadership role in 

developing the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program, which allows the Interior Department and the U.S. Geological Survey to cooperate with the 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas Water Resources research Institutes, State water 

agencies, and other relevant entities to characterize, map and model hydrogeology 

of community groundwater supplies. This program provides essential information 

and a scientific foundation for State and local officials to address pressing water resources challenges in this border region, such as declining water levels, deteriorating water quality, and increasing demand. 

The Oregon Institute for Water and Watersheds has focused on the emerging 

problem of Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs). These blooms are caused by blue-green 

algae (cyanobacteria) that naturally occur in surface water, but given the right environmental conditions and nutrient supply can multiply quickly into problematic 

blooms. As these algal blooms die off, toxins are released into waters posing an environmental and human health concern. Researchers at Oregon State University were 

funded by this institute to fill information gaps, modeling the formation of these 

blooms and increasing our understanding of environmental factors influencing the 

occurrence of these blooms in drinking water supply reservoirs. 

Agricultural subsurface drainage has increased dramatically in South Dakota during the last several years. The South Dakota Water Resources Institute is using satellite-based remote sensing technology to compare, side-by-side, crop water use from 

fields with and without tile drainage. Understanding this difference in water use 

helps quantify crop yield responses to drainage, economic return on investment and 

impacts on the hydrology within each field. The information is being used by agricultural producers and natural resources managers from local, State and Federal 

agencies alike to help implement best management practices that maintain and improve agricultural production while minimizing negative environmental impacts. 

For five decades the Water Resources Research Institutes have provided significant research results and impacts to our Nation, and proved successful at bringing 

new water professionals into the work force. NIWR recommends the subcommittee 

provide $8,800,000 to the USGS for the Water Resources Research Institute Program for fiscal year 2015. The water institute directors recognize the fiscal challenges facing the Nation and Congress, but we want to support the USGS Coalition 

request that Congress appropriate at least the $1.2 billion requested for the USGS 

in fiscal year 2015, a level that will support critical programs that improve the Nation’s environment, health, safety, quality of life, and future economic growth. 

Thank you, on behalf of all the institute directors and the National Institutes for 

Water Resources, for the opportunity to testify and for the subcommittee’s strong 

support of the Water Resources Research Act program. It is greatly appreciated. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the National Parks 

Conservation Association (NPCA). Since 1919, NPCA has been the leading independent voice in support of enhancing, protecting and promoting America’s National 

Park System for people from all walks of life to learn from and enjoy—now and into 
354 

the future. On behalf of our 800,000 members and supporters from every State in 

the Union, I appreciate the opportunity to provide our views regarding the Park 

Service budget for the upcoming fiscal year. NPCA requests for fiscal year 2015 appropriated funding for the National Park Service of $2,623,646,000, which is equal 

to the President’s appropriated request but rejecting his request to reduce National 

Heritage Area Funding by $9,087,000. This includes NPCA’s priorities this year of 

meeting—at a minimum—the President’s request for a $47 million increase in park 

operations, and $10 million in appropriated funds for the Centennial Challenge. 

We fully appreciate the tremendous challenge you face in setting reasonable, responsible spending priorities for the varied Federal agencies and programs under 

your subcommittee’s jurisdiction when the goal of substantially reducing the level 

of Federal spending has driven so much of the political discourse and agenda. We 

share the hope that the budget and appropriations cycle now underway for fiscal 

year 2015 might signal a return to a more orderly and reasonable process, particularly with the landmark centennial of the National Park System fast approaching. 

Providing adequate funding is more than simply another expenditure; it is an investment in our Nation’s future with tangible returns that are particularly significant now as we continue to recover from a long economic downturn. The Government shutdown demonstrated the economic importance of national parks to gateway 

communities. According to the Interior Department, these communities lost $414 

million in visitor spending alone during the 16-day shutdown. Investments in the 

Park Service budget support robust economic activity: 

—Every dollar invested in the National Park Service yields ten dollars in economic activity; —National parks support nearly $27 billion in economic activity annually and 

nearly a quarter million private sector jobs; and 

—Of the 25 most popular travel destinations in the United States, eight are units 

of the National Park System. 

The budget situation for the National Park Service for the past several years has 

been like a roller coaster ride, headed mostly down. Over recent months and years, 

the Park Service and the national treasures entrusted to their care have been damaged by compounded budget cuts. So has the experience and enjoyment of the people 

who visit them. The October 2013 16-day Government shutdown came on top of an 

ongoing pattern of declining budgets followed by the damaging and indiscriminate 

across-the-board cuts mandated by the sequester. The budget to operate the national parks has been cut by nearly 8 percent in today’s dollars compared to 4 years 

ago. That is on top of many years of chronic underfunding for park operations that 

have resulted in operations shortfalls ranging from estimates of from $500 million 

to as much as $800 million annually. Over the past decade, the National Park Service construction budget has been cut by over $272 million, or 66 percent in today’s 

dollars. This has compounded the years of underfunding, resulting in today’s nearly 

$12 billion backlog. That underfunding is due to actions and inactions over many 

congresses, and by both political parties. 

The maintenance backlog is attributable to chronic funding deficiencies in several 

categories, including operations, transportation and construction. These deficiencies 

have forced park managers to make choices between what needs to be done and 

what absolutely must be done immediately to keep facilities up and running and 

visitors safe. The longer needed repairs and maintenance to facilities are put off, 

the more expensive and difficult they become. 

The result of this long-term budget roller coaster, particularly during the sequester but not limited to it, has been: 

—parks and park facilities opening later and closing earlier or more frequently; 

—fewer park rangers and other staff protecting and maintaining parks; 

—visitor centers operating with fewer rangers or closing altogether for lack of 

staff; 

—compromised science and resource protection and decreased cyclical maintenance; 

—fewer backcountry patrols to ensure visitor safety and prevent poaching and 

looting; and 

—other impacts that compromise resources and public enjoyment and safety. 

To be sure, park managers have done the best they can to weather the many 

rounds of budget reductions. There has been some level of savings through employee 

attrition, but superintendents will tell you that while operating a park with insufficient staff can be managed in the short term, it simply can’t be sustained over the 

long run. At some point the consequences become evident, compromising the parks’ 

ability to protect resources from damages, keep visitors safe and provide adequate 

visitor services. Director Jarvis recently testified before this subcommittee that the 

proposed fiscal year 2015 investment in park operations would return some seasonal 
355 

rangers to our parks, but pointed out that under the proposal only half of those lost 

seasonal rangers would return. Clearly, more work is needed to bring our national 

parks and the men and women who steward them back to where they once were. 

The real question for fiscal year 2015 is whether progress will occur in getting 

the National Park System in the shape it should to begin its next century in a manner consistent with the pride Americans feel for our heritage and our national treasures. fiscal year 2015 is an opportunity for Congress to help answer that question, 

since it is a critical year to begin preparing for 2016. In light of that, the administration has proposed a multi-year centennial initiative that builds on the one proposed by the Bush administration. Recognizing the magnitude of the challenge 

posed by the backlog, the administration proposes that legislation be enacted to 

begin reducing the backlog on a mandatory basis. They also propose to renew the 

Centennial Challenge—a program familiar to this subcommittee from the Bush/ 

Kempthorne era—in an amount identical to that proposed by the Bush administration. This subcommittee can play a significant role in promoting such an initiative 

and in educating others about why it is necessary, and we stand ready to help in 

that effort. A Centennial Initiative that attacks the backlog would produce needed 

construction jobs while restoring America’s treasures. And the Centennial Challenge 

can help the national parks capitalize on the attention the centennial will bring to 

attract donations from private and other non-Federal sources. The fact that Presidents Bush and Obama both have supported renewing our parks in connection with 

the centennial provides further evidence of the nonpartisan appeal of the parks, and 

we hope that Congress will seize upon its role in formulating a legacy that will last 

for the next century. 

As a down-payment on enactment of Centennial Challenge legislation, we ask 

that the subcommittee appropriate at least as much as the administration request— 

$10 million—if not more. This subcommittee has noted the importance of matching 

funds and has drafted report language to that effect. The Centennial Challenge program would leverage important dollars to support signature projects at parks 

throughout the country. It’s a wise investment. 

As for park operations, we have consistently noted to this subcommittee NPCA’s 

view that this account should be prioritized. The proposed operations increase would 

provide funding to enhance the visitor experience, better connect young people with 

their natural and cultural heritage, and put more rangers to work addressing overdue maintenance needs. We recognize as Director Jarvis did that the proposed increase is insufficient to return ranger levels to where they should be, but it is a welcome step in the right direction. There is a direct connection between those popular 

rangers, the enjoyment of visitors, and correspondingly the economies of surrounding communities that depend on those visitors having a safe and inspiring experience. We also support the administration’s request of $192.2 million for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a critical tool for protecting our national parks. 

Since it was first enacted, with a dedicated stream of revenue in place from offshore 

oil and gas leasing in Federal waters, the LWCF has realized its full $900 million 

envisioned level only once in 49 years. Park Service LWCF funding has declined 

from $126 million in fiscal year 2010 to less than $100 million in fiscal year 2014, 

a decline of more than 20 percent. We believe in the healthy, rewarding recreational 

opportunities that LWCF was intended to provide. The completion of existing national park units by purchasing inholdings from willing sellers will often make park 

administration and resource management more efficient and cost effective, thereby 

freeing up money for to other needs. 

We also respect the constraints that both the PILT program and wildfire suppression needs have caused for this subcommittee’s allocation, and hope they can be 

dealt with so that there are more dollars available to appropriate to our national 

parks and other pressing needs. We’re pleased to be a supporter—among so many 

other diverse stakeholders—of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. We are urging 

Congress to move this important legislation forward. 

We respect the importance of enhancing this subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation so 

as chair of the Green Group appropriations team, I have spearheaded community 

efforts to emphasize this need. 

Finally, we urge an extension of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, 

which was extended last year through the end of fiscal year 2015 in the bill that 

reopened the Federal Government. Unfortunately, with the likelihood of authorizing 

legislation passing both houses this year in question, we ask that you another 1 

year extension be included in this year’s conference bill, to ensure that the National 

Park Service retains annual fee authority at the end of this calendar year. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems as if there is always a good deal of talk on Capitol Hill 

about what the American people want and what the American people expect and 
356 

deserve, and so on. Recent events have made the views of the American people 

about their national parks as clear as ever. Their love affair with the national parks 

spans time, region, economic status and political persuasion. During the Government shutdown, we heard from the American people how much they love the parks 

and want them open and well-staffed. Polling we have previously shared with this 

committee conducted by Hart Research Associates and North Star Opinion Research 

indicated that 9 out of 10 likely voters agree that funding for our national parks 

should be held stable or increased. A bipartisan majority of Americans (73 percent) 

believe it is important that the parks are fully restored and ready for the national 

park centennial in 2016. 

As that milestone 100th anniversary approaches, the national parks will be more 

and more at the forefront of people’s minds, and more and more Americans will be 

drawn to visit a national park or park unit, as will many others from around the 

world. Will Americans be proud of what they find? Will pride in our heritage and 

shared experience be evident when they visit? If the parks they visit are not in a 

condition worthy of their legacy, who will they blame? 

Overall, the budget for the National Park Service constitutes less that 1/15th of 

one 1 percent of the entire Federal budget, and our research shows that the average 

American household pays roughly as much in taxes for their national parks as it 

would cost them to buy a large coffee at Starbucks. Surely we can find a way to 

meet this important Federal responsibility to restore our parks during the lead-up 

to the parks 100th anniversary. Now more than ever, taking care of the national 

parks should be a priority. We thank this subcommittee for its leadership and are 

eager to work with you to ensure our national parks are protected this year, and 

for generations to come. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

Thank you Chairman Reed, Senator Murkowski, and other honorable members of 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony pertaining to 

funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund’s (LWCF) State Assistance Program and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) in the fiscal 

year (FY) 2015 Interior Appropriations bill. 

OVERVIEW OF FUNDING REQUEST

As outlined below, we encourage you to renew the Federal investment in the 

LWCF. However, given that the purpose of the Act is to help preserve, develop, and 

assure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens, we urge you to make a greater investment in States and local communities 

by: 

—Allocating a minimum of 40 percent of fiscal year 2015 LWCF appropriations 

to the State Assistance Program; 

—Continuing the innovative, pilot ‘‘Competitive Grant Program’’ began in fiscal 

year 2014; 

—Allocating up to $25 million in funding for UPARR out of total fiscal year 2015 

LWCF appropriations; and 

—Ensuring that any amount allocated to either the pilot ‘‘Competitive’’ grant or 

UPARR program is not done at the expense of the existing core formula grants 

distributed to the States for public recreation. 

ABOUT THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), is a nonprofit organization 

working to advance parks, recreation and environmental conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every American in every community every 

day. Through our network of approximately 40,000 citizen and professional members we represent park and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, 

special park districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned 

with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation opportunities exist in 

their communities. Everything we support and do is focused through our three pillars: Conservation; Health & Wellness and Social Equity. 

40 PERCENT ALLOCATION OF TOTAL LWCF APPROPRIATIONS TO THE STATE ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM

There is a common misconception that LWCF is merely a Federal land acquisition 

program. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the LWCF State Assistance 

Program provides dollar-for-dollar matching grants to States and local communities 
357 

1 Amounts reflect amounts provided through appropriations and do not reflect sequestration 

reduction. 2Outdoor Industry Association, ‘‘The Outdoor Recreation Economy Report 2012’’. 

3 NASPD Annual Report, March 2013. 

for the construction of outdoor recreation projects. The land purchased with LWCF 

State Assistance funding remains the property of the State or local government, and 

the resources developed through the LWCF remain publicly accessible in perpetuity. 

The LWCF provides numerous benefits to local communities across America, and 

it does so through a well-recognized and dedicated funding source—namely oil and 

gas leasing revenues. Over $6 billion a year is provided through these leases, with 

a small fraction provided to the LWCF. Unfortunately an even smaller fraction is 

provided to the State Assistance Program. This is in large part due to the fact that 

current law mandates that a minimum of 40 percent of the total LWCF annual appropriations must be provided to the Federal land acquisition program without 

specifying an amount for the State Assistance Program. 

As a result, States and local communities have historically received a very disproportionate share of the total LWCF appropriations, with little more than 10 percent of total LWCF funding going to the State Assistance Program since 1998. More 

recently, in fiscal year 2012, you provided approximately $322 million for the 

LWCF, with $45 million, or 13 percent, allocated to the State Assistance program. 

Further, in fiscal year 2013, when final discretionary spending was subject to ‘‘sequestration,’’ you provided $305 million overall to the LWCF and $39.9 million to 

the State Assistance Program—also 13 percent.1 We appreciate that you’ve recently 

recognized the importance of the State Assistance Program and allocated a larger 

percentage of total LWCF appropriations to it in fiscal year 2014—pre-sequestration 

levels of $45 million, as well as the innovative $3 million ‘‘competitive grant’’ program. 

For nearly 50 years, however, the bulk of the work to carry out purpose of the 

Act has fallen on local communities to handle alone. For the reasons outlined below, 

we are asking you to empower States and local communities to do more to preserve, 

develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen our Nation 

by allocating 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State Assistance Program in fiscal year 2015. 

LWCF STATE ASSISTANCE’S RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND RETURN ON OBJECTIVE

One of the key aspects of the LWCF State Assistance Program is the ability to 

create jobs. The outdoor recreation industry, as such is supported by LWCF State 

Assistance, is an economic powerhouse in the United States. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the industry generates $646 billion in consumer spending 

and supports over 6 million jobs annually.2 Impressively, this section of the economy 

continues to grow even during the ongoing economic recession, and thus has enormous potential to immediately create new jobs. For example, the Outdoor Industry 

Association reported in October 2011 that the outdoor recreation industry grew at 

a rate of 5 percent annually between 2005 and 2011. Considering there are 7,800 

State and over 100,000 locally managed parks throughout the country, it is obvious 

that outdoor recreation is most prevalent at the State and local level. In fact, the 

National Association of State Park Directors reports that America’s State park system contributes $20 billion to local and State economies each year.3 There is no 

doubt, that it is the LWCF State Assistance Program that provides the places, 

spaces, and opportunities for outdoor recreation which stimulates the outdoor industry. 

When viewed through the lens of the importance of the American outdoor recreation industry, the LWCF State Assistance Program has, for more than four decades, achieved a proven return on investment (ROI) demonstrated by the fact that 

nearly $4 billion in Federal support has leveraged over $4 billion additional dollars 

in matching funds. But the benefits of this program, don’t stop there, as the State 

Assistance Program has not only provided a ROI, but has also done a tremendous 

job of providing an outstanding return on objective for the American taxpayer by 

ensuring access for all. 

It is well known that not everyone has the ability to visit one of our treasured 

national parks, and even those who do so are unable to on a regular basis as national parks are often vacation destinations or once-in-a-lifetime trips. To the average American, however, the neighborhood park—down the street, open and accessible to the public, and without an admission fee—is the most important public 

space in their lives. Many of our country’s local places, spaces, and opportunities 
358 

for outdoor recreation are provided through this program, with more than 40,000 

grant projects located in every county across America. 

The State Assistance Program is the only Federal investment tool dedicated to ensuring that Americans have access to local public recreation opportunities. Because 

the LWCF State Assistance Program provides close-to-home recreation opportunities, millions of Americans, young and old, are annually connected with nature and 

provided the ability to be physically active and simply enjoy a life that they may 

otherwise be denied. 

The LWCF State Assistance Program ensures that local communities, such as the 

Thurmont, Maryland and Talladega, Alabama have places where adults and children can go to recreate and enjoy the outdoors. It is a means by which this committee can provide investment to critically important local parks, including: Elmore 

State Park in Vermont; the new soccer field at Sisterhood Park in Anchorage, Alaska; and Lions Park in Bismarck, North Dakota. Each of the aforementioned communities benefited from State Assistance grant funding since 2012. 

LWCF STATE ASSISTANCE PROVIDES HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits, contributing to the overall health 

and well-being of Americans. 

The National Park Service (NPS) recognizes this through its Healthy Parks 

Healthy People U.S. initiative, which aims to increase public recognition of parks 

and public lands (including State, local, and regional park and trail systems) as 

places for the promotion of physical, mental, and social health. The CDC reports 

that childhood obesity has tripled in the last 30 years, less than 25 percent of adults 

engage in recommended levels of physical activity, and that obesity is a leading 

cause of chronic disease. As noted by the CDC, increased access to parks, green 

space, and recreation opportunities is essential to becoming a healthier Nation and 

reducing unsustainable healthcare costs. 

The LWCF State Assistance Program also significantly contributes to protecting 

the environment and promoting environmental stewardship. LWCF State Assistance 

projects have a historical record of contributing to reduced and delayed stormwater 

runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater recharge, stormwater pollutant reductions, 

reduced sewer overflow events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island 

mitigation and reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality, increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local level. 

REVITALIZING URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION THROUGH FUNDING OF UPARR

While the LWCF has indeed benefited virtually every community in the country, 

many of our Nation’s cities and urbanized counties face distinct challenges that require additional resources. Recognizing this fact as well as the importance of public 

parks and recreation to larger urban renewal and community development efforts, 

Congress established the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) 

to provide matching grants directly to localities in metropolitan areas. Over the 

course of more than two decades UPARR provided $272 million for nearly 1,500 

projects in 380 communities. This enabled neighborhoods across the country to restore both outdoor and indoor recreation facilities; support innovative recreational 

programming and enhance delivery of services and programs that provided constructive alternatives to at-risk youth. 

Despite its successes, UPARR has not been funded since fiscal year 2002, yet 

many of the urban open space and recreation challenges still exist today. NRPA is 

very pleased to see UPARR in the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget and calls on 

Congress to update and fund this needed program to enable metropolitan areas to 

address quality of life, health and wellness, and conservation issues as they improve 

their communities and make them more attractive for families and businesses alike. 

Both LWCF State Assistance and UPARR are critical to providing Americans close 

to home recreation opportunities. The programs complement each other and NRPA 

implores Congress to fund UPARR from total LWCF appropriations but not at the 

expense of the already underfunded State Assistance Program. 

MAINTAINING THE PILOT ‘‘COMPETITIVE GRANT’’ PROGRAM TO THE STATE ASSISTANCE

PROGRAM

The final fiscal year 2014 Interior Appropriations package included an ‘‘additional’’ $3 million of funding for a pilot ‘‘Competitive Grant Program’’ managed 

under the State Assistance Program. NRPA is pleased that NPS has sought our 

input as part of their efforts to craft this pilot initiative and is very optimistic that 

the first year of the program will prove a successful means of highlighting the inno-
359 

vative projects and partnerships the State Assistance Program provides across 

America. We support the continuation of this pilot initiative, provided the funds allocated are not done at the expense of the existing core formula grants distributed 

to the States for public recreation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, few programs can address so many 

national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State Assistance Program and 

UPARR do, with so few dollars and without negatively impacting the Federal budget. This subcommittee and Congress have the rare opportunity to achieve national 

goals without increasing spending or adding to the deficit, and can do so by adopting 

three simple recommendations: Allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF funding 

to the State Assistance Program; continue the innovative ‘‘Competitive Grant’’ pilot 

program established in 2014, and address the need for improved infrastructure in 

urban areas by allocating a portion of the total LWCF funding to UPARR. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA’s recommendations and your 

consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to present the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s recommendations for fiscal 

year 2015 appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the vice 

president for government relations and policy. The National Trust is a privatelyfunded nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to save 

America’s historic places to enrich our future. With headquarters in Washington, 

DC, 13 field offices, 27 historic sites, 746,000 members and supporters and partner 

organizations in 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia, the National 

Trust works to save America’s historic places and advocates for historic preservation 

as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all levels of government. 

The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National Trust recognizes 

there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-effective Federal investments. However, 

we do not believe that preservation, conservation and recreation programs should 

suffer from disproportionate funding reductions. We look forward to working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments to sustain our 

Nation’s rich heritage of cultural and historic resources that generate lasting economic vitality for communities throughout the Nation. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of funding to implement the Nation’s historic preservation programs. Like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, its dedicated revenues are generated from oil and gas development 

on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 

(THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for preservation activities such as 

survey, nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic Places, public 

education, and project review for undertakings under the National Historic Preservation Act and for the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC 

is the most significant Federal investment in historic preservation. It has catalyzed 

the rehabilitation of more than 39,600 buildings throughout the Nation. Since its 

creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has created 2.4 million jobs and leveraged nearly $109 billion in private investment. 

The National Trust recommends at least $50 million for the SHPOs and at least 

$11 million for the THPOs. Such a modest increase in funding would recognize the 

continuing demand upon these agencies for preservation services, and addresses an 

increase in participation among THPOs from 131 tribes in fiscal year 2012 to potentially 156 tribes in fiscal year 2015. 

We thank the subcommittee for including $500,000 in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus bill to launch an important new program of competitive grants for the survey 

and nomination of properties associated with communities currently underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks. Recent studies have documented that less than 8 percent of such listings 

identify culturally diverse properties. We urge the subcommittee to provide up to 

$5 million to expand this important new program that promises to identify and protect the places that tell the stories of all Americans. 

We also want to call attention to the importance of the administration’s request 

for $6 million to provide grants to SHPOs and THPOs to digitize legacy survey data 

into an online National Inventory. This investment would improve access to historic 
360 

property records and help expedite Federal permitting of important infrastructure 

projects. We encourage the subcommittee to support this program included in the 

President’s Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM, CULTURAL

RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP

The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for 401 units of the National Park 

System ranging from the battlefields where our ancestors fought and died to places 

that stir the soul like the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateway for millions of new Americans. Three-quarters of our parks were created to protect our 

most important historic and cultural resources. Over the past two decades, more 

than 35 new parks have been added to our system of national parks. Many of these 

new parks preserve historic places and themes that are underrepresented within the 

National Park System. We support the President’s budget proposal of $47 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level for National Park Service Operations. Of that increase, $30 million is for the Administration’s Centennial Initiative which includes $16 million for 

repair and rehabilitation projects, $8 million for a new program to hire youth and 

veterans at parks, $4 million to engage youth in service and conservation projects 

and $2 million to support expanded volunteer opportunities at parks. The increase 

would fund the staff, rangers and interpretation vital to the public who visit and 

enjoy our ever-growing National Park System including new units like Fort Monroe 

National Monument (VA), Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument (MD) and Cesar E. Chavez National Monument (CA). 

Construction.—Of the nearly $12.311 billion in deferred maintenance needed for 

the NPS, $4.5 billion is for the maintenance backlog on 27,000 properties in National Park units listed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to a 

report issued in 2008 by the National Academy of Public Administration, more than 

40 percent of historic buildings and structures in our national parks are in fair or 

poor condition. Without funding, the condition of these properties will continue to 

deteriorate and become more expensive to repair and preserve in the future. The 

National Park Service Construction account has been significantly reduced over the 

last few years. We support the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $138 million, 

a slight increase over fiscal year 2014. We also support the President’s request that 

this fund be used for the repair and stabilization of important historic structures 

as opposed to new construction. 

We are also supportive of the President’s proposed mandatory appropriation of 

$200 million for the Second Century Infrastructure Investment and $100 million for 

the Centennial Challenge. These proposals would provide funds for the maintenance 

and rehabilitation of significant cultural and historic resources within our national 

parks. 

One promising new opportunity that will help the NPS and other Federal agencies with historic preservation responsibilities address the maintenance backlog of 

historic buildings is through a cooperative agreement between NPS, the other Federal land agencies, and several NGOs, including the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network. Through this agreement, college interns, trade school 

students, and out of work youth and veterans would be trained in the preservation 

skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks and other Federal lands. 

While learning these hands-on skills, participants will also perform cost-effective 

preservation work to support historic resources. 

ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION

The National Trust supports the administration’s fiscal year 2015 request of $50.6 

million for the Department’s youth programs, a significant increase of $13.6 million 

in programs over 2014 enacted funding levels. Of these funds, $8 million is proposed 

to expand opportunities for youth education and employment across NPS parks and 

programs. As part of our commitment to advancing the goals of the 21st Century 

Conservation Service Corps, and interest in helping the Federal Government reduce 

the maintenance backlog of historic properties, the National Trust recently launched 

the HOPE (Hands-On Preservation Experience) Crew initiative where we will train 

youth in preservation skills while helping protect historic sites within NPS units. 

The first HOPE Crew project, in the Shenandoah National Park in collaboration 

with concessionaire Delaware North Companies, is rehabilitating the historic 

Skyland Stable in the Skyline Drive National Historic Landmark District. The National Trust hopes to launch 100 HOPE Crew projects by the NPS Centennial in 

2016. Volunteer projects like this can reduce the maintenance backlog while also 

providing job skills and education for young people. 
361 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: LEASING HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN NATIONAL PARKS

We appreciate the Committee’s inclusion of report language in the fiscal year 2014 

Conference Report applaud the efforts of NPS and private partners to successfully 

implement such leases and encouraging the broader use of this authority to mitigate 

the maintenance backlog of historic structures. Continued encouragement and oversight of the Service’s actions to implement policy changes that would facilitate more 

leasing could catalyze even broader use of this important authority and increase the 

amount of non-Federal funding to abate the maintenance backlog. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

We recommend funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the fiscal year 

2014 enacted level or higher. The administration’s repeated proposals to reduce 

NHA funding, justified as ‘‘encouraging self-sufficiency,’’ would severely impair the 

sustainability of the program and the individual NHAs that Congress has established. National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has described National Heritage 

Areas as ‘‘places where small investments pay huge dividends.’’ We agree. 

During these challenging economic times, every program that receives Federal 

funding needs to justify its worth and deliver substantial benefits to the American 

public. NHAs more than meet this test. A recent report documents that since the 

program was created in 1984, the economic activity generated through NHAs supports approximately 148,000 jobs and $1.2 billion annually in Federal taxes. The 

economic benefits of NHA’s are realized through tourism and visitation, operational 

expenditures, and issuing grants and support. NHAs on average leverage every Federal dollar into $5.50 of additional public and private investment. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 27 million acres of congressionally and 

presidentially designated lands, including National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

As the Nation’s newest system of protected lands, the National Conservation 

Lands encompass some of our country’s most significant historic and cultural resources, yet the BLM’s ability to steward these resources is undermined by insufficient funding. The National Conservation Lands are just one-tenth of BLM managed 

lands but they host one-third of all BLM’s visitors. Without sufficient funding, the 

BLM struggles to complete essential resource protection, such as signing trails, 

inventorying and protecting cultural sites from looting and vandalism. 

We support the administration’s fiscal year 2015 request of $66.534 million, a $2 

million increase over fiscal year 2014 enacted, in order to prevent critical damage 

to the resources found in these areas, ensure proper management and provide for 

a quality visitor experience. This funding level would enable BLM to hire essential 

management and law enforcement staff, monitor and protect natural and cultural 

resources, close unauthorized routes that damage fragile cultural sites and undertake needed ecosystem and species restoration projects. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

The BLM oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically important collection 

of historic and cultural resources on our Nation’s public lands, including 10 million 

artifacts, 358,000 documented cultural sites, 421 maintained historic structures and 

87 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The program provides for the review of 13,000 land use proposals each year, compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native governments. In the last 

decade, this program has lost 19 percent of its FTEs due to the stagnant budget, 

yet it is challenged with even greater processing reviews for increased energy use, 

transmission lines and public recreation. If the funding for this program had kept 

pace with inflation since fiscal year 2003 it would receive funding of $19.1 million 

instead of the fiscal year 2014 enacted $15.1 million. We support the administration’s fiscal year 2015 request of $16 million, a modest increase of $.87 million over 

fiscal year 2014 enacted levels of $15.1 million. The increase provides for $.13 million for fixed costs and $.74 million to support efforts to fulfill BLM’s statutory requirements for the inventory and protection of cultural resources. The increase 

would support 40 on-the-ground surveys, site protection and stabilization projects, 

and regional cultural resource inventory overviews that are necessary for planning 

large scale infrastructure projects across broad landscapes 
362 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

The National Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. Many of the Nation’s most significant historic and cultural landscapes have 

been permanently protected through LWCF investments, including Gettysburg National Military Park, Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the 

Ancients National Monument, and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. Culturally 

significant projects in the fiscal year 2015 request include Ala Kahakai NHT (Hawaii), Rappahannock River NWR (Virginia), Agua Fria National Monument (Arizona) and several other national trails project. We strongly support the administration’s request for Civil War land acquisition projects and American Battlefield Protection Program Grants. 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The National Trust supports the administration’s funding request of $6.204 million for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). We suggest the subcommittee include report language recommending the President appoint a full-time 

Chairman. Such a recommendation was made by the ACHP membership at its November, 2011 meeting, as did a task force of historic preservation organizations, including the National Trust. We believe a full-time Chairman would enhance the effectiveness of the ACHP. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust’s recommendations 

for the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations 

bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), the Nation’s largest member-based conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more than 

four million members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity to provide 

fiscal year 2015 funding recommendations for the Department of the Interior and 

other agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

We understand the difficult budget choices facing Congress and the Nation as we 

move forward under the constraints of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 

112–25), and applaud Congress for replacing part of sequestration in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. Disproportionate cuts to conservation programs 

are not consonant with the priorities of most Americans. These programs protect 

cherished lands and waters and conserve the natural resources that are vital to our 

Nation’s continued economic vitality. Recent studies estimate that outdoor recreation and conservation account for $1.06 trillion in overall economic activity and 

support 9.4 million jobs each year. Outdoor recreation alone generates more than 

$49 billion in annual Federal tax revenue. 

NWF is concerned about proposed funding reductions to many of the Federal Government’s programs that protect and conserve fish and wildlife, sustaining and restoring important ecosystems, and maintaining clean air and water. Perhaps of even 

greater concern are efforts to rewrite the Nation’s landmark environmental laws 

through the use of policy riders on the appropriations bill. National Wildlife Federation urges the subcommittee to make the necessary investments in our essential 

conservation and environmental programs and commitments in the fiscal year 2015 

appropriations bill, and to pass a bill free of such riders. 

National Wildlife Federation is overall supportive of the President’s fiscal year 

2015 budget request, which we view as balancing fiscal responsibility with continued investments in essential conservation and environmental programs. Following, 

we offer recommendations for specific budget items and programs. 

I. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation’s core program for 

preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every State. We are extremely concerned about the impact on the Nation’s wildlife of the nearly 30 percent cut this 

program has suffered in recent years. We urge Congress to honor its commitment 

to this effort by maintaining funding at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $58.695 

million. 

Cooperative Landscape Conservation 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives represent 

an important tool for leveraging Federal, State, and private resources to achieve ef-
363 

fective conservation outcomes and safeguard fish and wildlife resources from climate 

change. We urge Congress to address the real threats of climate change to fish and 

wildlife and support the President’s request of $17.7 million for this program. 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

The National Wildlife Refuge System is home to thousands of species of wildlife. 

With over 560 refuges, this system provides outdoor recreational and tourism opportunities for the 46.5 million Americans who visit refuges annually. And for every 

$1 invested by Congress, refuges generate over $4 in economic benefits to local communities. NWF, along with the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), endorses the President’s fiscal year 2015 funding request of $476.4 million 

for Operations and Maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

II. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Climate and Land Use Change 

The USGS Climate and Land Use Change program provides research that allows 

other land management agencies to make science-based decisions important to resiliency and adaptation regarding climate change. We support the President’s requested funding level of $149.1 million for Climate and Land Use, and of $35.5 million for the DOI Climate Science Centers. 

Ecosystems 

The USGS Ecosystems program provides research that allows other land management agencies to make science-based decisions important to the conservation of our 

Nation’s wildlife and the habitats they depend upon. We support the President’s 

budget request of $162 million for this program. 

III. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Trust Natural Resources Program 

The BIA Trust Natural Resources (TNR) Program represents the largest amount 

of Federal funding for tribal natural resource management. Over the last 12 fiscal 

years, funding for BIA has unacceptably lagged behind funding for other Interior 

agencies. Funding these programs should be a top priority of Congress for fiscal 

year 2015. In addition, we fully support the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of 

$184.295 million for TNR. We are particularly supportive of the $9.948 million requested funding for tribal participation in the Cooperative Landscape Conservation 

program to support tribal engagement in climate adaptation. 

IV. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

National Landscape Conservation System 

The National Landscape Conservation System comprises some 27 million acres of 

congressionally and presidentially designated lands and waters, including National 

Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, National Scenic and Historic 

Trails, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. These lands are some of the best places to experience the rich history and scenic beauty of the American West. We ask Congress 

to support the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $66.5 million for the National 

Conservation Lands in order to prevent critical damage to the resources found in 

these areas, ensure proper management, and provide for a quality visitor experience. 

Master Leasing Plan 

The Master Leasing Plan concept is a cornerstone of onshore oil and gas program 

reforms announced by the Department of the Interior in 2010 and represent a positive step in restoring recognition of the fish and wildlife values on public lands. National Wildlife Federation, as part of the Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development coalition, strongly supports the administration’s requested increase of $4.6 

million to strengthen the oil and gas leasing program within the Oil and Gas Management budget, $1 million of which enables the agency to perform regional planning for leasing and development through the Master Leasing Plan concept. 

V. POWERING OUR FUTURE INITIATIVE

The Powering our Future initiative provides resources for six bureaus across DOI 

for renewable energy planning, leasing, and permitting activities. The initiative presents an opportunity for the Nation to facilitate large-scale clean energy projects 

without compromising crucial wildlife interests and investments. It facilitates efficient permitting, identification and review of wind energy areas, and efforts to 
364 

evaluate and protect the sage grouse, lesser prairie chickens, whooping cranes, golden eagles, and Indiana bats. NWF strongly supports the President’s request of $94.8 

million for fiscal year 2015, an increase of $3 million from fiscal year 2014 enacted. 

In addition, NWF supports legislative proposals, such as the Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act, that would both incentivize and add certainty for renewable energy on public lands while paying back the land by providing resources 

for fish, wildlife, recreational opportunities, local communities, and States. 

VI. U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Forest Fire Disaster Funding 

In recent years, the U.S. Forest Service has been forced to dedicate a significant 

amount of funds in order to pay for wildfire suppression. NWF supports the President’s efforts to address this problem by including wildfire emergency funding processes in his fiscal year 2015 budget that are similar to those of other natural disasters. Currently, Federal land management agencies must shift money away from 

vital agency programs in order to fund wildfire suppression costs. This practice negatively impacts land management programs including those that decrease long-term 

wildfire risk and costs and the associated loss to wildlife, habitat and recreation. 

We support legislative efforts to rectify this practice. 

Urban and Community Forestry Program 

The Urban and Community Forestry program improves the forests where people 

live, work, and play. With urban tree canopies in decline, the program is critical to 

support carbon sequestration, energy conservation, storm water management, and 

air quality, while also providing cooling benefits in urban areas. We support maintaining the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $28.04 million. 

Forest Service Research and Development 

The President’s requested Research and Development budget for fiscal year 2015 

is $18 million lower than the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. A reduction of this magnitude would thwart the Forest Service’s ability to effectively work on wildlife conservation and habitat risk assessment. We support maintaining the fiscal year 2014 

enacted level of $293 million. 

VII. LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a tool for the Federal Government to acquire both State and Federal land that is important to maintaining wildlife habitat as well as open space. National Wildlife Federation strongly endorses 

the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request of full funding for LWCF at $900 

million, with $550 million in mandatory funding and $350 million in discretionary 

funding. We support all efforts to ensure LWCF is funded at its maximum authorized level, including legislative efforts to provide robust and dedicated funding outside of the budget process. Likewise, NWF supports the President’s request that $15 

million goes to improving access to public lands for sportsmen and outdoor 

recreationists 

IX. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Geographic Programs—Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives 

America’s Great Waters are the lifeblood of our Nation. Sustained, consistent restoration funding is crucial for the successful implementation of multi-year ecosystem 

restoration plans. As such, we strongly support the President’s requested increase 

in funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office ($73.1 million requested, an increase of $3 million from fiscal year 2014 enacted) and urge the subcommittee to 

maintain funding for other regional efforts, including but not limited to the Long 

Island Sound Program and Puget Sound Programs. We are concerned about the significant proposed funding decrease for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and 

support maintaining the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $300 million. 

EPA National Estuary Program 

The National Estuary Program (NEP) works to restore and protect nationally significant estuaries. The program focuses not just on improving water quality, but on 

maintaining the integrity of the whole system—its chemical, physical, and biological 

properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. NWF is glad 

to see funding maintained for this program, and supports the President’s fiscal year 

2015 request for $26.7 million. 
365 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

Since the 1970’s, CWSRF projects have helped improve the quality of wastewater 

treatment in communities throughout the country. Yet the job is far from complete 

and the Nation faces trillions of dollars in funding needs to repair aging wastewater 

treatment systems and keep our rivers and streams pollution free. While we greatly 

appreciate the EPA’s dedication to increasing green infrastructure options, we believe now, particularly when America’s infrastructure is rated at D∂ by the American Society of Civil Engineers, is not the time to cut resources from communities. 

NWF strongly opposes the $430.9 million proposed cut to this program, and urges 

funding at the fiscal year 2014 level of $1.44887 billion. 

Clean Water Act 319 Nonpoint Pollution Reduction Program 

When Congress recognized the need for greater Federal leadership in assisting 

with nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts, The Clean Water Act was amended 

to establish Section 319. Continued funding for the Nonpoint Source Management 

Program will provide State and local nonpoint source remediation efforts with the 

funds that are crucial to the implementation of these projects. As such we recommend that the subcommittee increase program funding from the $164.9 million 

requested by the President to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $159.2 million. 

Climate & Air Pollution Reduction Programs 

NWF supports EPA’s priority goal of improving the country’s air quality and taking action on climate change. We support the requested $234.7 million for addressing climate change, an increase of $45.2 million over fiscal year enacted, allowing 

the Agency to support a full range of approaches for reducing carbon pollution and 

the risks posed to human health and the environment from climate change. 

National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) Programs 

EPA’s Office of Environmental Education implements highly successful, nationwide environmental education programs. We are grateful for the subcommittee’s 

support of environmental education in previous years and urge you to sustain funding for the National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) programs at the Environmental Protection Agency at the recent level of $9.7M. 

X. EVERGLADES

America’s Everglades are one of the most unique ecosystems in the world. Protection of the remaining ecosystem and restoration of ecological function are critical for 

water supply, wildlife, water quality, recreation, tourism, and the economy of South 

Florida. A recent study indicates each dollar invested in restoring the Everglades 

will result in a four dollar return. Beginning in the 1980s, Congress made a commitment to restoring the Everglades by enacting the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This subcommittee has made substantial progress in furthering that 

promise in recent years—funding construction of a 1-mile bridge along the Tamiami 

Trail and authorizing the next phase of bridging. We urge Congress to continue this 

investment and strongly support the President’s budget request for $62.4 million for 

the Everglades Comprehensive Environmental Restoration Plan. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership 

of current and former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) professionals, Refuge 

Friends organizations and concerned citizens, thank you for your support for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), particularly for the funding increase for 

fiscal year 2014. NWRA appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal 

year 2015 Interior Appropriations bill and respectfully requests the following: 

—$476.4 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of the 

NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine Monuments; 

—$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with $178.3 

million allocated for the FWS, including $1 million for Blackwater National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWR) (Maryland); $1 million for John Chafee NWR 

(Rhode Island); $10 million for Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation 

Area (Florida); $6.5 million for Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (NFWR) (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts); $5 million for Cache River NWR (Arizona); $3 million for Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas); and $2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area 

(Wyoming, Idaho, Utah). 
366 

—$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; 

—$13 million for the FWS Coastal Program; 

—$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction (under 

the Department of the Interior (DOI)); 

—$20 million for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund; 

—$16 million for the FWS construction account; 

—$58.7 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; 

—$35 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; 

—$4 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund; 

—$9.1 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund and $13.5 million 

for Wildlife Without Borders; 

—$7.022 million for the FWS account in the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). 

We understand our Nation’s challenging fiscal climate, but cutting funding to programs that are economic drivers and job creators in local communities would only 

exacerbate the already difficult situation. For example, the NWRS averages almost 

$5 in economic return for every $1 appropriated and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program returns nearly $16 for every $1 spent on projects. But budgets have 

not kept pace with rising costs, and the gap between the funding needed to maintain these programs and the funding appropriated has widened dramatically. To 

begin bridging that gap, NWRA urges Congress to fund these critical programs that 

leverage Federal dollars and serve as economic drivers. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM—OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing 

more than 16 million Americans that supports increased funding for the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs at least $900 million annually to manage 

its 150 million acres, yet it is currently funded at roughly half that amount—at only 

$3.15 per acre. The Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our wildlife, and 46.5 million annual visitors without increases in maintenance 

and operation funds. 

Budget cuts over the past 4 years have had a dramatic impact on the Refuge System, resulting in significant declines in habitat preservation and management, 

hunting, fishing, volunteerism and scientific research. Between fiscal year 2010 and 

fiscal year 2013, the Refuge System faced widespread declines in measured performance: the acres of forest and shrubland improved declined by 51 percent; wetland 

acres restored declined by 77 percent; and riparian miles restored declined by 19 

percent. Meanwhile, the control of invasive animal populations decreased by 46 percent and acres treated for invasive plants decreased by 37 percent resulting in a 

60 percent drop in acreage where invasive plant control was achieved. At the Wichita Mountains NWR in Oklahoma, two biotech positions remain vacant, including 

a seasonal position to fight invasive species, compromising years of gains made 

against invasive species on refuge grasslands and leaving private lands vulnerable 

to the spread of invasives. 

NWRA believes it is very important for the FWS to partner with State agencies, 

through the State Wildlife Grant Program, and with private landowners to keep 

wildlife from becoming endangered. However, funding cuts threaten that very work. 

For instance, at the Imperial NWR in Arizona, grant funding opportunities are 

being bypassed due to lack of staff to develop proposals and oversee projects. The 

wildlife biologist vacancy at Imperial and vacancies at other refuges along the Colorado River prevented the refuge from applying for a Cooperative Recovery grant to 

restore 830 acres of marsh habitat, primarily for the endangered Yuma clapper rail. 

The refuges were unable to commit to the planning, execution, monitoring, and reporting requirements of this grant. 

Along the Texas coast, the Aransas NWR is home to the highly endangered 

whooping crane, yet every aspect of the refuge’s work is impacted by budget cuts. 

Prescribed burning—a vital management tool to provide food for the cranes and 

treat invasive species—is down by 65 percent this year. Unable to maintain facilities 

to ensure public safety and accessibility, the refuge has also curtailed visitor access, 

closing 12 of the 17 public facilities, including a fishing pier, boardwalks and photo 

blinds. And to top it off, the loss of visitor services staff has resulted in a decrease 

in volunteer support: last year volunteers donated 24,000 hours and occupied eight 

RV sites on the refuge but now only two RV sites are occupied. 

During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System’s potential to drive 

local economies and create jobs is of paramount importance. Banking On Nature, 

a report issued by the FWS in October 2013, shows that even during the worst re-
367 

cession since the Great Depression, the overall return on investment increased substantially for the Refuge System. From 2006–2011 the Refuge System saw sales and 

economic output increase 20 percent to $2.4 billion, visitation increase 30 percent 

to 46.5 million, average return on investment increase 22 percent to $4.87 for every 

$1 appropriated, and supported jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000. At the Ridgefield 

NWR in Washington, over $6 is returned to the local economy for every $1 appropriated and at the Wichita Mountains NWR in Oklahoma, the refuge returns a 

whopping $44 for every $1 appropriated. 

STRATEGIC GROWTH

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is an essential tool for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary funding source for 

land and conservation easement acquisition by Federal land agencies. 

Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands through the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. Conservation easements are powerful tools that 

foster public-private partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve 

wildlife, habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscape-scale initiatives using easements as a primary conservation tool have broad community and 

State support in New England’s Connecticut River Watershed, the Flint Hills of 

Kansas, the Everglades Headwaters, Montana’s Crown of the Continent, and the 

Dakota Grasslands. These iconic landscapes remain privately managed, generating 

tax income for local communities, securing our Nation’s food, and balancing resource 

use and resource protection for wildlife. 

In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including many species that require very specific 

habitat conditions, such as nesting grounds for sea turtle and isolated springs for 

endemic desert fish. Others require multiple habitat types during their life cycle. 

By acquiring critical habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the Refuge System 

enhances the overall integrity of the system and strengthens our network of habitat 

to give wildlife space and time to respond to changes, whether from climate or 

changing land use patterns. The Refuge Association calls on Congress to fund LWCF at $900 million per year, with $178.3 million provided in fiscal year 2015 to the FWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including the following projects and those advocated 

by refuge Friends: —Blackwater NWR (Maryland)—$1 million; 

—John H. Chafee NWR (Rhode Island)—$1 million; 

—Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area (Florida)—$10 million; 

—Cache River NWR (Arizona)—$5 million; 

—Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Con- necticut)—$6.5 million; —Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)—$3 million; 

—Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, Utah)—$2 million. 

PARTNERSHIPS

With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon private lands for 

their survival, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program (Partners Program) is one 

of the most powerful tools for protecting wildlife where it lives. By building effective 

partnerships between public agencies and private landowners to conserve America’s 

expansive working landscapes, the Partners Program has implemented nearly 

29,000 restoration projects in the past 25 years, restoring over one million acres of 

wetlands, three million acres of uplands, and 11,000 miles of streams. The program 

has been instrumental in the success of such iconic landscape conservation projects 

as the Rocky Mountain Front and Blackfoot Challenge in Montana and the Flint 

Hills in Kansas, and is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat 

in the intermountain west. 

The Partners program consistently leverages Federal dollars for conservation, 

generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1 appropriated for projects. The 

Refuge Association and the landowner-led Partners for Conservation request $75 

million for fiscal year 2015. Such a funding level would result in an additional $400 

million worth of conservation across the Nation. 

COMMITMENT TO REFUGE COMMUNITIES—REFUGE REVENUE SHARING

The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber harvests to 

make payments to local communities to offset property tax revenue lost when the 
368 

federally-acquired lands are removed from local tax rolls, and relies on congressional 

appropriations to the Refuge Revenue Sharing program to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax replacement obligations. Unfortunately, declining revenues and lack of appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 

percent of its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local communities is felt even more starkly in difficult economic times and severely strains relations between the Federal units and their local community, threatening the goodwill 

and partnerships that are keystones of successful conservation. NWRA requests $20 

million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program, which, in recognition of the President’s proposal to zero out funding, is still less than half of what is needed. NWRA 

also calls for a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and 

consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be consistent with other Federal land management agencies and to provide Refuge communities with more equitable payments. 

LEVERAGING AMERICAN VOLUNTEERISM

Refuges are vital places for the American people to actively connect with nature. 

Refuge volunteers contributed their time and expertise, totaling 1.4 million hours 

last year—the equivalent of 702 full time staff—a 20 percent boost to the Refuge 

System workforce of 3,400 employees. But this level of volunteer service is only possible when the System is adequately staffed to provide the necessary volunteer 

training and oversight, and smaller budgets mean cuts to volunteer opportunities. 

From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the System experienced an 8.7 percent 

reduction in the number of volunteers, at a time when the System needs their help 

the most to greet visitors, staff refuge nature stores, maintain Refuge grounds, provide interpretation and much more. 

NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge System can meet its responsibilities 

to the American people with collaboration and sufficient funding and we urge Congress to help the FWS meet these obligations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

Aloha Chairman Reed and members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 

Interior and Environment subcommittee, Mahalo, thank you, for allowing us an opportunity to submit this request for appropriations. 

We are seeking continued funding at pre-sequestration levels for the Native Hawaiian Education Program (NHEP) that targets the Native Hawaiian student population. The NHEP is an important part of fulfilling the trust relationship between 

the United States and Native Hawaiians, and it helps to improve the educational 

status of Native Hawaiians. It is an important element in the Native community’s 

effort to control its education programs and policies and to achieve educational parity. NHEP aims to close the education achievement gap between Native Hawaiians 

and the general population, and also functions to fulfill the trust relationship between the United States and Native Hawaiians, the indigenous people of a once sovereign nation. During the time of their own sovereignty in the kingdom of Hawai‘i, 

Native Hawaiians had a higher rate of literacy than citizens of the United States. 

The educational achievement gap has occurred during the intervening years since 

the loss of Native Hawaiian sovereignty, so that today Native Hawaiians are among 

the most disadvantaged groups in the State. 

THE NHEP WORKS

NHEP has been effective over the years in meeting the goals of the program. For 

example, NHEA has been instrumental in preserving and protecting the Native Hawaiian language through funding projects that are designed to address the use of 

the Native Hawaiian language in instruction, one of the priorities named in the 

NHEA. The number of speakers nearly doubled in 18 years from 8,872 speakers in 

1990 to 16,864 in 2008. (Source: Office of Hawaiian Affairs Data Book 2011 Tables 

4.19 and 4.44) 

The NHEP has funded programs that incorporate culture and indigenous teaching 

practices in the classroom that lead to better outcomes for Native Hawaiian students. An example is the improvement in the graduation rates for Native Hawaiians 

and math and reading scores. Graduation rates for Native Hawaiians between 2002 

and 2010 rose from 70 percent to 72.2 percent. (Sources: Kamehameha Schools’ Native Hawaiian Education Assessment Update 2009, Fig. 9 and Hawaii Department 

of Education (HI DOE) 2005–06 to 2009–10) 
369 

Similarly, math and reading scores have risen for Native Hawaiians. The percent 

of Native Hawaiians scoring ‘‘Proficient or Above’’ from 2007 to 2012 rose from 27 

percent to 49 percent in math and from 41 percent to 62 percent in reading. (Source: 

HI DOE Longitudinal Data System) 

School attendance rates in schools with student populations that are over 50 percent Native Hawaiian have increased from 90.1 percent in the 2000–01 school year 

to 91.3 percent in the 2011–12 school year. (Source: Kamehameha Schools’ draft Ka 

Huaka‘i update, p. 58) 

THE NEED STILL EXISTS

In spite of the gains that Native Hawaiians have made educationally, the need 

for innovative programs to assist Native Hawaiians to improve their academic performance still exists, since Native Hawaiians have not yet attained parity with the 

rest of the students in the State. 

Timely high school graduation rates for students in the State rose from 77 percent 

to 79.6 percent in the same time period that it rose from 70 percent to 72.2 percent 

for Native Hawaiians. (Sources: Kamehameha Schools’ Native Hawaiian Education 

Assessment Update 2009, Fig. 9 and HI DOE 2005–06 to 2009–10) 

Native Hawaiians still lag behind the rest of the State in academic performance; 

however the gap between the Native Hawaiians and others is decreasing. From 

2007 to 2012 the increase in the percentage of Native Hawaiians scoring ‘‘Proficient 

or Above’’ in math rose 22 percentage points, while the increase for the State during 

the same time period was 21 percentage points. The increase for Native Hawaiians 

in reading was even more dramatic during that time period, increasing 21 percentage points compared to the State increase of only 11 percentage points. Unfortunately those gains were not enough to bring Native Hawaiians to parity. In 2012 

Native Hawaiians were still 10 points behind the State in the percentage scoring 

‘‘Proficient or Above’’ in math and 9 points behind in the percentage scoring ‘‘Proficient or Above’’ in reading. 

PERCENT SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE 

2007 2012 Change 

Math: 

Native Hawaiians ...................................................................................... 27 % 49 % 22 

State totals ............................................................................................... 38 % 59 % 21 

Difference ............................................................................................. ¥11 ¥10 

Reading: 

Native Hawaiians ...................................................................................... 41 % 62 % 21 

State totals ............................................................................................... 60 % 71 % 11 

Difference ............................................................................................. ¥19 ¥9 

Source: Hawaii DOE Longitudinal Data System. 

In the area of Native Hawaiian language immersion, although the gains have 

been tremendous, the nearly 17,000 speakers in 2008 only represent 6 percent of 

the approximately 290,000 Native Hawaiians in Hawai‘i (2010 U.S. Census). 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

The pre-sequestration appropriations level for the NHEP was $34 million. Sequestration reduced the amount by $2 million to $32 million, which is the amount entered into the President’s budget. For such a small program as the NHEP, the $2 

million reduction makes a significant negative impact on the program. We would 

like to continue to make gains in the educational achievement of Native Hawaiians, 

and request the pre-sequestration level of $34 million so that we don’t lose the momentum of improvement. 

NHEP funds programs to help improve the educational attainment of Native Hawaiians in ways that are linguistically and culturally aligned to the needs of our 

native students and communities in Hawai‘i. Improving education, particularly for 

the most depressed groups, eventually leads to cost savings over time through decreased incarceration, poor health, and public assistance. (Barnett, W. S., and Ackerman, D. J. 2006. Costs, benefits, and the long-term effects of early care and education programs: Cautions and recommendations for community developers. Journal 

of the Community Development Society, 37(2), 86–100.) Academic achievement is 

also correlated with positive economic outcomes. (Belfield, C. 2008, June. The eco-
370 

nomic investments of early education in Hawaii. Issue Brief. Flushing, NY: Queen’s 

College, City University of New York.) 

Please help us sustain the NHEP to its pre-sequestration level in order to continue the educational gains that have taken this program years to accomplish. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIVE VILLAGE OF BARROW

The Native Village of Barrow makes the following recommendations with regard 

to the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of Indian Affairs budget: 

—Fully fund Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs (CSC) at $251 million as requested by the administration and place CSC funding on a mandatory, 

rather than a discretionary, basis. 

—Support the administration’s request for a $5 million increase for social services 

(total of $40.8 million) and for a $5 million increase for the Indian Child Welfare Act (for a total of $15.4 million)—called the Tiwahe Initiative. 

—Support increased funding for tribal courts. 

—Support increased flexibility for the Housing Improvement Program and oppose 

the administration’s proposed funding cut. 

—Increase the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) resources for Information Technology for tribes. 

About the Native Village of Barrow.—The Native Village of Barrow, the longest 

standing local government in Barrow, is a federally recognized tribe incorporated in 

1940 under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 as amended for Alaska Natives 

in 1936 by the United States Congress. We work to meet a variety of tribal members needs including adult basic, secondary, and higher education; realty; wildlife; 

housing; Indian reservation roads; social services and child protection; environmental protection; and economic development. We provide these services through a 

Self-Governance funding agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, various 

grants, and pull-tab gaming. 

The Village of Barrow is situated within the North Slope Borough at the northern 

most tip of Alaska, 340 miles north of the Arctic Circle and only a few miles southwest of Point Barrow where the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas join. We have a polar 

climate, dry and cold, with temperatures below freezing from early October through 

late May. The sun stays below the horizon from November 18 or 19 through January 22 or 23, and on the winter solstice there is twilight for only 3 hours. 

Contract Support Costs.—We thank Congress, and particularly the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for your leadership in making it clear 

to the BIA and the Indian Health Service (IHS) that fully funding contract support 

costs (CSC) is a legal duty and for providing what we estimate is full funding for 

fiscal year 2014. Congress has asked tribes and tribal organizations, the BIA, IHS, 

the Office of Management and Budget and the relevant congressional committees 

to work together to come up with a long term solution to meet the legal requirements for contract support costs and to also streamline the CSC determination process. We join with others in Indian Country in feeling that the next logical step is 

for Congress to put CSC funding on a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, basis. 

Social Services and Tribal Courts Funding.—The Native Village of Barrow’s court 

has jurisdiction over an array of child welfare and juvenile wellness matters. Our 

social services office services to a population of 3,400 with only a handful of staff. 

We support the administration’s request of an increase of $5 million in the BIA 

budget for more social workers and for an additional $5 million for tribal Indian 

Child Welfare Act (ICWA) programs. Together the BIA has termed this the Tiwahe 

(the Lakota work for family) Initiative. While these funds do not represent direct 

funding for tribal courts, the work of social workers and improved implementation 

of the ICWA would have positive implications for the work of our and other tribal 

courts. 

Of the children in Alaska, 17.3 percent are American Indian/Alaska Native, but 

they constitute 51.1 percent of children in foster care in the State (Summer A., 

Woods S., and Donovan, J (2013). Technical assistance bulletin: disproportionality 

rates for children of color in foster care. Reno, Nevada: National Council of Juvenile 

and Family Court Judges.) The Native Village of Barrow Social Services Department has partnerships with a number of entities including Barrow Tribal Court, 

Arctic Women in Crisis, and the State of Alaska, among others and we need to continue building these collaborative efforts. We have Memorandum of Understanding 

with the State regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act. 

For tribal courts specifically, the administration proposes level funding in the BIA 

budget ($23.3 million). Given the impact of the Violence Against Women Act 

(VAWA), the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the recommendations of the 
371 

TLOA Commission, a significant increase over $23 million is certainly in order. In 

addition there may well be an amendment enacted to the VAWA that will authorize 

extended domestic violence jurisdiction to tribes in Alaska for which we will definitely need additional resources. 

Housing Improvement Program (HIP).—The administration proposes only $8 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ HIP program, about the same as the fiscal 

year 2014 enacted level but 36 percent below the fiscal year 2013 pre-sequestration 

level of $12.5 million. The Native Village of Barrow does not receive HIP funds, 

finding the requirements for things including surveys prohibitively expensive when 

one compares it to the small HIP grants. The BIA states in its fiscal year 2015 

Budget Justification that they want to ‘‘recommend a redesign of the Program’’ in 

2014 and point especially to the inclusion in the program of young families, of tribes 

expanding eligibility criteria, and re-establishing a down payment assistance category (pp IA–HS–8–9). This is quite ambitious for a program that the administration last year tried to zero out, but we encourage that in redesigning the program 

that the cost of compliance with eligibility criteria not outstrip the funding it might 

provide. 

Information Technology.—It is almost impossible to identify in the BIA budget 

what is available for tribes in the area of information technology, but it is something 

for which we need additional assistance. Under Tribal Government Oversight $8.2 

million is requested which, among other things, provides technical assistance to 

nearly 3,200 self-determination contracts (pp. IA–TG–6–7). There is also funding in 

the BIA budget request for $546,000 for Interior Department Information Technology Transformation through the Department’s Working Capital Fund ((IA–ES– 

13), but we are not aware that these are funds that directly assist tribes. We ask 

that the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee inquire the sources and amounts of 

funds for information technology assistance to tribes. 

Thank you for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations for fiscal year 2015 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is an international, non-profit conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important 

lands and waters for nature and people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and 

waters upon which all life depends. 

As we enter the fiscal year 2015 budget cycle and another year of a challenging 

fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to recognize the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to thank this subcommittee for the final fiscal 

year 2014 funding levels for Department of Interior and U.S. Forest Service conservation programs. Our budget recommendations this year reflect a balanced approach with funding levels consistent with the President’s budget request or, in rare 

instances such as wildland fire or funding for the States, reflect specific program 

needs. Of particular note, we wish to work with this subcommittee and the authorizing committees on identifying permanent funding solutions for wildfire funding, 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. 

The Conservancy is concerned about the increasing impacts of wildfire suppression 

funding on Interior funding levels and urge the subcommittee to adopt the bipartisan and widely supported Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 1875; H.R. 3992). This 

process of funding suppression for the Department of the Interior and the USDA 

Forest Service will create budgetary stability and accountability while liberating 

critically needed appropriations funds within the Interior allocation. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).—The fiscal year 2015 President’s 

budget proposes the establishment of a dedicated source of long-term funding for the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the proposal, the President’s budget includes $350 million for LWCF activities through ‘‘current authority’’ or discretionary 

appropriations and then an additional $550 million in ‘‘permanent authority’’ for 

LWCF funding. The budget then proposes to reach the $900 million funding level 

in fiscal year 2015 through this blend of current and permanent funding. The Conservancy supports this phased shift to mandatory funding for the LWCF Program. 

However, consistent with last year and as noted above, we believe the administration must work closely with the relevant appropriations and authorizing committees 

to move this proposal forward. Additionally, the Conservancy supports the ongoing 

emphasis in the budget on both ‘‘core’’ projects and ‘‘collaborative’’ LWCF projects. 

Projects in the Longleaf Pine region will benefit greatly from this collaborative emphasis, along with projects in the California Southwest Desert, Upper Rio Grande, 
372 

the High Divide and National Trails. Our ‘‘core’’ and ‘‘collaborative’’ priorities this 

year include the Nez Pearce National Historic Trail/Henrys Lake ACEC (Idaho), 

Francis Marion National Forest (South Carolina), Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New 

Hampshire/Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts), and the working ranches of Florida’s Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation Area, North Dakota and South 

Dakota’s Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area, Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front 

Conservation Area and Kansas’s Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area. 

Forest Legacy.—We support a minimum of $53 million for the Forest Legacy Pro- gram in current discretionary funding and the $47 million in permanent funding 

(with our aforementioned caveats) with a focus on 4 projects—Hall Mountain 

(Idaho), Carter Mountain (Tennessee), Clear Creek Conservation Project (Montana) 

and Lake Alexander (Minnesota). 

Endangered Species.—The Conservancy supports a funding level of at least $50 

million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), and 

also requests the subcommittee give consideration to the additional fiscal year 2015 

President’s budget request of $50 million in permanent funding per our earlier request for negotiations to occur between the administration and relevant congressional committees on a path forward for this funding. 

Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.—The Conservancy supports the Presi- dent’s fiscal year 2015 budget request of $5.05 million for USBR and $1.39 million 

for FWS for the Colorado River Basin recovery programs, including endangered species funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, recovery funds for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, and 

fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans. 

Wildlife Planning.—The Conservancy supports the Western Governors’ Association’s (WGA) request for the subcommittee to consider issuing a recommendation to 

land management agencies within its jurisdiction to utilize State fish and wildlife 

data and analyses to inform the land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions of those agencies. As an example of strong State-led data systems, 

WGA has partnered in recent years with State wildlife agencies and the Federal 

Government to develop statewide GIS mapping tools to identify crucial wildlife habitat and migratory corridors. These geospatial mapping tools, which provide access 

to credible, broad-scale scientific data—compiled and analyzed by the States—are 

designed to reduce conflicts and surprises while ensuring wildlife values are better 

incorporated into land use planning, particularly for large-scale linear projects. 

WGA launched its West-wide GIS mapping tool called CHAT (Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool) in December 2013. CHAT is a non-regulatory decision-support system that knits together State wildlife data and analysis on a regional landscape 

level using a common framework. Our Arizona TNC Chapter has been very integrated in the development and enhancement of the Arizona data system 

(HabiMap)—a decision support system—which is the basis for our work on mitigation, habitat assessments and land planning in the State. 

Invasive Species.—The Conservancy supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 

Budget request of $138.9 million for the FWS’ Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation program, including $4.4 million to address the invasion of Asian carp in 

the Great Lakes and priority watersheds, including the Missouri, Ohio and Upper 

Mississippi River. 

State Wildlife Grants.—The Conservancy requests the fiscal year 2014 funding 

level—$58.695 million—for this program. Strong Federal investments are essential 

to ensure strategic actions are undertaken by State and Federal agencies and the 

conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats. We are 

concerned about the impact of the fiscal year 2015 proposed cut on State fish and 

wildlife agencies nationally and request these funds be restored to the fiscal year 

2014 level. 

Wildlife Conservation Programs.—The variety of wildlife conservation programs 

conducted by FWS continue a long and successful tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the United States and internationally. We urge the subcommittee to fund the President’s request for such established and successful programs as the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCA), Neotropical 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCA), and the FWS Coastal Program. We 

support the President’s request for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures and the FWS 

Migratory Bird Management Program. For the latter, we are particularly supportive 

of FWS’ efforts at developing updated eagle permitting regulations which will both 

support the development of renewable energy in our country and contribute to sustainable and growing populations of these iconic North American species. We support the President’s fiscal year 2015 request for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program and the requested increase in funding for Cooperative Landscape Conservation ($17.7 million) and Adaptive Science ($15.1 m). The latter will help sup-
373 

port the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) overall commitment to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and will contribute to collaborative problem solving for some 

of our Nation’s most challenging issues. We also request strong funding this year 

for the National Fish Habitat Initiative. 

International Programs.—The international conservation programs appropriated 

annually within the Department of Interior are relatively small but are effective and 

widely respected. They encompass the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional 

and global programs, the U.S. National Park Service International Program, and 

the U.S. Forest Service International Program (USFS–IP). We urge that these programs receive in fiscal year 2015, at a minimum, level funding with fiscal year 2014. 

Climate Change.—The Conservancy appreciates the President’s commitment to respond to the global climate challenge, and this subcommittee’s sustained leadership 

in supporting cooperative, science-based programs to respond to the global climate 

challenge and to help ensure resilient land and seascapes. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The Conservancy supports the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement Coalition’s request, consistent with the President’s 

fiscal year 2015 Budget, of $476.4 million for the Refuge System’s Operations and 

Maintenance accounts. Found in every U.S. State and territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America’s environmentally sensitive and economically 

vital ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and 

forests. This represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities 

for the Refuge System. 

USFS & DOI Wildland Fire Management.—The President’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposes language similar to the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA—S. 1875; 

H.R. 3992) which would fund a portion of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) wildfire suppression costs through a budget cap 

adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 

as amended. The enactment of WDFA would not only significantly reduce the need 

for the USFS and DOI to transfer but also provide the subcommittee with added 

flexibility to allocate funding for activities that reduce fire risk and long-term suppression costs. The Conservancy supports adopting this language and funding suppression in fiscal year 2015 accordingly. The Conservancy appreciates Congress’ emphasis on proactive hazardous fuels reduction and community preparedness along 

with a commitment to safe and cost-effective wildfire response strategies. In light 

of this approach and with the enactment of WDFA, the Conservancy recommends 

investing in Hazardous Fuels at levels of $479 million and $178 million for USFS 

and DOI, respectively, and repeating the subcommittee’s fiscal year 2012 instructions for allocating funds to priority landscapes in both the wildland-urban interface 

(WUI) and wildland settings. We also recommend the USFS State Fire Assistance 

program be funded at $86 million. 

USFS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration.—The Conservancy recommends increasing funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program to $60 million for the existing 23 and new projects. This important program works to restore large forest landscapes, provide jobs that sustain rural economies, reduce the risk of damaging wildfire, improve wildlife habitat and decommission unused, damaging roads. The Conservancy also recommends supporting the 

Landscape Scale Restoration proposal funded at $24 million. 

Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR).—The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee support of the Integrated Resource Restoration pilot and continue to follow its implementation with the outcome expectation of increased restoration. The 

Conservancy believes it is premature to nationalize the IRR pilot, but supports continuation of the pilot for a fourth year. 

USFS Forest Health & Research.—The Forest Health program is a critical resource supporting efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate dangerous pests and 

pathogens affecting trees and forests. Further, this program leads Federal efforts to 

counter forest pests which have become widespread, including gypsy moth, hemlock 

woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, thousand cankers disease, oak wilt, and 

many others. The Conservancy recommends funding the Federal and cooperative 

Forest Health programs at a combined level of $111 million. The Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the scientific basis for policies that improve the 

health and quality of urban and rural communities, by providing protection from 

fire, detecting and managing forest pests and the pathways, improving water and 

air quality, among many other benefits. For Forest & Rangeland Research, the Conservancy requests the fiscal year 2012 level of $304 million. 

Sage Grouse Conservation.—The Conservancy supports the President’s fiscal year 

2015 budget request of $15 million for the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) 

focus on sage grouse conservation. Greater sage-grouse populations have experi-
374 

enced a precipitous decline across the West in recent years due to a number of impacts and a well-aligned comprehensive effort is needed across public and private 

lands to reverse its decline. 

BLM Landscape Approaches to Land Management and Renewable Energy Development.—The Conservancy supports the administration’s recommended fiscal year 

2015 funding for BLM’s initiatives to implement landscape approaches to land management which include Rapid Ecoregional Assessments, Resource Management 

Planning and the Planning 2.0 initiative, Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination 

with LCCs, and the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy. Many 

BLM programs contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including: National 

Landscape Conservation System—($34 million request, $2.1 million increase over 

fiscal year 2014); Resource Management Planning program ($42 million request, $5 

million increase over fiscal year 2014); Wildlife and Fisheries management (65.2 

million request); and Threatened & Endangered species management ($21.6 million 

request). Additionally, the Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM’s renewable energy development program at $29.1 million which includes implementation of the Western Solar Energy Program. Collectively, these efforts will help BLM 

manage its lands efficiently and effectively for energy development, species and 

habitat conservation, recreation, and other uses to maximize the public benefit from 

these lands. 

Environmental Protection Agency.—EPA’s ‘‘geographic’’ programs including the 

Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound and Mississippi River 

programs make a significant contribution to protecting habitat and water quality in 

the large landscapes where they work. The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to 

continue funding for these programs at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level at a minimum. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NAVAJO NATION

APRIL 1, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 
375 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

STANLEY M. POLLACK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Water Rights Unit, Navajo Nation Department of Justice. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW ENGLAND FOREST POLICY GROUP

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we are grateful 

for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of the New England Forest 

Policy Group and the 85 conservation, forestry, and recreation interests listed below. 

We respectfully request an increase in overall funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the Authorized level of $900 million, including $100 million 

for the Forest Legacy Program, $574.883 million for the Federal LWCF, $100.117 

million for the State Grants Program, and $25 million for the Urban Park and 

Recreation Fund in the fiscal year 2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations 

bill. We also respectfully request a minimum of $5 million for the Community Forest 

and Open Space Conservation Program, $34.145 million for the North American 

Wetlands Conservation Act, $58.7 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

Program, $10 million for the Recreational Trails Conservation Assistance Program, 

$31 million for Urban & Community Forestry, $48 million for the Cooperative Forest Health Program, $29 million for Forest Stewardship, and $15 million for Woody 

Biomass Utilization Grants. 

These levels are based upon the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2015 budget 

or level funding from fiscal year 2014, whichever amount is larger. In a few select 

cases they reflect the priority needs of New England to grow an underfunded program—most notably the Community Forest Program—to a level that will begin supporting the demonstrated need. The suite of conservation and forestry programs in 

this testimony has proven to provide great benefits to the communities of New England that depend upon our region’s forests and to the Nation as a whole. Anything 

less than the requested funding will impact the effectiveness of the programs, particularly given that many of these programs have already experienced notable funding declines over the past 5 years. 

The New England Forest Policy Group is an informal collaborative of diverse forestry, recreation, and conservation organizations and businesses united by our efforts to conserve and utilize the forested landscapes that characterize our region. 

New England’s forests are the backbone of our forest products and recreation economies, and provide other services of incalculable value including water and biodiversity protection, climate mitigation, and flood resilience. As the most forested region 

in the country, New England’s economy is strongly dependent on the health and integrity of its forests. Communities across the region depend on our wooded landscapes for their health and well being, as do the 60 million people within a days 

drive. New England’s forests are 85 percent privately owned, mostly in relatively 

small parcels, and landowners are facing profound challenges from rising land 

prices, escalating development pressures, and other threats that have the potential 

to significantly diminish this irreplaceable landscape. 

We strongly believe that programs vital to our region’s future must be sustained, 

including forest conservation and stewardship, recreational planning, and utilization 

of our forests in new and innovative ways. New England has compelling need for 

the programs in front of your subcommittee. 

As the subcommittee crafts its Interior & Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 

there are several key points we respectfully request you to consider: 

1. Overall Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 

million.—Funding at the recommended $900 million is critical for the conservation 

of the natural legacy of New England and the country. All six New England States 

will receive funding for critically important LWCF projects if the requested level of 

$900 million is provided in fiscal year 2015. If this amount is not supported, many 

opportunities will be lost. 

2. New England Needs for Federal Land Acquisition under LWCF.—In fiscal year 

2015, less than half of New England’s proposed projects are found in the highest 

priority ‘‘Discretionary’’ sections, which means that more than half of New England’s fiscal year 2015 LWCF projects are not likely to receive funding unless close 

to full funding is appropriated. 

a. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions—Collaborative Landscape Planning for National Trails at $25 million total ($11.2 million Discretionary & 

$13.8 million Mandatory), including $3.76 million for the Appalachian National 
376 

Scenic Trail in New Hampshire & Vermont and $0.25 million for the New England National Scenic Trail in Massachusetts.—The proposed fiscal year 2015 

LWCF funds are necessary for conserving and expanding two iconic trail corridors in New England—the Appalachian National Scenic Trail and the New 

England National Scenic Trail. New England’s outdoor recreation economy is 

worth approximately $43 billion/year and supports more than 330,000 jobs, according to the Outdoor Industry Association. In addition, our region’s trails provide healthy recreation for the people who live here and necessary urban respite 

for more than 60 million people overall. 

b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LWCF Acquisitions—The Silvio O. Conte 

National Fish and Wildlife Refuge at $5 Million ($2 million Discretionary & $3 

million Mandatory).—Securing protection of these ecologically rich watersheds 

and habitat corridors is a top regional priority. The Conte refuge encompasses 

the Connecticut River watershed—a critical four-State habitat corridor and a 

treasure trove of ecological diversity, recreation, and economic opportunity. 

c. National Park Service LWCF Acquisitions—Acadia National Park at $0.76 

million (Mandatory).—This project will secure an inholding that provides high 

priority access and protection to the paddling gem, Round Pond, on the west 

side of Mount Desert Island. 

3. US Forest Service Programs of Special Importance to New England—USFS 

Forest Legacy and USFS Community Forest Program.—These two programs in the 

Interior Appropriations bill are particularly important to New England given our region’s high percentage of private forestland ownership and the intense development 

pressures on these lands. 

a. USFS Forest Legacy needs full $100 million Appropriation to meet New 

England’s needs.—Forest Legacy has protected more than 1 million acres of 

forestland in New England since its establishment in the 1990 Farm Bill—a remarkable and vital accomplishment. Originally created to help address needs in 

New England and New York, this highly successful program has expanded to 

53 States and territories without expanding the available funding. $100 million 

would provide a solid start toward rebalancing available funds to the number 

of States now in the program and the rising number of applications and pressing conservation need. 

New England has an outstanding group of Forest Legacy Projects in the Proposed fiscal year 2015 budget, including 2 of the top 10 projects nationally and 

4 of the top 20 projects in the national rankings. However, the Program must 

receive the full $100 million requested to ensure that all of New England’s 

projects are retained. New England’s full fiscal year 2015 interests include: 

—$4.56 million in ‘‘Discretionary’’ Forest Legacy funding for Dowsville Headwaters in Vermont; Gulf Hagas Whitecap in Maine; and partial funding for 

Whip-Poor-Will Woods in Connecticut. 

—$11.955 million in less secure ‘‘Mandatory’’ Forest Legacy funding for WhipPoor-Will Woods in Connecticut (project funding is divided between Mandatory and Discretionary lists); Groton Forest Legacy Initiative in Vermont; Big 

Six Forest in Maine; Connecticut to Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts; 

Windham Region Working Forest in Vermont; and Oliverian Valley in New 

Hampshire. 

b. USFS Community Forest Program needs a minimum of $5 million.—The 

Community Forest Program is a 50–50 matching grant program to help local 

governments, tribes, and non-profit organizations expand the region’s proud tradition of locally owned and managed lands, such as town forests. The program 

has drawn strong interest nationally—in its first grant round in fiscal year 

2012, the program drew 49 applications from across the country seeking $14.53 

million. This was far beyond the available funding of $3.5 million, which included funding pooled from fiscal year 2010, 2011, and 2012 appropriations. 

Funding the Community Forest Program at the $5 million level will much better match demand. Although this program is somewhat small on a national 

budgetary scale, it is critical to New England’s community character and economic vitality. 

4. North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) needs administration’s 

full request of $34.145 million.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s premier wetland conservation program for habitat protection and restoration, NAWCA, is vitally 

important for our region. New England’s remarkable marshes and coastal and estuarine habitats support the region’s commercial and sport fisheries and myriad wildlife species. These lands are also important to protecting coastal communities—a 
377 

priority with the memory of events like Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy still 

fresh. This funding is vital to support New England projects that conserve critically 

important wetland areas and improve flood resiliency. 

5. State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) at $58.7 million.—This important U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program provides Federal grant funds for developing and implementing programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats, including species not hunted or fished, and provides core funding for research, habitat restoration, and monitoring under the State Wildlife Action Plans. $58.7 million will 

keep funding level and ensure that States are not forced to make deep cuts into this 

critical work. Keeping species off the Endangered Species list helps landowners and 

is critical to the work of State Fish & Wildlife Agencies and to the 36 species on 

the eastern list. 

6. Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) at $10 million.— 

RTCA partners to protect 700 miles of rivers, create 1,300 miles of trails, and conserve over 60,500 acres of open space annually. RTCA allows the U.S. National Park 

Service (NPS) to support private conservation organizations as well as local and 

State governments, usually in coalition, to foster important recreation, river protection, and land conservation efforts without the permanently adding lands and trails 

to Federal ownership. 

7. Cooperative Forestry Program (including Urban & Community Forestry at $31 

million, Cooperative Forest Health at $48 million, Forest Stewardship at $29 million).—These programs fund landowner services provided by State Foresters and Cooperative Extension Foresters. The proposed funding levels reflect the critical needs 

for the Nation’s private forestlands as recommended by the National Association of 

State Foresters. Levels lower than these will result in curtailing of vital services 

that help family forest landowners sustainably manage and protest their land—of 

real concern in a New England landscape that is predominantly in private family 

ownership. The programs provide key educational services to landowners and communities, and help ensure that our forested landscape remains healthy, resilient, 

and economically viable. 

8. Woody Biomass Utilization Grants Program at $15 million.—This program 

(which now includes the Community Wood Energy Program) will help communities 

use their wood resources for renewable energy. It funds grants to develop community wood-to-energy plans and acquire or upgrade wood-based energy systems. This 

program is ripe to benefit our forest-based communities. 

9. Urban Park and Recreation Fund (UPARR) at $25 million (funded by LWCF’s 

Mandatory Section).—UPARR provides matching grants and technical assistance to 

urban communities. It helps provide Federal assistance for rehabilitation of critically needed recreation facilities and recreation planning. This program is essential 

to support healthy living and vibrant urban communities. 

In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing leadership on Federal 

land conservation matters and for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Signatory organizations represented by this testimony: 

Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust (New 

Hampshire) 

American Rivers 

Androscoggin River Watershed Council 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Aspetuck Land Trust (Connecticut) 

Audubon Connecticut 

Audubon Society of Rhode Island 

Audubon Vermont 

Back Forty Forestry, LLC 

Bear-Paw Regional Greenways (New 

Hampshire) 

Brookfield Open Space Legacy 

(Connecticut) 

Cold Hollow to Canada (Vermont) 

Columbia Land Conservancy (New York) 

Connecticut Fund for the Environment/ 

Save the Sound 

Connecticut Land Conservation Council 

Connecticut River Watershed Council 

Connecticut Forest & Park Association 

Connecticut Ornithological Association 

Conservation Collaboratives, LLC 

The Conservation Fund 

Conservation Law Foundation 

Damariscotta River Association (Maine) 

East Quabbin Land Trust 

(Massachusetts) 

Essex County Greenbelt Association 

(Massachusetts) 

Fairfield County Regional Conservation 

Partnership (Connecticut) 

Forest*Care (Vermont) 

Forest Society of Maine 

Forestland Group, LLC 

Franklin Land Trust (Massachusetts) 

Friends of the Rachel Carson NWR 

(Maine) 
378 

Friends of the Silvio O. Conte NFWR 

(New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Connecticut) 

Friends of Pondicherry (New Hampshire) 

Greater Lovell Land Trust (Maine) 

Green Mountain Club (Vermont) 

Highstead 

Housatonic Valley Association 

(Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 

York) 

Kennebec Estuary Land Trust (Maine) 

Litchfield Hills Greenprint Collaborative 

(Connecticut) 

Lower Connecticut River Valley Council 

of Governments (Connecticut) 

Lyme Timber Company 

Mahoosuc Land Trust (ME) 

Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust 

Maine Coast Heritage Trust 

Mass Audubon 

Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition 

Massachusetts Woodlands Institute 

Meadowsend Timberlands, Ltd (New 

Hampshire) 

Mill River Greenway Initiative 

(Massachusetts) 

Monson Conservation Commission 

(Massachusetts) 

Mount Grace Land Conservation Trust 

(Massachusetts) 

Mt. Agamenticus to the Sea 

Conservation Initiative (ME) 

Natural Resources Council of Maine 

The Nature Conservancy 

New England FLOW 

New England Forestry Foundation 

New England Mountain Bike Association 

New England Wild Flower Society 

New Hampshire Audubon 

New York Biomass Energy Alliance 

North Woods Resource Group, Inc. 

(Vermont) 

Northern Forest Center 

Northern Forest Canoe Trail 

Northern Rhode Island Conservation 

District 

Northland Forest Products, Inc. 

Rangely Lakes Heritage Trust (Maine) 

Open Space Institute 

Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership (Q2C) 

Redding Conservation Commission 

(Connecticut) 

Rensselaer Plateau Alliance (New York) 

RI Woodland Partnership 

Ridegefield Conservation Commission 

(Connecticut) 

Sheepscot Wellspring Land Alliance 

(Maine) 

Shelburne Trails Club (New Hampshire) 

Society for the Protection of New 

Hampshire Forests 

Sudbury Valley Trustees 

(Massachusetts) 

Trust for Public Land 

Trustees of Reservations (Massachusetts) 

Vermont Land Trust 

Vermont Renewable Fuels 

Vermont River Conservancy 

Vermont Woodlands Association 

Whipstock Hill Preservation Society 

(Vermont) 

Wildlands Trust (Massachusetts) 

Wonalancet Preservation Association 

(New Hampshire) 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE

Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony from the Nez Perce Tribe to this subcommittee as it 

evaluates and prioritizes the spending of the United States regarding the Indian 

Health Service (IHS), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in relation 

to the needs of tribal nations for fiscal year 2015. 

As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of work and provides a multitude of services to the tribal membership as well as the community 

at large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic with a satellite office, a tribal police force, a social services department, a comprehensive natural resource program 

that does work in forestry, wildlife management, land services and land management, habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management, water quality and 

sewer service, and one of the largest fisheries departments of any tribe in the Nation working on recovery of listed species under the Endangered Species Act. The 

Nez Perce Tribe conducts its extensive governmental functions and obligations 

through a comprehensive administrative framework, which is necessary for a sovereign nation that oversees and protects the treaty rights of the Nez Perce People 

in addition to providing the day to day governmental services to its members and 

the surrounding communities. The Nez Perce Tribe has long been a proponent of 

self determination for tribes and believes its primary obligation is to protect the 

treaty-reserved rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and its members. All of the work of 

the tribe is guided by this principle. As a result, the tribe works extensively with 

many Federal agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their work with, 

for and through tribes is of vital importance. This work cannot be accomplished unless the United States continues to affirm and follow through on its trust responsibility and properly fund programs. 
379 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates a healthcare clinic on the Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health. The main clinic facility is located in Lapwai, Idaho and 

a satellite facility of the main clinic is located 65 miles away in Kamiah, Idaho. 

Nimiipuu Health provided service to 3,820 patients last year. These 3,820 patients 

represented 47,673 visits which does not include pharmacy and laboratory visits but 

only medical provider visits. Our expenditure total for fiscal year 2013 was 

$13,489,355. Our Purchased/Referred Care costs for outpatient services for fiscal 

year 2013 was $4,320,830. Although the Nez Perce Tribe supports the proposed $200 million increase in 

funding over the fiscal year 2014 levels proposed by the President, it is important 

to note that this increase still lags far behind where funding should be to offset the 

growth in the programs and medical inflation and in reality funding should be higher. Also, the $50 million dollar increase in funding proposed for purchased and referred care is vital, but it too falls well short of the true need in Indian Country 

as is illustrated by the spending needs of just the Nez Perce clinic. Finally, the tribe 

fully supports the $617 million that has been proposed by the President to be allocated for Contract Support Costs. Requesting full funding of these obligations is an 

important and is appreciated. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

The tribe supports the funding levels for contract support costs proposed in the President’s budget of $251 million dollars as well as the increased funding overall 

for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe also supports the Presidential budget request to include a Carcieri fix to address legal issues that have arisen related to 

the transfer of land into trust. This Supreme Court decision has led to dozens of 

court challenges that now brings into question the status of trust land of all tribal 

governments, regardless of when they were federally recognized. This uncertainty 

will only stifle and impede economic development in Indian Country. A legislative 

amendment to restore the sovereign status of these lands to the state they were 

prior to this court decision is needed now. The tribe supports the $12 million dollar commitment in the President’s budget 

to address child and family welfare in Indian Country and job training issues. This 

Tiwahe initiative is important as it recognizes the significant gap in culturally sensitive social service programs and the high unemployment due to lack of adequate 

job training that plagues reservation communities. Continued study and development of solutions to these issues is important to help address the systemic problems 

faced in this area. 

In relation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Safety and Justice budget, the tribe advocates for at least the $351.9 million dollars in funding proposed in the 

President’s budget. The Nez Perce Reservation covers 1200 square miles and covers 

five counties and has a mixture of tribal and non-tribal residents. The tribe provides 

a full service law and justice program, beginning with a fully trained and staffed 

police force, tribal court, prosecutor and related administrative functions. Currently, 

the Nez Perce Tribe contributes over $718,000 per year to cover the shortfall in BIA 

funding for the tribe’s law enforcement, $195,000 for judicial services, $339,000 for 

prosecutorial services, $92,000 for public defender services and $300,000 for prisoner 

boarding. This funding comes from tribal taxes on things such as tobacco levied by 

the tribe and tribal gaming revenues. The funding for these programs needs to be 

increased to account for the shortfalls in funding the tribe has to absorb to continue 

the operation of these vital services on the reservation. 

In relation to education, the tribe requests $42 million for Johnson O’Malley Funding, $5 million for tribal education departments and $88.2 million for tribal colleges such as the Northwest Indian College that operates a satellite campus on the 

Nez Perce Reservation. It should also be noted that scholarship funding provided 

by the BIA has remained static for the past decade while the cost of attending college has risen faster than can be accounted for by simple inflation. The tribe is currently working to set up an educational endowment to supplement the BIA education funds but the BIA funds need to be increased. 

The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for its work related to endangered 

species and protection of the tribe’s treaty resources including Chinook and 

steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to other sensitive species. The BIA Endangered Species 

Program should be restored at $3 million dollars as it provides tribes with the technical and financial assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands but funding of this program has declined significantly over the last 8 years. Also, the BIA 

Natural Resource Tribal Priority Allocations should be increased to $10 million as 
380 

this funding has remained flat for years at just under $5 million. This expenditure 

will help increase tribal land and management capabilities. 

In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection fund is critical 

as it supports the exercise of off-reservation hunting and fishing for tribes like the 

Nez Perce and it should be funded at $49.5 million dollars. The BIA single-line dollars do provide the foundation for core program administration and treaty rights 

protection activities, such as harvest monitoring and conservation enforcement. And 

of course, these efforts are central to the tribe’s fisheries management responsibilities as established in the treaties and further delineated in litigation regarding implementation of hunting and fishing treaty rights. It is important to understand 

that this funding is not for equipment but is used for job creation and this funding 

has stayed static. 

The Nez Perce Tribe utilizes the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund and it 

should be funded at $110 million dollars. The Nez Perce funding received under this 

budget is used to rear 300,000 local stock coho smolts at Dworshak and Kooskia 

hatcheries in the Clearwater River Basin. We also truck an additional 550,000 coho 

smolts from a lower Columbia River hatchery (Eagle Creek Hatchery) up to the 

Clearwater for release. Based on passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag information, 15,000 coho adults from our Clearwater releases crossed Bonneville Dam in 

2011 where they provided a fishery for tribal and non-tribal fisheries on the Columbia River. Over 5,000 swam on to cross Lower Granite Dam where they continued 

to provide a fishery, provide broodstock for the hatchery program and spawners in 

the wild. Continued appropriations for this fund will allow this successful work to 

continue. 

The tribe also supports funding for the BIA Wildlife and Parks Tribal Priority Allocations of $3 million dollars and $6 million dollars as these funds allow for important work to be done on fish recovery through hatchery operation and maintenance. 

As stated earlier, the tribe has invested a large amount of its personnel and resources in the restoration and recovery of this important resource through its fisheries programs. The State of Idaho directly benefits from this work as well through 

its sports fisheries. These programs have been successful but more work needs to 

be done. The Tribal Management and Development Program also needs increased 

funding. The tribe recommends $20 Million for base and programmatic funding. 

This program is critical for fish and wildlife management of the tribe. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, FOREST SERVICE CULTURAL PROTECTION

The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Forest Service. First, the Tribal Wildlife Grants program administered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a cost effective expenditure for the Government. This small pot of money has resulted in huge returns from the tribe’s perspective. Since 2005, we have received four such grants that have allowed us to work 

on such diverse issues as gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, and rare 

plant conservation. Continued funding for the Tribal Wildlife Grant program will 

allow recipient tribes to build capacity and maintain involvement in key conservation issues. It should be noted that this competitive grant does not simply dole out 

funds for projects but awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. As mentioned above, the tribe has received four grants under this program totaling 

$800,000 based on the quality of our research work. Funding for these grants was 

reduced in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013. The tribe strongly urges this committee to increase this funding to $8 million as it provides a large return in work 

for a small investment. It is also one of the few sources of funds tribes can tap into 

for wildlife research. 

The tribe also supports increased funding for the work of the Forest Service in 

the protection of treaty reserved resources of tribes. There should be $31.2 million 

dollars allocated for BIA Tribal Forestry Priority Allocations and $23.3 million for 

BIA forestry projects. The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed 

areas are rich in natural resources and encompass eleven different national forests. 

The tribe works closely with each forest administration to properly manage its resources on behalf of the Tribe. These range from protecting and properly managing 

the products of the forest to managing the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, 

deer, bighorn sheep and wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the Forest 

Service can meet these trust obligations and continue to work with tribes such as 

the Nez Perce on a government-to-government basis. Finally, there should be $15 

million dollars allocated for the Tribal Historic Preservation Office Program and $4 

million dollars for repatriation to help ensure tribal remains and cultural properties 

are protected to the greatest extent possible. 
381 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Air Rules for Reservations program (FARR) and receives 

funding from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants Program and Tribal General 

Assistance Grants. The $31 million dollar increase in the President’s budget for 

these grants is important and is supported by the tribe. The FARR program monitors air quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez Perce Reservation. 

The tribe is located in Region 10 of the EPA and this increase in funding is needed 

for tribes to meet their air quality needs and operate programs under the delegation 

of the EPA. 

In addition to the air quality program, the Nez Perce Tribe is working with other 

Idaho tribes on studying of fish consumption rates which is important in protecting 

the health of tribal members. Funding for this work is important. The tribe is also 

currently in facilitated discussions with the State of Idaho that are being funded 

through grants from the EPA. The facilitated discussions involve the tribe adopting 

water quality standards to improve the water quality on the Nez Perce Reservation. 

The tribe also relies heavily on contract support dollars for our water resource programs such as storage tank remediation and watershed restoration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee. As you 

can see, the Nez Perce Tribe does a tremendous amount of work in a variety of 

areas. It is important that the United States continue to fund this work and uphold 

and honor its trust obligations to tribes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORTHERN WATER—THE NORTHERN COLORADO WATER

CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

APRIL 8, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

ERIC W. WILKINSON, 

General Manager. 
382 

1 United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed Western Washington Tribes’ 

treaty fishing rights. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide testimony on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental 

Protection Agency fiscal year 2015 appropriations. My name is Lorraine Loomis and 

I am the Vice-Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The 

NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes that are party to the United States v. Washington 1 (U.S. v. Washington). I am providing written testimony for the record in 

support of funding to meet the many natural resources management responsibilities 

required of the tribes. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2015 APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

—Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries Management; 

—Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife; 

—Provide $4.844 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty; 

—Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking; 

—Provide $6.582 million for Fish Hatchery Maintenance; 

—Provide $3.35 million for Fish Hatchery Operations; 

—Provide $246.0 million for Contract Support; 

—Provide $9.948 million for Cooperative Landscape Conservation; and 

—Provide $725,000 for Watershed Restoration. 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

—Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program; and 

—Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound. 

In February 2014 the treaty Indian tribes in western Washington celebrated the 

40th anniversary of U.S. v. Washington (Boldt decision). The decision reaffirmed 

tribal treaty-reserved rights to half of the harvestable salmon returning to the State 

and was later expanded to include shellfish and some marine fish species. This landmark ruling is one of the greatest civil rights decisions in the history of the United 

States. Moreover, the ruling established the tribes as co-managers and brought responsible salmon management to Washington by requiring that salmon be managed 

river-by-river and that harvest limits be clearly defined. 

Today, however, we find that the resource has diminished to the point that the 

tribes are catching fewer fish with a 50 percent share then they were at the time 

of the Boldt decision when they were catching less than 5 percent of the harvest. 

The treaty-reserved rights are at grave risk today as the resources they are dependent on are disappearing. Wild salmon and their habitat continue to decline despite 

massive reductions in harvest and a significant investment in habitat restoration. 

For this reason the western Washington treaty tribes brought to the Federal Government our Treaty Rights at Risk (TRAR) initiative asking that the Federal Government meet their obligations to the tribes and their treaties by taking charge of 

salmon recovery. We requested that the Federal Government implement their fiduciary duties by better protecting the tribes’ treaty-reserved resources. The Federal 

Government has a non-discretionary obligation to provide adequate funding to the 

tribes to allow them to protect and preserve these treaty rights. Salmon are critical 

to the tribal cultures, traditions and their economies and by fulfilling these Federal 

obligations by addressing our TRAR—we will recover the salmon populations. 

We are generally pleased with the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request, 

which includes and builds on many of the subcommittee’s actions from the past few 

years. It continues funding for science and technology, including research and analysis for sustainable management of our natural resources and climate adaptation. 

On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I ask you to consider our requests for the BIA 

and the EPA that are further described below. 

JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity 

Tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar treaty-reserved 

rights have collectively identified that no less than $49.5 million for Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary for essential tribal treaty rights management. We continue to support the President’s emphasis to fund science and tech-
383 

nology activities related to climate issues. This will provide our tribes the capability 

to identify, respond and adapt to the impacts of our changing climate. It will also 

support scientific research, monitoring and analysis that are essential to the management of natural resources. It is important that tribes be provided the maximum 

flexibility to develop specific science-based activities to meet their particular needs. 

We support a proportionate allocation of these funds that is consistent with and proposed in the fiscal year 2014 budget. A summary of the four accounts of interest 

to us within RPI are further identified below. 

Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries Management.—We 

respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of $8.854 million over the President’s request of $8.562 million. The increase in fiscal year 2014 restored funding 

back to the fiscal year 2010 level and was very much appreciated. However, we once 

again ask Congress to address the remaining identified needs of the NWIFC and 

our member tribes. Funding for this program allows for continued treaty harvest 

management, population assessment, habitat protection and data gathering for 

finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife and other natural resource management needs. 

Funds provide the necessary capacity for the treaty tribes to co-manage the resources with the State of Washington and to meet court required mandates. 

Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife.—We respectfully request $3.082 million, an increase of $337,000 over the President’s request of $2.745 million. Funding for this program is provided to improve forest practices on State and private lands while providing protection for fish, wildlife and 

water quality. This will provide the necessary funding for tribal TFW programs to 

fully participate in the TFW process. 

Provide $4.844 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.—We respectfully request $4.844 million, an increase of $549,000 over the President’s request of 

$4.295 million. The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) Act of 1985 charges the United 

States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission with the responsibility for implementation of the PST, a bilateral treaty with Canada. Tribes assist in meeting the 

Federal Government’s obligations in implementing the treaty by participating in cooperative research and data gathering activities. This will provide sufficient funding 

to ensure that the tribes can continue to participate effectively in the bi-lateral PST 

process. 

Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.—We respectfully request $2.4 million, an increase of $1.328 million over the President’s request of $1.072 million. 

Funding for this program was mandated in 2003 by Congress that required all 

salmon released from federally funded hatcheries be marked so they could be identified for conservation purposes. This allows tribes to mark salmon at tribal hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically monitor salmon populations and 

watersheds in western Washington. This amount is required to fully implement 

more extensive selective fisheries targeted at these marked fish. 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Subactivity 

Provide $6.582 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Maintenance.—We support the 

President’s request of $6.582 million. Tribal fish hatcheries in western Washington 

are part of the largest fish hatchery system in the world. These hatcheries provide 

fish that significantly contribute to both non-Indian recreational and commercial 

harvest, as well as for tribal fisheries. Funding for this program is provided to tribes 

nationwide based on the ranking of annual maintenance project proposals. Today, 

hatcheries also play a large role in recovering pacific salmon, many of which are 

listed under the Endangered Species Act. A comprehensive needs assessment study 

was conducted in fiscal year 2006 by the BIA at the request of Congress which identified a level of need of over $48.0 million in necessary hatchery maintenance and 

rehabilitation costs. 

Provide $3.35 million for BIA Fish Hatchery Operations.—We respectfully request 

$3.35 million, an increase of $1.575 million over the President’s request of $1.775 

million. This increase reflects the needs of the western Washington treaty tribes. 

Funding for this program is provided to tribal hatcheries to support the rearing and 

releasing of salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and non-Indian fisheries. 

Hatcheries are a necessary part of fisheries management because of the lack of wild 

salmon production due to habitat degradation. They continue to play a vital role in 

supporting tribal fisheries and are now essential for maintaining the treaty right 

to harvest fish. Without hatcheries tribes would have very few fisheries and their 

treaty rights would be rendered meaningless. 

Other Subactivities and Accounts 

Provide $246.0 million for BIA Contract Support.—We support the President’s request of $246.0 million. Funding for this function is provided to tribal organizations 
384 

to ensure they have the capacity to manage Federal programs under self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. These funds are critical as they directly support our governmental functions, which allow us to fully exercise our right 

to self-govern. The amount requested is expected to fully fund the estimated need 

in fiscal year 2015. 

Provide $9.948 million for BIA Cooperative Landscape Conservation.—We support 

the President’s request of $9.948 million. Funding for this program will help provide 

the tribal capacity needed to participate and provide scientific input on climate 

change issues. This will also allow tribes to provide their perspective on climate 

change adaptation in the form of traditional ecological knowledge necessary to protect their treaty rights. 

Provide $725,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.—We respectfully request 

$725,000, an increase of about $475,000 over the fiscal year 2014 operating plan. 

Funding for this program is contained in the Forestry Subactivity—Forestry 

Projects—Watershed Restoration account and supports our Salmon and Steelhead 

Habitat Inventory and Assessment Program. This allows us to continue to provide 

environmental data management, analysis, and reporting support. It also supports 

the on-going efforts to develop information sharing and exchange tools and would 

continue to support our tribes’ ability to adequately participate in watershed resource assessments and salmon recovery work. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program.—We support the 

President’s request of $96.4 million. This funding has built essential tribal capacities and remains critical to the tribes’ ability to sustain their important water quality programs. Funding for this program continues to provide the capacity for tribal 

environmental protection programs nationwide. This allows tribes to address their 

most fundamental needs such as inadequate drinking water and basic sanitation. 

Provide $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound.—We respectfully request $50.0 million, an increase of $25.0 million over the President’s request of $25.0 million. The 

Puget Sound Geographic Program provides essential funding that will help protect, 

restore and enhance Puget Sound, an estuary of national significance. Funding for 

this program will allow the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work, implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues that affect our treaty 

rights. It allows the tribes to participate in implementing the Puget Sound Action 

Agenda and to also implement a wide range of projects aimed at improving the 

health of Puget Sound by 2020. 

CONCLUSION

We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces. We respectfully 

urge you to continue to support our efforts to protect and restore our great natural 

heritage that in turn will provide for thriving communities and economies. Thank 

you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTON SOUND HEALTH CORPORATION

The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the fiscal year 

2015 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows: 

—Appropriate an additional $372,371 to staff and operate the newly opened Norton Sound Regional Hospital; the IHS is not provided the full agreed-upon 

amount. 

—Direct the IHS to fully fund the Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases in accordance 

with section 804 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and allocate an 

additional $8.5 million to VBC leases. 

—Increase funding for injury prevention programs. 

—Shield the IHS from sequestration in fiscal year 2016 and beyond. 

—Place contract support costs on a mandatory funding basis. 

—Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis. 

—Support utilizing Medicare-like rates in the Purchased/Referred Care Program. 

The Norton Sound Health Corporation is the only regional health system serving 

northwestern Alaska. It is on the edge of the Bering Sea, just miles from the Russian border. We are not connected by road with any part of the State and are 500 

air miles from Anchorage—about the distance from Washington, DC, to Portland, 

Maine. Our service area encompasses 44,000 square miles, approximately the size 

of Indiana. We are proud that our system includes a tribally owned regional hospital 

which is operated pursuant to an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assist-
385 

1We serve the communities of: Brevig Mission, Council, Diomede, Elim, Gambell, Golovin, 

King Island, Koyuk, Mary’s Igloo, Nome, St. Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, Solomon, Stebbins, Teller, Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain. 

ance Act (ISDEAA) agreement, and 15 village-based clinics.1 The logistics and costs 

associated with travel and transportation are a daily challenge, to say the least. 

Additional Funding Needed To Staff New Hospital Facility.—NSHC gained beneficial occupancy of its new replacement hospital and ambulatory care center facility 

in Nome in June 2012, the construction of which was funded by the Recovery Act. 

The IHS and NSHC have successfully worked as government-to-government partners to construct and furnish the new facility. However, the IHS is providing us 

nearly $400,000 less for our staffing package in fiscal year 2014 than was agreed 

to. 

The replacement facility is almost three times the size of the former hospital and 

will allow for increased patient visits in the primary and acute care areas, including 

chronic disease prevention and management, and allow us to provide enhanced trauma and emergency services. 

Now that the new facility is open, IHS has only to finish funding the expanded 

staffing needs for operation of the replacement hospital. The IHS has notified us 

that our fiscal year 2014 staffing package funding will be $8,410,000. This is not 

the entire amount agreed to. The IHS is not providing the entire amount of funding 

for the 351 full time equivalents (FTEs) in the signed, validated Resource Requirements Methodology (RRM). Rather, the funding provided is for 348 FTEs, a difference of 3 FTEs or $372,371 annually. That is a significant amount of funding 

over time—$3.7 million in 10 years plus contract support costs. 

Our new hospital is located in a medically underserved area and has one of the 

highest Health Professions Shortage Area scores in the Nation. NSHC has been 

greatly limited in its ability to recruit and hire medical professionals, instead having 

to focus primarily on hiring core operational staff. To fully realize the potential of 

the new replacement hospital, and to ensure that we can safely provide adequate 

and expanded healthcare services to the people in our region, we need the full 

amount agreed to by the IHS. 

Assistance Needed To End Chronic Underfunding Of Village Built Clinics.—The 

NSHC healthcare system includes 15 Village Built Clinics (VBCs). The VBCs are 

essential for maintaining the IHS Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) in 

Alaska, which provides the only local source of healthcare for many Alaska Native 

people in rural areas. The CHAP program is mandated by Congress as the instrument for providing basic health services in remote Alaska Native villages. The 

CHAP program cannot operate without the use of clinic facilities. 

The IHS has for many years consistently under-funded the leases of VBCs even 

though the IHS has had available appropriations to fully fund the leases. Lease 

rental amounts for the VBCs have failed to keep pace with costs—the majority of 

the leases for VBCs have not increased since 1989. The IHS has instead shifted its 

statutory responsibilities onto the villages and NSHC, which does not have adequate 

financial resources to maintain and upgrade the VBCs for CHAP staff. As a result, 

many of the VBCs are unsafe or have had to be closed, leaving some villages in 

Alaska without a local healthcare facility. 

As indicated in our joint testimony with other Alaska healthcare providers to Congress in 2012, NSHC and many other tribal organizations in Alaska have discussed 

this issue with the IHS on several occasions, and have proposed solutions that the 

IHS continues to ignore. IHS continues to assert that it provides for VBC leases all 

of the funds that Congress has appropriated for the program. In our view, the 

amounts historically traceable to the VBC leases are not capped by statute and are 

not the only funds available for that program. The Indian Health Facilities appropriation is a lump sum appropriation that can be used for construction, repair, 

maintenance, improvements and equipment, and includes a sub-activity for maintenance and improvement of IHS facilities. The VBCs are IHS facilities acquired by 

lease in lieu of construction and should thus be eligible for maintenance and improvement funding. The IHS can also access other IHS discretionary funds to fully 

fund its VBC obligations. 

For the fiscal year 2015, we urge that an additional $8.5 million be appropriated 

to more fully fund VBC leases. We also ask that Congress direct the IHS to use existing fiscal year 2014 appropriations to fully fund the VBC leases in accordance 

with § 804 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. 

Injury Prevention.—Injury prevention efforts are particularly important to the 

Norton Sound region; our extreme climate and the dangers of the Bering Sea result 

in an exceptionally high number of injuries, many of them severe. The National 

Center for Health Statistics reports that unintentional injury is the third leading 
386 

cause of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives, preceded by heart disease and cancer. The goal of the NSHC injury prevention program is to reduce unintentional injuries throughout the region. The success of the program truly depends 

on the partnerships formed to share resources and extent our reach. We work to 

provide safety education and resources in the areas of transportation (bike helmet 

safety, pedestrian safety, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) safety, etc.) and home environmental safety (promote the use of smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, gun 

locks, elder fall prevention, etc.). 

A positive development was the move in September 2013 of our Injury Prevention 

Program and Safety shop to our new hospital which has resulted in an increased 

sale and use of safety items—for instance, we sold at the Safety Shop three times 

as many ice cleats this year as the previous year. Within the last 6 months, the 

Safety Shop also sold 4 float coats, 6 snowmobile float coats, 4 snowmobile float 

bibs, 11 ATV helmets, 6 S.O.S. Survival kits and 22 visibility products. The Coast 

Guard donated 300 float coats to the region (the ‘‘Wear It Alaska’’ initiative) which 

has saved lives. 

There is not an injury prevention line item in the IHS budget, although the IHS 

makes multi-year injury prevention grants to a limited number of tribes. We are in 

year 4 of a 5-year injury prevention grant; we took a 5 percent sequestration on our 

$80,000 grant and are not guaranteed fifth year funding. We request that Congress 

increase funding for IHS programs that incorporate injury prevention and direct the 

agency to increase its injury prevention resources for tribes and tribal organizations. 

Protect the IHS From Sequestration.—The Office of Management and Budget determined that the IHS’s appropriation is fully sequestrable, which resulted in a 

$220 million cut in funding to the IHS for fiscal year 2013—roughly 5 percent of 

the IHS’s overall budget. IHS lost funding for programs like hospitals and health 

clinics services, contract health services, dental services, mental health and alcohol 

and substance abuse. Programs and projects necessary for maintenance and improvement of health facilities felt these same impacts. These negative effects were 

then passed down to every ISDEAA contractor, including NSHC. NSHC is already 

significantly underfunded, resulting in further cuts to the availability of health services we were able to provide to our patients, resulting in real consequences for individuals who have to forego needed care. We are grateful that Congress enacted legislation that has averted a sequestration in fiscal year 2014 and likely will do the 

same for fiscal year 2015. But beginning fiscal year 2016 the possibility of a sequestration will hang over IHS appropriations again. 

We fail to understand why the responsibility for healthcare for Alaska Native and 

American Indian people was taken less seriously than the Nation’s promises to provide health to our veterans. The Veterans Health Administration (VA) was made 

fully exempt from the sequester for all programs administered by the VA. Also exempt are State Medicaid grants, and Medicare payments are held harmless except 

for a 2 percent reduction for administration of the program. We thus strongly urge 

the subcommittee to support amendment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

Deficit Control Act to fully exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, just as 

the VA and other health programs are exempt. 

Contract Support Costs.—We thank Congress, and particularly the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee, for making it clear to the IHS and 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) that fully funding contract support costs (CSC) 

is a legal duty and for providing what we expect is full funding for fiscal year 2014. 

The fiscal year 2015 IHS request of $617 million for CSC is also a reasonable estimate of what will be full funding. The next logical step is for Congress to fund the 

CSC funding for the IHS and the BIA funding on a mandatory, rather than a discretionary, basis. 

IHS on an Advance Appropriations Basis.—We support legislation that would 

place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The goal is for the IHS 

and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the amount of 

Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of 

late funding and short-term continuing resolutions. Congress provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is 

for parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS 

advance appropriations has been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Young 

and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. 

Medicare-like Rates.—The administration proposed in its budget justification that 

tribes the IHS, and urban Indian organizations utilizing the Purchased/Referred 

Care program be charged Medicare-like rates for non-hospital services, thus stretching the funding for that program. A Government Accountability Office report in 

2013 concluded that IHS and tribal facilities would save millions of dollars and be 

able to increase care if the Medicare-like rate cap was imposed on non-hospital pro-
387 

viders and supplies through the Purchase/Referred Care program. This revenue-neutral proposal would require legislation and would make a very positive difference 

in the amount of healthcare services that could be provided. We appreciate the $18 

million proposed increase in Purchased/Referred Care budget, but that is but a 

small slice of how much that program needs to be increased. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request that adequate fiscal year 2015 

IHS staffing funding be made available for the NSHC replacement hospital. We are 

very excited about the possibilities this facility brings for improved healthcare for 

the people of northwestern Alaska. We also appreciate the subcommittee’s consideration of our other requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF OPERA AMERICA « The National Opera Center 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, OPERA America 

is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA America, 

its board of directors and its 2,000 organizational and individual members. We 

strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of 

the Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2015. This testimony and the 

funding examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community 

throughout the country. 

Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the diverse needs and 

backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies are being established in 

communities that have never before had access to live performances. OPERA America’s membership includes 129 professional company members representing 41 

States. Over half of these companies were established after 1970 and over 40 percent were established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout North 

America over the last 40 years. 

In the 2011–2012 season, OPERA America members were involved with 45 world 

premieres. Since 1900, 880 new operatic works have been produced by professional 

opera companies in North America. Of that, 414 new operatic works have been produced since 2000. The growth in number and quality of American opera corresponds 

directly to the investment of the NEA’s earlier investment in the New American 

Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater Program. 

Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and exciting ways to 

bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and community centers, frequently 

with new and innovative works that reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they 

serve. Strong partnerships with local schools, too, extend the civic reach of opera 

companies as they introduce children to another multi-media art form and discover 

promising young talent. 

THE NEA IS A GREAT INVESTMENT IN THE ECONOMIC GROWTH OF EVERY COMMUNITY

Despite diminished resources, including a budget that has decreased by over $20 

million since 2010, the NEA awarded more than 2,100 grants in 2013, totaling more 

than $112 million in appropriated funds, and reaching more than 38 million people 

who attended live arts events through NEA-supported programs. These grants help 

nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands of arts organizations and 

artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also preserve and enhance our 

Nation’s diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the Nation’s cultural life results in both new and classic works of art, reaching the residents of all 

50 States and in every congressional district. 

The return of the Federal Government’s small investment in the arts is striking. 

In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA developed an ‘‘Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account’’ which calculated the arts and culture sector’s contributions to the gross domestic product (GDP) at 3.2 percent (or $504 billion) of currentdollar GDP in 2011. Additionally, the nonprofit arts industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supporting 4.13 million full-time equivalent jobs 

in the arts and related industries. 

On average each NEA grant leverages at least $9 from other State, local, and private sources, generating roughly $600 million in matching support. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face of cutbacks in the recent 

years, the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country. 

The return on investments is not only found in dollar matches. The average city 

and county reports that nonprofit arts and culture organizations had 5,215 volun-
388 

teers who donated 201,719 hours. These volunteer hours have a value of approximately $4.5 million—a demonstration that citizens value the arts in their communities. 

NEA GRANTS AT WORK

Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA funding has also made 

the art form more widely available in all States, including isolated rural areas and 

inner cities; indeed, NEA funded projects cross all racial, geographic, and socioeconomic lines. 

NEA grants are awarded to opera organizations through its core programs: Art 

Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/State Partnerships. In 

fiscal year 2013, the NEA awarded 84 grants to the opera field through grants for 

arts projects categories, totaling $2,837,000. 

The following are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on opera programs 

from the NEA’s 2013 Art Works Program: 

ANCHORAGE OPERA COMPANY—$12,500; ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

To support ‘‘Soldier Songs,’’ a chamber opera by composer David T. Little. The 

work explores the plight of soldiers who face the challenge of reintegrating into 

‘‘normal’’ life after having returned home from war. Told from the point of view of 

a single character during various stages of life, the work seeks to blur the tradition 

of linear narrative in opera. Accompanying the production will be several educational activities, including evening dress rehearsals, and teacher study guides that 

link the opera to the subjects of math, science, reading, and language arts. Pre-performance lecture-demonstrations will provide admission-free adult lectures by the 

creative team. 

LYRIC OPERA OF KANSAS CITY—$20,000; KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

To support STAGES summer opera camp for youth. The program will feature 

training in design and technical aspects of performing arts production and will provide students with a significant hands-on experience to help prepare them for potential careers in the performing arts. 

NASHVILLE OPERA ASSOCIATION—$12,500; NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

To support an audio recording of a revised edition of ‘‘Romulus Hunt,’’ a one-act 

opera by composer Carly Simon. Originally commissioned in 1993 by the Metropolitan Opera and the Kennedy Center, the semi-autobiographical dramatic work deals 

with operatic thems of love and betrayal as presented through the tribulations of 

a loving family fractured by divorce. Performances will occur at the Noah Liff Opera 

Center and recording will occur at Ocean Way Studios. 

OPERA PARALLELE—$15,000; SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

To support the American premier of ‘‘Anya 17,’’ a recently commissioned opera by 

composer Adam Gorb and librettist Ben Kaye. The opera portrays human trafficking 

as experienced by the central character, Anya. The plot unfolds through a series of 

short, fast-paced flashbacks that detail how Anya is deceived into traveling abroad 

and sold as a prostitute. 

OPERA THEATRE OF ST. LOUIS—$90,000; ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

To support the commission, development, and premier of ‘‘Shalimar the Clown’’ 

by composer Jack Perla and librettist/playwright Rajiv Joseph. Based on the novel 

by Salman Rushdie, the story takes place in the disputed region of Kashmir and 

focuses on the love story of a young Hindu woman, Boonyi, a dancer, and a Muslim 

man, Shalimar, an acrobat. The story is one of love, revenge, cultural clashes, and 

war. 

More than half of OPERA America’s member companies were established after 

1970 (corresponding to the establishment of the NEA) and over 40 percent were established since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout in the last 40 years. 

In the 2010 and 2011 calendar years, OPERA America’s members were involved 

with 35 world premieres an. 369 new operatic works have been produced in North 

America since 2000. 

Over 6.5 million people attended a live performance at one OPERA America’s 

member companies during the 2011–2012 season, including educational and out-
389 

reach programs and festivals. During this same season, member opera companies 

presented 3,133 mainstage, festival, educational, and other productions—almost 3 

times and many productions as the previous season. The collective expenses of member opera companies totaled $1.16 billion—almost double last year’s expenses. Total 

government support, including city, county, State, and Federal, amounted to $37.5 

million, representing approximately 3.8 percent of total operating income. 

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties and found its budget further decreased by $22 million 

since 2010, leaving its programs seriously underfunded. We urge you to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal 

year 2015. 

On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S CLEAN

WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM

The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about continued reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is requesting that appropriations for 

this program be increased to at least $2 billion in fiscal year 2015. The CWSRF is 

an effective loan program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while 

benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy. OWRC is also 

concerned about various efforts by EPA to increase regulatory authority over water 

resources planning and urges the Senate to take action and prevent further jurisdictional overreach. EPA’s actions to increase its jurisdiction are counterproductive to 

collaborative planning and detract from the positive solutions achieved through the 

CWSRF program. 

OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the protection 

of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water resources statewide. 

OWRC members are local governmental entities, which include irrigation districts, 

water control districts, drainage districts, water improvement districts, and other 

agricultural water suppliers that deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated 

land in Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems, 

including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production. 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 APPROPRIATIONS

We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times and that we must 

make strategic investments with scarce resources. The CWSRF is a perfect example 

of the type of program that should have funding increased because it creates jobs 

while benefitting the environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. Oregon is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded 

projects provide much needed construction and professional services jobs. Moreover, 

as a loan program, it is a wise investment that allows local communities to leverage 

their limited resources and address critical infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet. 

Nationally, there are large and growing critical water infrastructure needs. In 

EPA’s most recent needs surveys, The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report 

to Congress and Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 

Fourth Report to Congress, the estimated funding need for drinking water infrastructure totaled $335 billion (in 2007 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs 

totaled $298 billion (in 2008 dollars). Appropriations for water infrastructure, specifically CWSRF, should not be declining but remaining strong in order to meet 

these critical needs. 

In 2012 appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately $2.384 billion 

and declined to $1.448 billion in fiscal year 2014. The President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget proposes only $1.018 billion for the CWRSF program; a $430 million reduction from fiscal year 2014 enacted levels. We are concerned as we see this negative 

downward trend continuing. 

OWRC is supportive of the President’s Climate Action Plan and related efforts to 

support actions that help address, mitigate, and adapt to severe weather events, like 

drought, that are related to climate change. We are, however; concerned about 

where the $2 million would come from and do not want any ‘‘realigning’’ to result 

in reduced funding for other important water infrastructure programs like CWSRF. 

There has not been an increase in funding for CWSRF since 2009; meanwhile, both 
390 

infrastructure needs and the costs to address those needs continue to grow each 

year. Continued funding reductions has led to delaying repairs or upgrades which 

in turn increase the potential for catastrophic failure and is counterproductive to the 

administration’s desire to encourage asset management and sustainable water infrastructure. To the extent practicable, funding for climate change should be incorporated into existing programs with proven successes like the CWSRF. 

We also continue to be highly supportive of the administration’s desire to expand 

‘‘green infrastructure’’ and are appreciative of the 20 percent green infrastructure 

target for fiscal year 2015. In fact, irrigation districts and other water suppliers in 

Oregon are on the forefront of ‘‘green infrastructure’’ through innovative piping 

projects that provide multiple environmental benefits, which is discussed in greater 

detail below. However, continually reducing the amount of funds available for these 

worthwhile projects is counterproductive to the administration’s desire and has created increased uncertainty for potential borrowers about whether adequate funding 

will be available in future years. CWSRF is often an integral part of an overall 

package of State, Federal and local funding that necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan funds will be available for planned water infrastructure projects. 

Reductions in the CWSRF could lead to loss of grant funding and delay or derail 

beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been developing for years. 

Additionally, OWRC is pleased to see that EPA will continue ‘‘strategic partnerships’’ with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and other 

Federal agencies to improve water quality and address nonpoint source pollution. 

Oregon had four priority watersheds eligible for funding through the National 

Water Quality Initiative in 2013 and anticipates that additional watersheds will be 

included in the future. As Oregon is a delegated State, OWRC also feels strongly 

that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is best situated to develop and implement activities to improve these and other impaired waterways in 

the State. DEQ and its administration of the CWSRF has been an extremely valuable tool in Oregon for improving water quality and efficiently addressing infrastructure challenges that are otherwise cost-prohibitive. 

CWSRF LOCAL SUCCESS AND NEEDS

Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the CWSRF 

over the last several years and many more will apply if funds are available. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need to pipe currently open canals, 

thereby improving water quality by eliminating run-off into the canals and increasing water availability for fish and irrigators by reducing water loss from the delivery 

system. Four irrigation districts received over $11 million funding in Oregon from 

the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding through the 

CWSRF for projects which created valuable jobs while improving water quality. 

These four projects were essential to DEQ not only meeting but exceeding the minimum requirement that 20 percent of the total ARRA funding for the CWSRF be 

used for ‘‘green’’ projects. Those districts’ applications had been on DEQ’s list of eligible projects for many years and would probably still be on that list had the ARRA 

funding not been made available. We provide that comment not to complain, but to 

emphasize the need for additional funding for this program. 

What is being proposed for fiscal year 2015 is far short of what is needed to address critical water infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. This will 

lead to fewer water infrastructure projects, and therefore a reduction in improvements to water quality. The DEQ’s most recent ‘‘Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #1—State fiscal year 2014,’’ lists 18 projects in need of a total of $45,265,547 

in Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization grant funding that has been historically 

available to DEQ has not yet been awarded for fiscal year 2014; however, based on 

previous years it is doubtful that the fiscal year 2014 funding will be adequate to 

address and complete these much needed projects. Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of availability of funds, no irrigation districts submitted applications 

for funding in 2014, but we are hopeful that with an increase in money available, 

more of our member districts will apply for funding to complete projects that will 

not only benefit the environment and the patrons served by the water delivery system, but also benefit the economy. 

THE IMPORTANCE AND SUCCESS OF LOCAL WATERSHED PLANNING

Oregon’s success in watershed planning illustrates that planning efforts work best 

when diverse interests develop and implement plans at the local watershed level 

with support from State government. Oregon has recently revised their CWSRF 

rules; thus making conservation easier and its benefits to be better achieved in the 

State. That is why OWRC is very concerned about EPA’s recent efforts to revise 
391 

Clean Water Act Guidance without appropriate public process or legislative oversight. The proposed changes would greatly broaden EPA authority and illustrates 

an apparent desire to dictate watershed planning methods for the Nation using a 

top-down regulatory approach from a desk in Washington DC. This regulatory overreach will lead to uncertainty for landowners and water users, increased litigation 

and destroy collaborative efforts (including CWSRF projects) already underway in 

Oregon and across the Nation. 

As the national model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need a new Federal agency or Executive Branch office to oversee conservation and restoration efforts. Planning activities are conducted through local watershed councils, volunteerdriven organizations that work with local, State and Federal agencies, economic and 

environmental interests, agricultural, industrial and municipal water users, local 

landowners, tribes, and other members of the community. There are over 60 individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply engaged in watershed 

planning and restoration activities. Watershed planning in Oregon formally began 

in 1995 with the development of the Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide strategy developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish species. This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board that funds 

and promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ‘‘help create and maintain 

healthy watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and 

strong economies’’ in 1999. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon’s DEQ to 

make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and improve water quality 

but also help incentivize innovative water management solutions that benefit local 

communities, agricultural economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach 

creates and promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water resources challenges. Conversely, regulatory overreach destroys cooperation, creates 

mistrust and has a very negative effect on jobs and local economies. We respectfully 

request the appropriation of at least $2 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund for fiscal year 2015. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OUTDOOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

MAY 22, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: On behalf of the Outdoor Industry Association, and our more than 1,300 member companies, I write to urge you to support 

adequate and sustainable funding for the recreation and preservation programs of 

the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency. This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and the Wilderness Act and are approaching the National Park 

Service Centennial in 2016. Now, more than ever, is the time to prepare our public 

lands and waters for the next century by investing in these very places that provide 

clean air and water, American jobs, attract international tourists, unite communities and make America a healthier, more prosperous place to raise a family and 

start a business. 

The strength of our national economy is directly linked to the treasures that are 

our parks, forests, waterways, wildlife refuges, recreational trails and similar recreation assets. These public lands and waters are deeply popular with American families nationwide. Moreover, they represent a foundational infrastructure for recreation, just as important as highways are to the transportation industry or fiber optic 

lines are to the telecommunications industry. Diverse, accessible, and affordable 

places for every American to get outdoors and enjoy healthy lifestyles are crucial 

to the health and well being of the American people and our economy. 

Rather than compounding our deficit problems, our national outdoor recreation 

system produces exceptional economic value and jobs in communities across the 

country. Our public lands and waters drive a recreational economy that spawns 
392 

$646 billion in direct consumer spending, supports more than 6 million sustainable 

American jobs, and generates more than $80 billion in Federal, State and local tax 

revenue. At the local level, resources invested in recreational trail infrastructure, 

river access and other open spaces have an impressive and sustainable return for 

local economies, especially those in rural areas. For every $1 spent on the national 

parks, local communities see a $10 return. We saw the reverse of this investment 

during last year’s Government shutdown, when gateway communities lost upwards 

of $76 million each day as nearby public lands were closed. 

More than ever Americans are prioritizing the outdoors, with half of our population, 140 million people, recreating outside each year. Americans spend more on 

outdoor recreation than on pharmaceuticals, gasoline and motor vehicles and in 

2013 outdoor product sales were up 10.3 percent. In fact, outdoor product sales grew 

more than 7 percent in both 2011 and 2012 while other industries were suffering 

from the recession. We need Congress to support the growing outdoor economy and 

the people and communities who rely on it. 

In real terms, Federal spending on natural resources and recreation programs has 

declined over the last 20 years. This program area comprised less than 1 percent 

of the total Federal budget for fiscal year 2013. Natural resources, recreation, bicycling, and community development programs are, at best, paltry contributors to the 

Federal deficit yet they have been disproportionately targeted for cuts in the past. 

We believe this should be avoided as Congress begins consideration of the fiscal year 

2015 Federal appropriations. These programs need to be recognized as shining examples of economic growth engines and the type of sound investment that the Federal Government should pursue. 

To do this we ask Congress to fulfill the promise and obligation of the LWCF fund 

and to recognize the importance and value of the investments in the natural resources, recreation, conservation, and preservation programs found in the budgets 

for the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the EPA. We urge Congress to prepare the National Parks System for its second century by funding backlogged maintenance and considering opportunities for public/private partnerships, 

and to fund any amount above 70 percent of the anticipated cost of wildfire suppression from an emergency fund outside of the land management agencies’ budgets. 

Please provide adequate funding for the our Nation’s public lands and waters as 

outlined below: 

—Department of the Interior—$11.9 billion 

—National Park Service Centennial 

—$40 million increase—fiscal year 2015 appropriations 

—$400 million in permanent funding each year for the next 3 years, —$100 million—Centennial Challenge 

—$200 million—National Park Service facilities improvements 

—$100 million—Centennial Land Management Investment Fund 

—Land and Water Conservation Fund (Total)—$900 million 

—Agriculture—National Forest System (USFS)—$5.4 billion 

—EPA—Protecting America’s Waters—$3.4 billion 

Investments in green spaces and outdoor recreation infrastructure create healthy 

and productive communities that offer lasting, good jobs and draw businesses and 

entrepreneurs. There is no doubt that people use green spaces when they’re available, well maintained and close at hand. A growing body of evidence demonstrates 

that access to parks, trails, and other places to play has significant economic and 

health benefits. 

Outdoor recreation and the outdoor industry are a core economic sector in America, driven by innovation and technology. Sustainable, American jobs exist across 

the value chain—suppliers, manufacturers, retailers, sales representatives. Moreover, outdoor recreation is an industry that America dominates worldwide. The 

world looks to America as the leader in the protection of our public lands and waters and looks to American brands for innovative outdoor products, gear, apparel 

and footwear. 

A healthy and diverse outdoor recreation economy promotes economic activity and 

jobs in every community—large & small, urban & rural—across America. Outdoor 

recreation and the places that Americans get outside— parks, trails, rivers and open 

space—are critical economic drivers and essential to a high quality of life. Cutting 

funding that supports those quality places directly and adversely impacts not just 

the outdoor industry, but a diversity of other industries and myriad associated businesses that chose their location, in large part, on accessible, healthy public lands 

and watersheds and outdoor spaces to be enjoyed by their workforce. Conversely, investing in these quality lands and waters promises significant economic growth for 

both the outdoor industry and the many associated businesses that choose to locate 
393 

near public lands and outdoor spaces in order to improve the quality of life experience for their employees. 

Please promote a strong economy and happy, healthy families and communities 

by investing in our Nation’s parks, trails, rivers and open spaces. 

Respectfully, 

KIRK BAILEY, 

Vice President—Government Affairs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OUTDOORS ALLIANCE FOR KIDS

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee: 

We, the undersigned members of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids (OAK), thank you 

for your past support of programs to connect children and youth with the outdoors, 

and we urge you to sustain funding for fiscal year 2015 programs at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Forest Service 

that increase engagement in the outdoors through outdoor education, community 

health and wellness, and environmental stewardship programs that engage children, youth and young veterans in the outdoors. We also urge you to maintain sufficient funding for agencies to adequately manage our public lands and waters. 

OAK is a national strategic partnership of businesses and organizations representing more than 30 million individuals from diverse sectors of the economy with 

the common interest in expanding the number and quality of opportunities for children, youth, and families to connect with the outdoors. OAK supports public policies 

and investments that expand outdoor education opportunities, promote community 

health and wellness, and engage more youth in environmental stewardship. A list 

of OAK’s organizational members can be found here. 

We understand that we are in difficult fiscal times, but balancing the budget at 

the expense of programs and initiatives that ensure children and youth have opportunities to learn, get physically active, and increase their volunteerism in the outdoors will be a detriment to our great Nation. Environmental education provides 

critical tools for a 21st century workforce by giving students the skills to understand 

complex environmental systems and issues, and prepares students to compete globally and address environmental challenges and opportunities that impact our economy, health, and national security. Community health and wellness are critical investments for the local economy as well. The prevention of chronic diseases can save 

lives, as well as promote the physical and mental wellbeing of all Americans. Environmental stewardship can provide opportunities for young people to not only spend 

more time outdoors, but also to obtain basic job skills as the youth unemployment 

rates skyrocket. In addition to contributing to our Nation’s robust outdoor recreation 

economy, youth volunteer and work programs help address a backlog of maintenance needs piling up on our public lands, address record youth unemployment, and 

prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural resource employees. 

These areas are vital to the success of the U.S. in the global economy, and to our 

ability to create a 21st century workforce that is healthy, skilled, and prepared to 

be the next generation of leaders. The outdoor industry alone provides 6.1 million 

jobs and $646 billion in direct consumer spending each year. Outdoor recreation, 

such as that enjoyed in national, State, and local parks, provides millions of America’s children, youth, and families with an opportunity to hike, bike, swim, paddle 

or simply commune with nature. The outdoor recreation economy generates $39.9 

billion in Federal revenue and another $39.7 billion in State and local revenue annually. 

OAK supports funding and initiatives to increase outdoor education, promote community health and wellness and provide young people with jobs, training, and service and volunteer opportunities that connect them to the outdoors and recreation. 

We urge the subcommittee to restore funding to allow land management agencies 

to adequately manage our public lands and waters and to provide robust funding 

for the following programs that get youth outdoors: 

—Department of the Interior.—OAK supports the Department of the Interior’s goal 

of providing 40,000 work and training opportunities over fiscal years 2014 and 

2015. To this end, we urge you to support the administration’s budget request 

of $50.6 million for youth programs in the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Reclamation. A key component of the Department’s efforts will be partnering with youth organizations through the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps (21CSC). The opportunities provided by 21CSC 

will encourage youth to assume responsibility for the stewardship and preserva-
394 

tion of America’s great outdoors, teach them basic job skills at a time when 

youth unemployment is near record levels and young people are missing out on 

critical early job experiences, and improve public health by helping young people develop and maintain active lifestyles. In addition, we urge you to fund the 

National Park Service Centennial Challenge, to support thousands of veterans, 

youth, and others to work to upgrade the National Park System for its 100th 

anniversary in 2016. 

We also urge you to sustain funding for the operational accounts of the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, all of which could fund partnerships with Conservation Corps. 

—Environmental Protection Agency.—OAK urges the subcommittee to sustain 

funding for the National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) programs at the 

Environmental Protection Agency at the recent level of $9.7 million. This program implements highly successful, nationwide environmental education programs. These programs support life-long environmental education and stewardship through several highly-leveraged, but under-resourced programs, including 

the National Environmental Education Training Program to provide professional development for teachers, the National Environmental Education Foundation to leverage public/private partnerships, and an environmental education 

grant program to support local environmental education providers. 

We thank you in advance for your support for these critical programs and look 

forward to working with you and your staff in the coming year. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following 39 members of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids: 

Alliance for Childhood 

American Canoe Association 

American Hiking Society 

American Society of Landscape 

Architects 

American Youthworks 

Appalachian Mountain Club 

Association of Outdoor Recreation and 

Education 

Children & Nature Network 

Choose Outdoors 

Conservation Legacy 

GirlTrek 

Hudson River Sloop Clearwater 

International Mountain Bicycling 

Association 

IslandWood 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Kids4Trees 

National Interscholastic Cycling 

Association 

National Military Family Association 

National Outdoor Leadership School 

National Park Trust 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Recreation and Park 

Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

NatureBridge 

North American Association for 

Environmental Education 

O’Neill Sea Odyssey 

Outdoor Afro 

Outdoor Outreach 

Outdoors Empowered Network 

Public Lands Service Coalition 

Sierra Club 

The Corps Network 

The Outdoor Foundation 

The Wilderness Society 

Trout Unlimited 

Trust for Public Land 

Wilderness Inquiry 

Winter Wildlands Alliance 

YMCA of the USA 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am McCoy Oatman 

the Alternate Tribal Commissioner for U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual budget for implementation of the 

treaty. The integrated budget details program needs and costs for tribal, Federal, 

and State agencies involved in the treaty. The tribal participation in the Pacific 

Salmon Treaty process is funded in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget. 

In order meet the increased obligations under the 2009–2018 Pacific Salmon 

Treaty Agreement the 25 affected tribes identified costs at $4,800,000 for tribal 

research projects and participation in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty 

process, an increase of $520,000 over fiscal year 2014 enacted level. The funding 

for tribal participation in the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty is a line item in the 
395 

BIA’s budget under the Rights Protection Implementation, Wildlife and Parks, 

Other Recurring Programs Area. 

Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section identified needs 

as follows: 

USFWS participation in the treaty process is identified at a base level of 

$417,000. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Regional Mark 

Center receives support from the USFWS to provide data services to the PSC 

process. Those costs are identified at $315,000. This funding level represents an 

increase of $75,000 over fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for the Mark Center to 

make up for losses from other programs and allow the Mark Center to maintain 

the same level of service to the U.S. Section. 

This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program recommendations are integrated with those of 

the State and Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the 

most efficient expenditure of scarce funds. 

A copy of the integrated U.S. Section Budget Justification will be made available 

to the subcommittee. The budget summary justifies the support needed to carry out 

necessary functions in implementing the treaty. Funding to support activities under 

the Pacific Salmon Commission comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and 

Commerce. Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S. 

to meet its treaty obligations. All of the funds are needed for critical data collection 

and research activities directly related to the implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving Federal, State, and tribal fishery agencies and the Department of Fisheries in Canada. The commitment of the United States is matched 

by the commitment of the Government of Canada. 

The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission is recommending an adjustment to support the work carried out by the 24 treaty tribes’ that participate in the 

implementation of the treaty. Programs carried out by the tribes are closely coordinated with those of the States and Federal agencies. Tribal programs are essential 

for the United States to meet its international obligations. Tribal programs have 

taken on additional management responsibilities due to funding issues with State 

agencies. All participating agencies need to be adequately supported to achieve a 

comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the Treaty. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are necessary so the U.S. can maintain the critical database to implement the treaty. The work of the Regional Mark 

Processing Center includes maintaining and updating a coastwide computerized information management system for salmon harvest and catch effort data as required 

by the treaty. This work has become even more important to monitor the success 

of management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon populations. Canada has a counterpart database. The database will continue to be housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific Salmon 

Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve salmon stocks, 

provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control salmon interceptions. 

After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific Salmon Commission continues to 

be essential for the wise management of salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, 

and Alaska. For example, upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford 

Reach of the Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian 

waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from Canada’s Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound. Canadian trollers off 

of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch Washington coastal Coho salmon and 

Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In the Northern Boundary area between Canada and 

Alaska, fish from both countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon populations. In 2008, the U.S. and Canada successfully concluded lengthy negotiations to improve this management, including the adjustments to the coastwide 

abundance-based management regime for Chinook salmon and a framework for 

abundance based management for southern Coho populations. The agreement is intended to last through 2018. The U.S. and Canada completed a revised Fraser River 

sockeye and pink chapter in 2013. 

Before the treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country, to the detriment of the resource. At the time the treaty was signed, Chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state as a result of overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental deg-
396 

radation in the spawning rivers. Under the treaty, both countries committed to rebuild the depressed runs of Chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal in 

1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the States, tribes, and other 

stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The 2008 Chinook agreement continues 

these commitments. The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success 

in rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations. 

Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of the commercial 

harvest of salmon subject to the treaty, managed at productive levels under the 

treaty, supports the infrastructure of many coastal and inland communities. The 

value of the recreational fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local 

economies throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value 

of these fish to the 24 treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious lives of Indian people. A 

significant monetary investment is focused on salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act. Given the 

resources, we can continue to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks, 

especially if we are allowed to work towards the true intent of the treaty: mutually 

beneficial enhancement of the shared resource. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for consideration 

by your subcommittee. I want to thank the Committee for the support that it has 

given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel free to contact me, or other members 

of the U.S. Section to answer any questions you or subcommittee members may 

have regarding the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past 20 years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic 

and historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We also appreciate 

your increased allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed 

by the Forest Service and for the trails in the Bureau of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. To continue the progress that you have fostered, the Partnership requests that you provide annual operations funding for each 

of the 30 national scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2015 through these appropriations: 

—National Park Service.—$16.21 million for administration of 23 trails and for 

coordination of the long-distance trails program by the Washington office. Construction.—$380,000 for the Ice Age Trail, $240,000 for the Appalachian Trail, 

and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail. 

—USDA Forest Service.—$7.896 million to administer 6 trails and $1.2 million to 

manage parts of 16 trails administered by the National Park Service (NPS) or 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). $1 million for Iditarod Trail construction. 

—Bureau of Land Management.—$1.53 million to administer three trails and for 

coordination of the National Trails program and $7.14 million to portions of 13 

trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest Service and for operating 

five National Historic Trail interpretive centers. Construction.—$300,000 for the 

Pacific Crest Trail. 

—We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct one-third ($1,500,000) for national scenic and historic trails or create a separate $1.5 million National Trails 

System Challenge Cost Share Program. 

—We ask that you add $500,000 to the Bureau of Land Management’s Challenge 

Cost Share Program and allocate it for the national scenic and historic trails 

it administers or manages. 

We ask that you appropriate $57,695,000 from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund for the acquisition of 53 tracts along seven national scenic and eight national 

historic trails described in the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape 

Planning proposal and allocate this funding to the: 

—Bureau of Land Management: $15,246,000 million; 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,829,000 million; 

—U.S. Forest Service: $15,271,000 million; and 
397 

—National Park Service: $25,002,600 million. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The $16.21 million we request for Park Service operations includes increases for 

some of the trails to continue the progress and new initiatives made possible by the 

additional funding Congress provided several years ago. Funding for the new Star 

Spangled Banner and Washington-Rochambeau Trails and $400,000 for the Park 

Service to implement planning for the New England Trail is included. 

We request an increase of $626,000 to expand Park Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to develop geographic information system (GIS) mapping, and to fund public educational outreach 

programs of the Santa Fe Trail Association. An increase of $780,000 for the Trail 

of Tears will enable the Park Service to work with the Trail of Tears Association 

to develop a GIS to map the trail’s historical and cultural heritage sites to protect 

them and to develop interpretation of them for visitors. We request an increase of 

$346,000 to $866,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail to enable the Park Service to work 

with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, and other community 

organizations to care for resources on the land and with the University of Hawaii 

to conduct archaeological and cultural landscape studies along this trail. 

We request an increase of $193,000 to $1,708,000 for the Appalachian Trail to expand the highly successful ‘‘Trail to Every Classroom’’ program of the Appalachian 

Trail Conservancy. The $1,483,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country 

Trail will enable the Park Service to provide greater support for the regional GIS 

mapping, trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers led by the 

North Country Trail Association. The $1,389,000 we request for the Ice Age Trail 

includes a $535,000 increase to build partner and citizen capacity for protecting the 

natural and cultural resources on the Trail and Ice Age Trail lands and to provide 

NPS with a property manager for NPS-owned lands. 

Construction.—We request that you appropriate $380,000 for the Ice Age Trail, 

$240,000 for the Appalachian Trail, and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail for trail 

construction projects. 

Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and efficient ways 

for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of projects for public benefit while 

also sustaining partnerships involving countless private citizens in doing public 

service work. We request that you robustly fund the Park Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge Cost Share programs and appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal 

year 2015 as a wise investment of public money that will generate public benefits 

many times greater than its sum. We ask you to continue to direct one-third of the 

$4.5 million for the national scenic and historic trails to continue the steady 

progress toward making these trails fully available for public enjoyment. We suggest, as an alternative to this approach, that you create a separate National Trails 

System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million funding. 

USDA—FOREST SERVICE

We ask you to appropriate $7.896 million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Arizona, Continental Divide, Florida, Pacific Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail within the 

over-all appropriation for Capital Improvements and Maintenance for Trails. Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility the Forest Service has for 1024 

miles of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the North Country Trail, 

and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Caminos Real de Tierra Adentro and de Tejas, 

Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you 

to appropriate $1.2 million specifically for these trails. 

The Partnership’s request of $7.896 million includes $1.5 million to enable the 

Forest Service and Florida Trail Association to continue trail maintenance, to control invasive species, do ecosystem restoration, and otherwise manage 4,625 acres 

of new Florida Trail land. The $7.896 million request also includes $2 million for 

the Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1 million for 

the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for the Nez Perce Trail, and $570,000 for the 

Arizona Trail. Some of the additional funds requested will enable the Forest Service 

to develop Comprehensive Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $1 million of additional funding for construction of sections of the Iditarod 

Trail. 
398 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the National 

Landscape Conservation System and protect its resources, we request that you appropriate $68.809 million in base funding for the System. We ask that you appropriate as new permanent base funding $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination, $700,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de 

Tierra Adentro Trail, $350,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for the Bureau of Land Management to manage 4,645 miles of 13 other national scenic and 

historic trails. For trail maintenance we request $300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail 

and $50,000 for the Nez Perce Trail; and request $3,140,000 to operate five historic 

trails interpretive centers. We ask you to provide $5 million for the Bureau’s Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program and to direct $500,000 for National Trails System projects as you have 

done with the Park Service’s CCS program. 

To promote greater management transparency and accountability for the National 

Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal 

year 2014 and to direct the Bureau to include unit-level allocations within major 

sub-activities for each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild and scenic rivers— 

as the Bureau has done for the national monuments, wilderness, and conservation 

areas—within a new activity account for the National Landscape Conservation System in fiscal year 2015. The Bureau’s lack of a unified budget account for National 

Trails prevents the agency from efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and 

taking advantage of cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and volunteer contributions for every activity related to these national resources. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Partnership strongly supports the President’s Budget proposal to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized $900 million, with $350 

million from discretionary sources and $550 million in mandatory funds for the component programs funded under LWCF. Within this amount we request that you appropriate $57,695,000 for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal to acquire 53 tracts along 15 national scenic and historic trails detailed here: 

Bureau of Land Management: $15,246,000 million—7 tracts—15,859 acres 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Montana).—$11,704,000 for trail, landscape, habitat and recreation protection along the Upper Missouri River frontage, 

including key campsites from Lewis and Clark’s historic expedition and breathtaking views along Missouri River. 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Idaho).—$3,000,000 for trail and resource conservation at one of the last remaining working ranches at Henry’s Lake. 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon, California).—$542,000 for trail and 

resource protection within the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,829,000 million—14 tracts—4,634 acres 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia).—$2,000,000 

to protect the trail’s historical resources in an area that would encourage public 

recreation and interpretation. 

Iditarod National Historic Trail (Alaska).—$90,000 for protection of 120 acres 

within the Innoko Wilderness Area in the Innoko National Wildlife Refuge and 1.6 

miles of the Iditarod Trail. 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Washington).—$270,000 to allow 13 listed salmon and steelhead stocks to reverse their downward population trend in the 

Columbia watershed. 

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (Tennessee).—$2,969,000 for seven tracts 

along the Mississippi river that will protect migration corridors within the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges. 

California National Historic Trail (Idaho).—$2,500,000 to protect the largest 

breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes as well as providing a haven for other 

waterfowl from a current farming threat. 

U.S. Forest Service: $15,271,000 million—10 tracts—7,701 acres 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (North Carolina).—$3,906,500 to protect high 

priority, high elevation viewshed along the Appalachian Trail that connects with 
399 

North Carolina land purchased to the south to provide an extensive natural heritage 

area. Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana).—$255,000 to achieve uninterrupted trail corridor enabling animal migration and human recreation. 

Trail of Tears National Historic Trail (Tennessee).—$585,000 to preserve one of 

the few remaining segments of Trail of Tears in its original condition along the 

Unicoi Turnpike. 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail (New Mexico).—$2,570,000 to finalize the 

protection of a 5-mile-long segment of the Old Spanish Trail as it enters Carson National Forest. 

Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (Washington).—$2,800,000 to conserve 

grizzly bear and Canadian lynx habitat while filling in a 2.5 mile gap of the Pacific 

Northwest Trail along Big Sheep Creek. 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Montana).—$1,050,000 to complete the consolidation of lands on Bloody Dick and Selway Creeks in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Washington).—$4,104,000 for trail, 

resource, and watershed protection near the headwaters of the Trinity River and 

through populous King County to increase public recreation. 

National Park Service Budget Request $25,002,600 million—22 tracts—5,349 acres 

Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii).—$3,900,000 for trail and resource 

conservation in the Great Crack. 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (New Hampshire).—$4,260,000 to extinguish 

the threat of imminent development and to create a block of 2,000 acres of conservation land that protects an Appalachian Trail viewshed. 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Colorado).—$308,000 to remove motorized use of 0.5 miles of the Continental Divide Trail and to restore 1 acre of habitat 

currently occupied by an access road and buildings in the scenic Rocky Mountain 

National Park. 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin).—$3,700,000 to provide an urban access 

point to the Ice Age Trail in the city of St. Croix, and to enhance the geologic diversity of the trail by completing a continuous 4-mile segment through Wisconsin’s 

Driftless Area. 

New England National Scenic Trail (Massachusetts).—$120,000 to significantly 

improve hiker safety and scenic viewshed by keeping hikers off 2.5 miles of busy 

road, and to contribute to the protection of a contiguous open space corridor extending from Erving State Forest to the east and Rattlesnake Mountain and Northfield 

Mountain and Mount Grace to the west. 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia).—$6,000,000 

to permanently protect and open for public education and archaeological research 

a nationally significant American Indian site. 

North Country National Scenic Trail (Michigan).—$1,061,300 to protect a corridor 

along Tyler Creek that connects existing protected land and gets four miles of the 

North Country Trail off dangerous roads. 

PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public agencies have 

been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the Trails System and the trail communities 

that sustain it by combining the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private 

financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater than equal match 

of funds. 

The private trail organizations’ commitment to the success of these trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress’ support for the trails has grown. In 

2013 the trail organizations fostered 1,144,407 hours of documented volunteer labor 

valued at $25,337,171 to help sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private sector contributions of $11,151,247 for the trails. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PERFORMING ARTS ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we thank you for 

the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Performing Arts Alliance 

(PAA). We urge the subcommittee to designate a budget of $155 million to the NEA 

for fiscal year 2015. PAA member organizations include: 
400 

Alternate ROOTS 

American Composers Forum 

Association of Performing Arts 

Presenters 

Chamber Music America 

Chorus America 

Dance/USA 

Fractured Atlas 

League of American Orchestras 

National Alliance for Musical Theatre 

National Association of Latino Arts and 

Cultures 

National Performance Network 

Network of Ensemble Theaters 

New Music USA 

OPERA America 

Theatre Communications Group 

PAA is a national network of more than 33,000 organizational and individual 

members comprising the professional, nonprofit performing arts and presenting 

fields. 

We submit this testimony to highlight the importance of the Federal investment 

in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural community. The National Endowment for the Arts holds a significant Federal leadership role for the arts and culture 

in America. Its grants are investments in education, artistic development, the continuation and preservation of our country’s artistic heritage, and the overall quality 

of life for American citizens. There are many reasons why we are asking you to support the agency: 

—NEA grants support a range of educational and community engagement 

projects; 

—NEA funds spread across the country and expand arts access; 

—Federal funding for the arts leverages private funding; and 

—Rural and underserved communities—as well as underserved populations—benefit from arts programs supported by NEA funds. 

We share with you the following examples of constituents of PAA members who 

have received NEA grants in fiscal year 2014. Their work is a sample of the numerous ways in which the Endowment’s support widens citizen access to the cultural, 

educational, social, and economic benefits of the arts in American communities. 

NEA grants support a range of educational projects 

American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri—a member of Association of 

Performing Arts Presenters and Chamber Music America—received Art Works support for its 2014 18th and Vine Jazz Festival. The Museum partners with the Metropolitan Community College-Penn Valley for this annual festival which brings jazz 

music training, workshops, and performance opportunities to local middle and high 

school and college student. During the festival, budding musicians hone their musical skills under the tutelage of world renowned jazz artists and learn about the history of this rich American art form from some of the history makers themselves. 

Arts education also includes training in behind-the-scenes, technical aspects of the 

performing arts. OPERA America member Lyric Opera of Kansas City (Missouri) 

will operate its STAGES summer youth opera camp this year with support from an 

Art Works grant. STAGES provides youth with significant hands-on experience in 

design, lighting, and stagecraft, introducing them to the possibilities of a career in 

the field. Our Nation’s performing arts organizations put people to work, and education programs like this offer youth—tomorrow’s workforce—opportunities to learn 

the many trades within our sector. 

Chorus America member Boston’s Children’s Chorus received an Art Works grant 

for its Premier Choir and Young Men’s Ensemble, which provides rigorous, professional training for high school youth in music theory and choral performance, as 

well as performance opportunities. Another Chorus America member supported by 

the NEA is Young People’s Chorus of New York City, an award-winning organization which offers music education and choral performance to children of all cultural 

and economic backgrounds, helping them reach their potential through artistic excellence. 

NEA grants preserve and continue our country’s artistic heritage 

Performing arts organizations play a great role in preserving our Nation’s artistic 

heritage. Other Minds in San Francisco—a member of Chamber Music America— 

is doing this with support from an Art Works grant for its New Music Preservation 

Project. The organization is converting archival live recordings of performances, 

interviews, and conversations with innovative composers and artists of 20th-century 

American music into digital media. The recordings will be available worldwide via 

www.radiOM.org. Fractured Atlas and Dance/USA member Lucky Plush Productions in Riverside, Illinois received Art Works support for the creation and presentation of The Queue, a new dance theater work exploring the physical comedy forms 

of the early 20th-century slapstick and Vaudeville. These are just a few examples 
401 

of how the NEA’s support helps today’s audiences connect to art forms and artists 

of previous times. 

NEA grants also invest in the artistic heritages of the many cultures within 

American communities. Grants support projects that create opportunities for learning and dialogue while sustaining rich traditions. Rela ́mpago del Cielo, Inc. in Santa 

Ana, California—a member of National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures— 

received Art Works support for its preservation of traditional Mexican performing 

arts through youth classes in music, folklore, and dance. It shares these traditions 

with the greater community via outreach presentations and educational activities. 

League of American Orchestras member South Dakota Symphony in Sioux Falls received Art Works support for its Lakota Music Project, an initiative developed with 

the United Sioux Tribes of South Dakota. The project’s goal is to build bridges between Native Americans and non-Native Americans. It honors Native American musical traditions and aims to advance cultural understanding and create an environment of openness and collaboration through the music. 

NEA funds benefit every congressional district, expanding arts access to all people 

in all communities—both urban and rural 

Chamber Music America member Community MusicWorks in Providence, Rhode 

Island exists to create a cohesive urban community through music education and 

performance that transforms the lives of children, families, and musicians. Art 

Works funding supports their programs that reach students and families in Providence’s underserved South Side neighborhoods. MusicWorks creates access to classical music training and encourages appreciation for the art form among program 

participants. Its weekly music lessons are accompanied by work around social justice issues, mentorship programs, and opportunities for students to create and 

present music programs that are relevant to their own community. 

People of all physical abilities will be able to experience inventive contemporary 

dance due to NEA support given to San Francisco-based AXIS Dance Company— 

a member of Dance/USA. AXIS received Art Works funding to support its Dance Access and Dance Access/Kids! educational and outreach dance programs as the company tours. These programs offer ‘‘physically-integrated’’ dance classes for youth and 

adults with and without disabilities, and with NEA support, AXIS will be able to 

offer these classes to many around the country. 

Perseverance Theatre—a member of Theatre Communications Group—creates 

professional theatre by and for Alaskans, such as the world premiere of Rush at Everlasting by Alaskan playwright Arlitia Jones. Production of this play was supported 

by an Art Works grant. It was also supported by the Alaska State Arts Council— 

a member of Association of Performing Arts Presenters (APAP)—a recipient of an 

fiscal year 2014 NEA State Partnerships grant. Approximately 40 percent of the 

NEA’s budget is directed towards States via State partnerships such as this one 

which extend the NEA’s Federal reach and impact, translating national leadership 

into local benefit. Rush at Everlasting will be presented in both Juneau and Anchorage. 

With a similar mission, APAP member Lied Performing Arts Center in Lincoln, 

Nebraska is presenting a tour of singer/songwriter Susan Werner celebrating the 

lives and challenges of rural Nebraskan farmers. In partnership with the University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the tour will 

also include an oral history project documenting Nebraska’s agricultural heritage. 

The NEA supports arts organizations bringing awareness to important social issues 

The arts can create community dialogue around important social issues such as 

care for older Americans and gang violence. The Sojourn Theatre in Portland, Oregon—a member of the Network of Ensemble Theaters (NET)—will present its The 

Islands of Milwaukee free performance series this year with Art Works support. The 

performances will occur in public spaces and explore social connectedness among 

older adults throughout Milwaukee neighborhoods. The theatre company will collaborate with older adults in urban and suburban Milwaukee that are living alone, 

engaging them in the creation of the performances. Project partners include the 

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Department on Aging, and 

Interfaith Older Adult Programs. 

With the support of a Challenge America Fast-Track grant, NET member Su 

Teatro in Denver, CO will present this season PLACAS by Paul S. Flores. Featuring 

actor and playwright Ric Salinas, PLACAS is a new multimedia play about the impact of gangs on an El Salvadoran family, portraying tattoo removal as a metaphor 

for healing and transformation. In addition to public performances, Salinas and Flores will lead workshops intended to serve former and current gang members, collaborating with Denver’s Gang Rescue and Support Project (GRASP). 
402 

NEA grants support artistic excellence and works that engage new audiences 

Arts organizations around the country are energizing audiences by refreshing 

classic works and presenting fresh, new productions and artists in their communities. This is bringing new and diverse participants out to experience the arts. 

Trinity Repertory Company in Providence, Rhode Island—a member of the National 

Association for Musical Theatre and Theatre Communications Group—is doing this 

with its new production of Oliver!, Lionel Bart’s musical based on Charles Dickens’ 

Oliver Twist. The company is re-visioning the show with a new adaptation of the 

book and score and with a set design that extends the scenery into the audience’s 

space, heightening their engagement. 

National Performance Network member Sandglass Theatre in Putney, Vermont is 

bringing ‘‘world-class, cutting-edge, socially engaged puppetry and theatre’’ to southern Vermont audiences with Art Works support for its Arts and Issues 2014 presenting series. This series includes Voices of Community and New Visions events 

and productions: Community activities present a diverse roster of artists for 

residencies and community discussions on all aspects of diversity. Visions activities 

cross-pollinate puppetry with other performing arts genres and invite the audience 

into the artists’ discovery processes while purposefully creating intercultural and 

intergenerational dialogue. 

Opera Theatre of Saint Louis—a member of OPERA America—will present this 

season 27 by American composer Ricky Ian Gordon and librettist Royce Vavrek. 

Supported by an Art Works grant, 27 will feature acclaimed mezzo-soprano Stephanie Blythe as the visionary American writer and art collector Gertrude Stein. This 

will be the company’s 24th premiere in 39 seasons; last season’s premiere, Champion, was also supported by the NEA. This production was attended at 98 percent 

capacity across its run and also attracted an audience that was markedly younger 

and more diverse than the traditional opera-goers. 

NEA funding helps organizations present exceptional work to their audiences. 

Nashville Ballet—a member of Dance/USA—received Art Works funding to present 

Jiri Kylia ́n’s Petite Mort. The Ballet had the pleasure of introducing Nashville to 

Kylia ́n’s work which had never before been presented in the city. The entire program, which included Balanchine’s Serenade and a world premiere choreographed 

by Artistic Director Paul Vasterling to Ben Folds’ recent piano concerto, was enthusiastically received by audiences and critics alike, due also to the level of excellence 

at which the dancers performed. Ticket sales reflected this enthusiasm, and also reflected that there were 600 new households attending the performances. 

Federal dollars invested in the National Endowment for the Arts realize significant returns both measurable and intangible. The artistic programming of the arts 

organizations supported by the NEA give vitality to their communities. They allow 

communities to: appreciate our Nation’s culture and heritage, unite to dialogue 

about and collaborate on social issues, and experience meaningful educational opportunities. 

We, the members of the Performing Arts Alliance, urge you to designate no less 

than $155 million to the NEA in fiscal year 2015. Thank you for your consideration 

of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PRESERVATION ACTION

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, 

on behalf of the members of Preservation Action, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present written testimony in support of the Department of Interior’s fiscal year 2015 

$2.6 billion budget for the National Park Service (NPS) and its historic preservation 

programs. As the Nation continues to rebuild our economy, historic preservation is 

a partner and part of the solution in creating economic vitality. We ask Congress 

to continue its investment as envisioned in the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 and protect our historic and cultural resources by providing the appropriations for critical historic preservation programs. 

Preservation Action is a national membership organization that represents preservationists from many sectors across the U.S. and its territories. Creating a national landscape of policies that protect our cultural heritage is fundamental to all 

we do. Historic preservation has provided lasting economic benefits in communities 

throughout the Nation. Studies show that historic districts maintain higher property 

valuesand a greater sense of community. Our mission is to make historic preservation a more widely recognized national policy. We do this through energized and engaged grassroots advocacy that connects to all levels of government. 

As urban renewal swept across our country, unnecessarily destroying historic 

structures, Preservation Action was at the forefront of America’s preservation move-
403 

ment working to protect historic places. For 40 years, Preservation Action has advocated for historic preservation policy including two of the most important tools—the 

Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit and the Historic Preservation Fund. 

Our Nation’s cultural resources and natural resources are important. And, as we 

look to the 50th anniversary of the Historic Preservation Act and the National Park 

Centennial, it is a critical time to support investments in our Nation’s rich heritage 

so that it remains for generations to come. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provided the direction and tools 

to protect our historic resources. ‘‘The spirit and direction of the Nation are founded 

upon and reflected in its historic heritage; the historical and cultural foundation of 

the Nation should be preserve as a living part of our community life and development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American people... the preservation of the irreplaceable heritage is in the public interest so that its vital legacy 

of cultural, economic, aesthetic, inspirations, economic, and energy benefits will be 

maintained and enriched for future generations of Americans.’’ 

The members of Preservation Action believe in that vision provided by Congress 

nearly 50 years ago. And, we encourage Congress to provide funding for historic 

preservation to fully realize the importance of our natural and cultural assets and 

provide the funding and leadership to realize the full vision of the Historic Preservation Act. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of funding to implement the Nation’s historic preservation programs. Preservation Action supports 

funding for State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices in the Interior Department fiscal year 2015 budget at the following levels: 

—$50 million for State Historic Preservation Offices; 

—$15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices; 

—$6 million for survey, inventory and digitization of records; 

—$5 million for a competitive grant program for underrepresented populations; 

and 

—$10 million for rehabilitation of historic properties competitive grant program. 

The NPS distributes HPF funding to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) 

and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). States also match HPF dollars at 

a 40 percent minimum. 

SHPOs and THPOs administer much of the HPF program on behalf of the Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. SHPOs locate 

and record historic resources; nominate to the National Register of Historic Places; 

provide funds for preservation activities; comment on Federal rehabilitation tax 

credit projects; review all Federal projects for historic preservation impact; and provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, State and local governments and the 

private sector. THPOs carry out many of those functions on their tribal lands. 

THPOs are key in implementing tribal and Federal preservation laws on tribal 

lands, including federally-mandated archaeological clearances and evaluation and 

management of tribal historic properties. 

The Certified Local Government (CLG) Program is another way the NPS and 

SHPOs support preservation in communities. Local, State, and Federal governments 

work together in the Federal Preservation Program to help communities save their 

irreplaceable historic character. SHPOs award at least 10 percent of their HPF allocation to CLG’s. The grants fund a variety of projects including: surveys, National 

Register nominations, rehabilitation work, design guidelines, educational programs, 

training, structural assessments, and feasibility studies. CLGs receive technical assistance and training through the partnership. 

PRESERVATION IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC), administered by SHPOs and the 

NPS, is the most significant Federal investment in historic preservation. Since its 

creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has been a catalyst for development with 

the rehabilitation of nearly 39,000 buildings throughout the Nation. And, the HTC 

has created 2.4 million jobs and leveraged nearly $109 billion in private investment. 

From the Mill No. 1 project in Baltimore, Maryland, Elm Terrace in Portland, 

Maine, to the Boyle Hotel redevelopment in east Los Angeles, historic preservation 

is helping communities rebound and recapture their economic vitality as well as provide creative uses for old buildings and stimulate job growth. 

Because of the success of the program, Preservation Action and its national members urge Congress to realize the benefits of this program to economic development 

and to ensure its continuance. 
404 

PRESERVING AMERICA’S RICH AND DIVERSE CULTURAL HERITAGE

In addition to our support for SHPO and THPO operating funding, Preservation 

Action fully endorses the Interior Department’s program for competitive grants for 

the survey, outreach and pre-nomination activities of properties in underrepresented 

communities to the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic 

Landmarks Program. It is important for our historic record to reflect the full spectrum of America’s heritage—and this program would correct the underrepresentation. Studies report that fewer than 5 percent of listings in the National Register 

of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks identify culturally diverse properties. While the current funding level of $500,000 is a step in addressing this 

underrepresentation, it does not go far enough to tell the rich story of America’s diverse heritage. Therefore, we ask the subcommittee to consider increasing the 

amount to $5 million. 

We also support an additional $10 million to the HPF for a competitive grant program to support State and local level rehabilitation projects. Rehabilitation of historic structures has proven a success in driving neighborhood pride and redevelopment. 

DIGITIZATION OF AMERICA’S HERITAGE

Preservation Action believes that providing the public with access to accurate information on our historic resources is important to maintaining the record of America’s heritage. Having easy access to digital records will help expedite Federal permitting, project review, and improve accessibility. Therefore, Preservation Action 

also supports the administration’s request for $6 million for legacy data digitization. 

NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

The National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are community driven heritage conservation 

placeswhere natural, cultural and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important stories of America’s diverse heritage. Currently, there are 49 National Heritage Areas designated by Congress. The Federal support for NHAs has 

been instrumental in spurring the grassroots efforts that reflect the unique resources, significance and values of each community. On average, for every dollar of 

Federal investment, NHAs bring $5.50 in public and private investment. 

NHA programs have demonstrated their ability to both support economic benefits 

in their communities through tourism dollars and tell underrepresented stories 

across the Nation. Preservation Action is concerned that the reduction of Federal 

funding proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget for the heritage areas program impairs the sustainability of the program. Funding of $18 million—the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2014—is the minimum needed to continue the cost effective 

impacts of the NHA program. 

CONCLUSION

Preservation Action has been a proud partner with a cross-section of Federal 

agencies and the NPS in protecting America’s cultural and natural resources and 

in engaging the public in maintaining these valuable assets. We value the work of 

the employees across the NPS who protect our cultural and natural resources, engage communities, businesses and governments in heritage sites, education, and 

tourism, and the many offices that work in collaboration of historic preservation efforts and communications. Importantly, as we review Federal historic preservation 

policies and their impacts in communities, we value the partnership of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation as well as the instrumental work SHPOs and 

THPOs conduct in preserving America’s cultural heritage. 

Thank you for including the voices of the preservation community as you consider 

the Department of Interior’s fiscal year 2015 budget. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO (PNM) 

APRIL 4, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 
405 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. —Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

CHRIS OLSON, 

Vice President, PNM Generation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RESTORE AMERICA’S ESTUARIES

Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that 

has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation’s greatest estuaries. Our mission 

is to restore and protect estuaries as essential resources for the Nation. Restore 

America’s Estuaries is a national alliance of community-based coastal conservation 

organizations across the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our member organizations include: American Littoral Society, Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save the Sound—a program of 

the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Conservation Law Foundation, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The 

Bay—San Francisco, Save the Bay—Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have over 250,000 members nationwide. 

As you craft your fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America’s Estuaries encourages you to provide the funding 

levels below within the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for core programs which greatly support coastal community economies: 

—$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program.—Interior: USFWS: Resource Management: Habitat Conservation: Coastal Program 

—$27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program.—USEPA: Water: Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways 

These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize America’s coastal 

communities by improving habitat and local water quality. Healthy coastlines protect communities from flood damage and extreme weather, improve commercial fisheries, protect vital infrastructure, and support tourism and recreational opportunities. 

USFWS COASTAL PROGRAM

The Coastal Program (CP) is a voluntary, incentive-based program that provides 

technical and financial assistance to coastal communities and landowners to protect 

and restore fish and wildlife habitat on public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems, including the Great Lakes. The Coastal Program works with other 

Federal, State, local, and non-governmental partners and private landowners to deliver strategic habitat protection and restoration for the benefit of Federal trust species, including threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, inter-jurisdictional fish, certain marine mammals, and species of international concern. 
406 

Since 1985, the Coastal Program has: 

—Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, tribal, State and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, and private landowners. 

—Restored 300,616 acres of wetland; 135,033 acres of upland; and 2,160 miles of 

stream habitat. 

—Protected more than 2 million acres of coastal habitat. 

—Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation partners. 

Support for the management and stewardship of our coastal ecosystems that 

bridge land and sea has never been more important due to the accelerating pace 

of environmental change now occurring. While environmental degradation of estuaries has continued in recent years, the Coastal Program has been a key program 

aimed at on-the-ground habitat restoration. Despite the program’s relatively small 

cost, it is having a huge impact on-the-ground. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal 

Program staff shows that the program leverages $8 non-Federal dollars for every 

Federal dollar spent. This makes the Coastal Program one of the most cost-effective 

habitat restoration programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Restore America’s Estuaries has enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the 

Coastal Program for many years. The nature and scope of our partnership spans 

the national and local levels as we work with CP headquarters on long-term issues, 

and locally the program works with our member groups through regional CP staff 

to conduct on-the-ground habitat restoration. 

As an example of a true partnership, the Coastal Program worked with RAE 

member Save The Bay—San Francisco as well as the San Francisco Bay National 

Wildlife Refuge to restore salt marsh on Bair Island. This project is helping to provide critical habitat for a variety of species, including the endangered California 

clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse, and a number of birds that traverse 

the area on their journey across the Pacific. 

On the East Coast, the Coastal Program assisted RAE member Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation to choose and prepare a site to plant redhead grass near the Magothy 

River in Maryland. This is a good example of the invaluable technical assistance 

that the Coastal Program is able to provide to a non-governmental organization, 

which can then better restore habitat for numerous migratory bird and inter-jurisdictional fish species. 

In the Gulf, the Coastal Program worked side-by-side with RAE member Galveston Bay Foundation to construct geotextile tube offshore breakwaters on Snake 

Island Cove. This effort has led to the protection of 200 acres of estuarine marsh 

from erosion and the creation of a 65-acre calm shallow water area conducive to 

seagrass restoration. 

The Coastal Program is also essential in efforts to restore fish passage of anadromous fish populations and restore riverine habitat. RAE member Conservation 

Law Foundation worked with the Coastal Program and other regional partners to 

support the removal of dams along the Penobscot River, as well as install fishways 

to restore native Atlantic salmon. 

Restore America’s Estuaries urges your continued support and funding for the 

USFWS Coastal Program. This program delivers habitat protection and restoration 

in priority coastal areas on both public and private lands through partnerships with 

other Service programs, Federal agencies, State and local agencies, tribal governments and native corporations, non-governmental organizations, universities, corporations, and private landowners. 

The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs necessary to 

deliver habitat conservation projects including environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers, surveyors, assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs also generate indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels, 

restaurants, stores, and gas stations. The Program estimates that the average 

project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40 businesses—this represents major local 

economic returns on the Federal investment. 

Restore America’s Estuaries urges your continued support of the Coastal Program 

and asks that you provide $15 million for fiscal year 2015. 

USEPA NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of voluntary 

community-based programs that safeguards the health of important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a consensus building process to 

identify goals, objectives, and actions that reflect local environmental and economic 

priorities. 

Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific 

coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as estuaries of national signifi-
407 

cance. Each NEP focuses its work within a particular place or boundary, called a 

study area, which includes the estuary and surrounding watershed. 

Each National Estuary Program demonstrates real environmental results through 

on-the-ground habitat restoration and protection. Their efforts reflect local environmental and economic priorities and involve the community as equal partners 

throughout the decisionmaking process. Collectively, NEPs have restored and protected more than 1.5 million acres of land since 2000. 

Restore America’s Estuaries urges your continued support of the National Estuary 

Program and ask that you provide $27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount for fiscal year 2015, no less than 

$600,000 should be directed to each of the 28 NEPs in the field. 

CONCLUSION

Restore America’s Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this subcommittee 

has provided in the past for these important programs. These programs help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which results in major benefits: 

—Economic Growth and Jobs.—Coastal habitat restoration creates between 17 

and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested depending on the type of restoration. That is more than twice as many jobs as the oil and gas sector and 

road construction industries combined. The restored area supports increased 

tourism and valuable ecosystem services. 

—Huge Leverage.—From 2005 to 2012, Federal investment in the USFWS Coastal 

Program leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 8 to 1. The NEPs leveraged 

non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 15 to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these 

are rates of return we cannot afford to ignore. 

—Resiliency.—Restoring coastal wetlands can help knock down storm waves and 

reduce devastating storm surges before they reach the people and property 

along the shore. 

Thank you and we greatly appreciate you taking our requests into consideration 

as you move forward in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations process. We stand ready 

to work with you and your staff to ensure the health of our Nation’s estuaries and 

coasts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAC AND FOX NATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related agencies appropriations. Congratulations to Chairman Calvert as the new 

Chairman and to Congressman David Valadao, the newest member on this subcommittee. I am George L. Thurman, Principal Chief of the Great Sac and Fox Nation, home of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile athletes of modern sports who 

earned Olympic gold medals for the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon. On behalf of 

the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity to present our requests for 

the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian 

Health Service (IHS). 

A fundamental goal for Indian Country governmental services is parity with similarly situated governments or services. Although tribes have made some progress in 

addressing terribly inadequate public services that many Americans routinely take 

for granted, they are still experiencing what the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

called ‘‘A Quiet Crisis’’ of unmet Federal funding needs. Full funding of Contract 

Supports Costs (CSC) is a step in the right direction for tribes to be paid the costs 

of performing services under contract with the Federal Government enjoyed by nontribal Federal contractors. It is not fair that the Federal Government’s legal obligation to pay CSC requires reducing tribal funds to meet the Federal trust obligation 

to tribal nations. 

In fiscal year 2013 tribal programs incurred cuts totaling over $500 million under 

the sequestration. We were not able to recover the sequestered funding under the 

Murray/Ryan budget deal and the BIA and IHS Spending Plans further disappointed our expectations for budget equity during these fiscally strained times. 

We strongly urge Congress to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013 

and exempt tribal funds from future sequestration. It threatens the trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not major contributors to the deficit. 
408 

I. TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST

$4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations of the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)—Bureau of Indian Affairs—Public Safety and Justice—Office 

of Justice Services—Detention/Corrections Account. 

II. NATIONAL REQUESTS—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

1. Public Safety and Justice—Law and Order—Detention/Corrections: a. Increase the 2015 Request ($192.9 million) by $4.95 million for Detention/ 

Corrections to fund the SFNJDC. 

b. Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. 2. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program Funding. 

3. ∂$19.3 million over fiscal year 2014 for Tribal Priority Allocations Account. 4. $4 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund Contract Support Costs 

(CSC). 

5. $500,000 for Johnson O’Malley education assistance grants to support a new 

student count in 2015 and provides funding for the projected increase in the 

number of students eligible for grants. 

6. Office of Self-Governance (OSG)—Provide increased funding to the OSG to 

fully staff the office for the increase in the number of tribes entering Self-Governance. 

III. NATIONAL REQUESTS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

1. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health Services. 

2. Support IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services). 

3. ∂$30 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund Contract Support 

Costs (CSC). 

4. ∂$50 million over 2015 request for Purchased and Referred Care. 

5. Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG) to fulfill 

legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106–260 which increased the 

responsibilities of OTSG. 

THE SAC AND FOX NATION JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER (SFNJDC)—BUREAU OF INDIAN

AFFAIRS—PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE—OFFICE OF JUSTICE SERVICES—DETENTION/ 

CORRECTIONS ACCOUNT

In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC) opened its 

doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives, as well as the first juvenile facility developed under Public Law 

100–472, the Self-Governance Demonstration Project Act. 

At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a commitment to fully fund the 

SFNJDC operations; however this commitment was never fulfilled. Even though the 

Nation continues to receive and use Federal dollars to address the issue of juvenile 

delinquency and detention for tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern 

Oklahoma Region, it has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility at 

its fullest potential. Full funding to the facility by the Bureau would relieve financial burdens on area tribes to pay for detention services elsewhere and keep tribal 

youths close to home. 

Full funding would allow the Nation to provide full operations including (but not 

limited to): 

—Juvenile detention services to the 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas; 

—Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a facility like 

the SFNJDC; 

—Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such as: On-site 

Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living, Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and Learning; 

—Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed; and 

—Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of staff turnover 

which will allow for continuity in operations and service delivery. 

Most recently at the fiscal year 2016 Regional Budget Formulation Session, these 

tribes continue to support and endorse full funding for operation of the SFNJDC 

and included it as a priority in their ‘‘Top 10 Budget Increases’’ for the fiscal year 

2016 BIA budget. 

The current funding level represents only approximately 10 percent of what is 

needed to fully fund the Juvenile Detention Center. Additional funding in the 

amount of $4,950,000, over what Sac and Fox already receives in base funding 

($508,000), would fully fund the facility at a level to address the need of juvenile 
409 

delinquency in the tri-State area and create opportunities for employment for more 

tribal members. 

The SFNJDC is a 50,000∂ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed (expandable 

to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides basic detention services to all 

residents utilizing a classification system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium and minimal security. Our facility was designed to provide programs including behavioral management, alcohol and substance abuse, spiritual and cultural growth and learning, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health and fitness, horticulture, nutrition, life skills, vocational technical training, counseling, 

educational programs and a Transitional Living Center. 

Through a partnership with the local high school, students are afforded an education at the public school level, including a graduation ceremony and issuance of 

a certificate upon successfully achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the 

Sac and Fox Nation has an on-site justice center providing law enforcement and 

tribal court services and the Nation also operates an on-site health clinic which provides outstanding medical services that include contract service capabilities for optometry, dental and other health-related services. 

The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base funding have 

mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the programs our facility was built 

to offer. Our current funding levels only allow us to provide an alcohol and substance abuse program, some health and fitness activities and a basic education program. We have lost our programs for vocational training, horticulture, life skills, 

arts and crafts, on-site counseling and transitional living. The passage of the 2010 

Tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the Sac and Fox Nation because we 

saw this as an opportunity for the Federal Government to finally step up to its 

pledge to fully-fund the SFNJDC and honor its treaty and trust obligations to our 

people. However, the lack of funding is also impeding the implementation of TLOA! 

In 1996, the SFNJDC was built as a model facility in Indian Country. And nearly 

20 years later there is still a need for such a facility to help our youth return to 

their traditional healing and spiritual ways. As a Self-Governance Tribe we operate 

our tribal government on the premise that we are the best provider of the services 

and know which services are most needed in our communities. We saw the increasing need in the 1990’s for a facility like the SFNJDC and we acted on our instincts 

to help our youth by giving them a place to turn their lives around and the access 

to programs, services and holistic care they needed to recover and heal. Sadly, the 

number of Native American youth, and juveniles overall requiring detention has not 

decreased. The Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center was built with the 

same ideals that the Tribal Law and Order Act Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems espouses today. The SFNJDC has the facility, staffing, 

ability, commitment and capacity to provide superior detention and rehabilitation 

services to Native American youth, as well as any youth in the tri-State area in 

need of our services. We do not understand the Federal Government’s desire to fund 

the construction of more detention facilities while our beds remain empty. 

With access to full funding for operations, the SFNJDC will have the stability to 

fulfill the mission the tribal leaders envisioned to help our youth once again find 

their way and recover from the ills that resulted in them coming to the Facility. 

With adequate funding we believe it is possible to thrive and benefit the lives of 

juveniles who enter our Center and are desperately in need of our help to develop 

and assist them to have a more healthy and productive future. 

Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on the fiscal year 2015 budgets. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAN JUAN WATER COMMISSION

APRIL 1, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restora-
410 

tion Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. —Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

L. RANDY KIRKPATRICK, 

Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SEATTLE INDIAN HEALTH BOARD

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee, my name is Ralph Forquera. I am the Executive Director for the Seattle Indian Health Board in Seattle, Washington. I also direct our Urban Indian Health Institute. I am an enrolled member of the Juanen ̃ o Band of California Mission Indians, a State-recognized Indian tribe. My tribe was 

one of 43 tribes and bands of California Indians terminated in 1958 through the 

California Rancheria Termination Act (Public Law 85–671). 

The Indian Health Service has requested an inflationary increase for urban In- dian health of $646,000. This figure represents a 1.58 percent increase over the fiscal year 2014 enacted appropriation, far below medical inflation in the Nation. I ask 

the subcommittee to consider an increase of at least $5 million to address the growing urban Indian population needs. 

Urban American Indians now represent more than 7 out of 10 Americans selfidentifying as having heritage in an American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, according to the 2010 United States Census. The permanent reauthorization of the 1976 

Indian Health Care Improvement Act in the Affordable Care Act, claims, in its declaration of policy, an obligation to aid urban Indians. Subtitle IV of the Act (Previously title V) spells out a discrete authority to assist local, non-profit, Indian-governed organizations in enhancing access and assuring health improvements to meet 

the national goal of health parity for Indian people. 

The movement of Indian people to American cities has been steady since first documented with the 1970 census. Analysis using the American Community Survey for 

the period 2006–2009 finds that more than 1 in 4 urban Indians have incomes at 

or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. This description likely undercounts the number of urban Indians in poverty, since the collection method for this 

national survey does not reach a sizeable portion of the urban Indian population, 

particularly those living in unstable households that are a common problem among 

poorer urban Indians. There is currently no specific assessment of urban American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. Our understanding is derived from Federal and State 

regularly scheduled data collection strategies and agency reporting standards that 

often do not specify Indian identity in their collection processes to document conditions and outcomes among the general population. 

The Indian Health Service itself has not focused attention on a reporting mechanism explicit for addressing urban specific health concerns. Instead, the IHS has 

tried to include our work in their tribally-based reporting standards that, in my 

view, misrepresent the health disparities among urban Indians. This lack of information that could paint a more accurate portrayal of the health and social conditions that influence the health status of urban Indians leads to inappropriate and 

misguided policies that disrupt our ability to effectively serve our communities. 

But regardless of the limitations of the data sources, evidence grows that health 

disparities are extensive for urban Indians and that factors that contribute to poor 
411 

health generally affect urban Indians across the Nation. For example, evidence of 

low academic achievement, high unemployment, high rates of mobility among the 

population, and a general over-representation in social metrics known to contribute 

to poor health are consistently found upon analysis. The fact that this evidence can 

be identified in work not explicit to urban Indians reinforces the fact that these social factors are crucial in perpetuating health disparities among urban Indians. 

In the past several years, a growing awareness of how social factors influence 

health has drawn attention from policy makers, elected officials, and the general 

public. Key factors like low educational attainment and substandard or inadequate 

housing, particularly in cities indicate that urban Indians are often listed as living 

with conditions that adversely influence health. This reality places urban Indians 

at greater risk for health problems and early and unnecessary death and disability. 

The Affordable Care Act calls for data to identify and track changes in the health 

status of groups like urban Indians. But to collect and analyze this information, 

funding is needed to build the infrastructure and support the personnel needed to 

gather data and perform the necessary analysis. Our Institute has discussed building this capacity with Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) and other 

Federal agencies but funding has not been forthcoming. Therefore, as noted, we do 

our best to find ways to use national and State data collection strategies and apply 

scientifically-sound methodologies to understand health conditions for urban Indians. While these methods are limiting, the preponderance of findings reinforce the 

disparities we see daily at my organization. 

The question is frequently asked whether Indians living in cities retain eligibility 

for Indian health benefits. Legal analysis shows that Indians leaving reservations 

do not lose the right to the benefits and protections granted Indians by the Congress, but that the extent of these Indian-specific programs and services is subject 

to the level of funding devoted to them by the Congress. Over the decades, in spite 

of the dramatic shift in the Indian and Native population’s living arrangements, resources to help urban Indians have fallen farther and farther behind. 

There are some who have argued that only enrolled members of federally-recognized Indian tribes and those living on Indian reservations are eligible for Federal 

assistance. Currently, this policy is being applied to the Affordable Care Act as it 

affects the marketplace aspect of reform. This claim misinterprets the nature of the 

Indian trust relationship. 

Back in 2005, I prepared a paper I would be happy to share with the subcommittee illustrating the historical and legislative history of aid for urban Indians 

in response to a question from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. This response became the foundation for the Congress to increase urban Indian health 

funding by $7 million in 2008. However, other problems subsequent have since disrupted this appreciation for the need for greater financial aid for urban Indians and 

the current funding allocated for urban Indian health now represents only 0.92 percent of the overall Indian Health Service budget. 

When the line item for urban Indian health was first established in 1979, about 

1.48 percent of that year’s IHS appropriation was directed for urban Indians. Over 

the decades, the percentage devoted for urban Indians has fluctuated around the 1 

percent threshold until 2009, when the allocation dropped below 1 percent. 

A further review of the IHS budget process finds that the agency has seldom requested additional funds for urban Indians. At best, the agency has sought inflationary increases that are generally far less than healthcare inflation has run over 

the decades including for fiscal year 2015. As each year passes, the inability to meet 

just the inflationary challenges has forced reductions in services. Since the agency 

responsible for advocating for the health of Indian people fails to request funding 

to aid urban Indians, it should not be a surprise that the agency is not actively 

seeking solutions and support for our work. 

As an example, the recent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act requires that the IHS create a conferring policy similar to the tribal consultation policy to assure that the guidance of the urban contractors is given when 

considering policy or programmatic change. It is now more than 4 years after the 

law was enacted and a conferring policy has not been approved, leaving those of us 

who operate Urban Indian Health Organizations without a formal means of communicating our ideas or sharing our concerns with the Indian Health Service. In larger 

tribal consultation sessions, we are mostly overshadowed by the tribal leadership 

present. Essentially, the voices of the majority of Indian people are not reflected in 

Indian policy today. 

It should also be noted that the urban Indian health program defined in subtitle 

IV of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a discrete authority intended to 

improve access to healthcare for Indians living in cities. This role was expanded in 

1987 as increased evidence arose that the acceptability of healthcare service was 
412 

critically important to many urban Indians that carry the ill effects of past failed 

Federal actions toward Indians as a core belief. Given the continuing lack of attention toward urban Indians, this reality is still an important characteristic of the 

work we do on their behalf. 

Few today remember the forced sterilization of Indian women during the 1970s 

or the sense of abandonment that accompanied the termination of tribes in the 

1950s. Many today experience denial of help from IHS and tribal facilities that only 

treat members of federally recognized tribes. Others feel thwarted by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs that does not recognize displaced Indians. My tribe, for example, 

has had its petition for re-acknowledgment rejected on several occasions by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, leaving members without benefits and protections granted 

those that have been restored to Federal recognition in the past several decades. 

These continuing actions reflect the reality that urban Indians are not seen as 

equals to those who were fortunate not to experience termination or who continue 

to reside on reservation lands. This treatment helps to foster the sense of secondclass citizenry for urban Indians within Indian Country. Some tribes under self-governance compacts have recognized the discriminatory nature of these actions and, 

when financially feasible, offer some help. 

It should also be noted that the lack of attention to the health and welfare of 

urban Indians is best illustrated by both the lack of funding, but also a lack of recognition and understanding of this portion of Indian Country. Little effort has been 

made by the Indian Health Service or others to describe the health status of urban 

Indians or to find ways to aid those urban communities with sizable Indian populations but lacking an urban Indian health organization. In fact, there are fewer 

urban Indian health organizations today than there were in the mid-1980s. 

When the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was passed in 1976, the House 

Report accompanying the passage of the bill made the bold claim that ‘‘The most 

basic human rights must be the right to enjoy decent health. Certainly, any effort 

to fulfill Federal responsibilities to the Indian people must begin with the provision 

of health services. In fact, health services must be the cornerstone upon which rest 

all other Federal programs for the benefit of Indians. Without a proper health status, the Indian people will be unable to fully avail themselves of the many economic, 

educational, and social programs already directed to them or which this Congress 

and future Congresses will provide them.’’ H.R. Report No. 94–1026, pt. I at 13 

(1976) as reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2652, 2653. It is clear that this proclamation has not been fulfilled for urban Indians. 

The inequity in funding for urban Indian health is an artifact of history. The reality of funding inadequacy reinforces the administrative policy of limiting both the 

work and the scarce resources to the more limited aspect of Indian Country—members of federally recognized tribes and those living on or near Indian reservations. 

However, Congress has the authority to allocate additional funds to assist urban Indians if they so choose. 

As mentioned earlier, another hat I wear is as the Director for the Urban Indian 

Health Institute. I founded the Institute in July of 2000 to find ways to document 

and study health disparities among urban Indians to help build a case for needed 

resources. In 2004, the Institute published the first large scale national report, illustrating the severity of health problems faced by urban Indians. These findings were 

reinforced when an independent Urban Indian Health Commission funded by the 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, made similar claims in its 2007 report. (find reports at www.uihi.org). Additional reports and studies including several published 

in peer-reviewed professional journals verify the disparity in health experienced by 

urban Indians, but these findings have not successfully translated to the provision 

of the essential resources needed. 

We recognize and respect the fact that Indians living on reservations who are enrolled in a federally-recognized Indian tribe have needs deserving of congressional 

support. But just caring for reservation Indians is insufficient in addressing the 

broad trust obligation that the Nation bears towards its indigenous citizens, especially since more than 7 out of 10 Indian and Native people now live in cities. 

After spending more than three decades working to improve the health of urban 

Indians, I recognize that we face daunting challenges. Expectations that the Affordable Care Act will improve conditions for urban Indians fail to take into account the 

historic maltreatment and broken promises experienced by Indian people that large 

scale programs like the ACA will not correct. In this regard, it is my hope that this 

subcommittee will recognize and renew its commitment to assure that all Indian 

people, regardless of their place of residence or their standing as being federallyrecognized, achieve the House’s proclamation of the importance of good health in Indian affairs. 

Thank you. 
413 

1 Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SHOALWATER BAY TRIBE

SUMMARY

The Shoalwater Bay Tribe is located on Willapa Bay in southwestern Washington. 

Our tribe was formed in 1866 incorporating members of Lower Chehalis, Shoalwater 

Bay and Chinookan people. As a small but strong tribe, we strive to keep our language, culture and economic health active and viable. While very connected to our 

past, Shoalwater Bay tribal members work to expand our influence and increase 

awareness of our tribal culture while improving our health and way of life. We request that the subcommittee provide the following items in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations cycle. 

—Make full Contract Support Costs funding mandatory spending. 

—Reauthorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. 

—Fund the IHS budget with advanced appropriations. 

MANDATORY FUNDING FOR CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

We are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund contract support 

costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to support that goal. We also 

acknowledge that the administration’s request is a direct response to Congress’ actions with regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical caps 

on CSC funding and rejected the administration’s proposal—put forward without 

consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes—to individually cap contract support 

cost recovery at the contractor level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our 

members. If contract support costs are not fully funded, however, our programs and 

services are directly impacted because we are forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding for CSC must 

not come with a penalty—namely, a reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. That result would have the same 

devastating effect on our service delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, noted that ‘‘since [contract support costs] fall under 

discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all other programs funded 

under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, including other equally important tribal programs.’’ Moreover, without any permanent measure to ensure full 

funding, payment of CSC remains subject to agency ‘‘discretion’’ from year to year, 

even though tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these 

ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult with tribes on a 

permanent solution. 

In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress is empowered 

to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ‘‘Entitlement’’ as ‘‘A legal obligation of the Federal 

Government to make payments to a person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which 

the budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.’’ Further, 

‘‘Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through those programs’ eligibility 

criteria and benefit or payment rules.’’ 1 CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation acts—as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States. Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA—to end Federal domination of Indian programs and allow for 

meaningful control by Indian tribes over their own destinies in the face of Federal 

bureaucratic resistance—will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that 

allow the statute to function are considered ‘‘discretionary.’’ 

From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory 

nature of CSC and the current appropriation approach leaves both the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations in the ‘‘untenable position of appropriating 

discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.’’ 
414 

As the Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ‘‘Typically obligations of this nature 

are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring 

the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize 

CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis. 

REAUTHORIZE THE SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM

While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians 

(SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those funds are administered 

through the IHS. With the recent enactment (Public Law 113–93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the Medicare ‘‘doc fix’’ bill, it is funded through fiscal 

year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112–240). This funding 

level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven highly effective in Indian 

Country, and has produced excellent results. For example, in the 4 years preceding 

the last report on the SDPI in 2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly 

a percentage point overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye, 

kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you support ongoing 

efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period at increased funding levels. 

FUND THE IHS THROUGH ADVANCED APPROPRIATIONS

An important goal for Shoalwater Bay—and for all of Indian Country—is the reliable, advance appropriation of the IHS budget 1 year in advance. The goal is for 

the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate advance notice of the 

amount of Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Under advance appropriations funding is provided in the initial year for 2 years and thereafter for 

1 year, but it is a year in advance. Because the funding does not count against the 

subcommittee’s funding cap or the Budget Resolution score until the year in which 

it is to be obligated, that initial second year of funding does not have a negative 

effect on the subcommittee or Budget Resolution. Congress provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for 

parity in the appropriations schedule for the IHS. Bilsl that would authorize IHS 

advance appropriations have been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Don 

Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski and Begich. We request that you support the effort to authorize and to appropriate funding for Indian Health Service advance appropriations. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We are happy to 

respond to questions or provide any additional information you may request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY (SHA) 

Request: —$46.925 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). 

—$8.985 million for the Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs). 

—$500,000 for grants for survey and National Register/National Landmark nominations for underrepresented populations. 

These programs are funded through withdrawals from the U.S. Department of the 

Interior’s National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) (16 U.S.C. 

§ 470h). 

ABOUT SHA AND ITS MEMBERS

SHA is the largest organization in the world dedicated to the archaeological study 

of the modern world and the third largest anthropological organization in the 

United States. It promotes scholarly research and knowledge concerning historical 

archaeology, and is specifically concerned with the identification, excavation, interpretation, and conservation of sites and materials on land and underwater. SHA 

and its more than 2,300 members strongly support the protection of cultural and 

historical resources and sites around the Nation. 

FUNDING SHPOS AND THPOS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO PROTECTING U.S. 

ARCHAEOLOGY

In 1966, Congress, recognizing the importance of our heritage, enacted the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq.) (NHPA), which established 

historic preservation as a Federal Government priority. Historic preservation recog-
415 

nizes that what was common and ordinary in the past is often rare and precious 

today, and what is common and ordinary today may be extraordinary in the future. 

Instead of using Federal employees to carry out the Act, the Department of Interior and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opted to partner with the 

States and use SHPOs and THPOs to, among other tasks, review all Federal 

projects for their impact on historic properties. In order for the review process to 

work smoothly and for historical archaeological sites to be protected, SHPOs and 

THPOs must have adequate funding. Proper financial support for their work allows 

SHPOs and THPOs to review and approve projects in a timely basis, moving 

projects forward in an efficient manner and protecting irreplaceable cultural and 

historical resources and sites. 

CONCLUSION

SHA would like to thank you, Chairman Reed, and all the Members of the Senate 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for 

the opportunity to submit testimony. 

SHA would also like to thank the subcommittee for its commitment to historic 

preservation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS

The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with more than 12,000 professionals 

working across all segments of the forestry profession, promotes science-based, sustainable management and stewardship of the Nation’s public and private forests. 

SAF appreciates this opportunity to submit written public testimony on fiscal year 

2015 appropriations because proper funding for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and 

the Department of Interior (DOI) is vital to conserving and improving the health 

and productivity of our Nation’s forests. 

Society as a whole relies on the 751 million acres of forests in the United States 

to provide clean and abundant air and water, recreational opportunities, forest products, wildlife habitat, and scenic beauty. As our reliance continues to grow, pressures on forests from wildfires, drought, insects, disease, and invasive species have 

risen to unprecedented levels. Land management agencies must manage these 

mounting threats while still providing for multiple uses and important ecosystem 

services. Maintaining this balance demands that Federal land managers identify innovative ways to maximize the rate of return when considering investments to improve the health of America’s forests. 

The following highlights SAF’s top priorities in the fiscal year 2015 budget process. These priorities impact a range of programs within USFS and DOI. Recognizing 

fiscal constraints, these requests will assist forest managers in sustaining our Nation’s forests and providing a multitude of benefits for generations to come. 

SAF TOP PRIORITIES

1. Adoption of a new approach to wildfire suppression funding that features flexible spending caps for emergency wildfire suppression costs in addition to funding USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs at a level that is sufficient to 

conduct fuels reduction projects to reduce wildfire risks on Federal, State, and 

private lands. 

2. Increased funding levels for USFS Research and Development (R&D) to no less 

than $231 million and no less than $72 million for the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis Program (FIA). 

3. Funding the Forest Health Management Program (FHP) as a consolidated 

USFS State and Private Forestry budget line item at no less than $111 million. 

4. Continued support for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program 

(CFLRP) at no less than $40 million. 

5. Removal of the Bureau of Land Management Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund sunset provision set to go into effect at the end of fiscal year 2015. 

SAF represents forestry and natural resources professionals working on public 

and private forests across America. SAF members are eager to work with Federal 

agencies and Congress to identify reasonable solutions to facilitate increasing the 

pace of management on Federal lands. 
416 

1 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2007. U.S. Forest Resource Facts and Historical Trends. Available online at http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/Forest%20Facts%201952-2007%20English 

%20rev072411.pdf; last accessed April 2015. 2 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010. Available 

online at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010l 

SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2015. 3 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2010. National Report on Sustainable Forests—2010. Available 

online at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/2010SustainabilityReport/documents/2010l 

SustainabilityReport.pdf; last accessed April 2015. 

Since 1910, forest area in the U.S. has been relatively stable, with a slight increase in the last two decades.1 The current volume of annual timber growth is 32 

percent higher than the volume of annual removals, but SAF is concerned that 90 

percent of the timber harvested in the Nation came from private forestlands.2

SAF is pleased that the administration recognizes the need for management of 

Federal lands, and set a harvest target of three billion board feet for fiscal year 

2015. With 65 to 82 million acres in the National Forest System (NFS) in need of 

restoration and total U.S. timber harvests at the lowest levels since the 1960s, SAF 

encourages USFS to seize this opportunity to implement more projects on Federal 

lands.3 USFS can work with rural communities to get these projects started now 

without adding the potential for complications and confusion that could arise with 

the expansion of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) line item beyond the 

pilot phase. SAF members are convinced that this volume target can be reached 

using existing mechanisms and infrastructure. The increased volume output will 

help to satisfy increased demand for construction and wood products while also improving the health and resilience of our Nation’s forests. 

SAF BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

Simply appropriating dollars for Federal land management agencies is not 

enough. Successful implementation of USFS and DOI programs is predicated on 

finding an alternative to how fire suppression activities are managed and funded. 

In the span of only 2 years—fiscal year 2012 and 2013—USFS and DOI were forced 

to transfer more than $1 billion that Congress had appropriated to other priority 

programs to fund fire suppression. Changing the fire funding structure and committing to fund the Hazardous Fuels Programs at USFS and DOI will prevent future 

transfers and assist the agencies in achieving important land management objectives. 

SAF encourages the subcommittee to avoid transfers in fiscal year 2015 by including language similar to the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, introduced in 

the House and Senate (H.R. 3992 & S. 1875) in the fiscal year 2015 House Appropriations Bill. 

A balanced approach to averting threats posed by fire is imperative. The Hazardous Fuels line items in the USFS and DOI budgets are integral to restoring forest health and resilience and reducing the costs of wildfire suppression. SAF members appreciate this subcommittee’s consistent support for wildfire management and 

encourage the subcommittee to allocate funds to address fire risks inside and outside the wildland urban interface. Directing funds to treat areas outside of the 

wildland urban interface will reduce the costs associated with suppression and, in 

certain instances, the intensity of wildfires after outbreak. SAF supports consolidating hazardous fuels funding in the USFS and DOI Hazardous Fuels Programs 

with $479 million allocated for USFS and $178 million allocated for DOI. 

Investments in forestry research are investments in the future health and sustainability of the Nation’s forests. USFS R&D conducts essential research on disturbances, forest ecosystems, species and forest resilience, treatment methods for 

controlling forest insects, diseases, and invasive species, renewable energy development and woody biomass conversion technology, and forest products and technology. 

SAF is concerned that the forestry research capacity in the U.S. continues to decline, threatening U.S. competitiveness and the ability of forest managers to meet 

tomorrow’s challenges with current science and technical information. SAF supports 

a funding level of $231 million for USFS R&D with particular emphasis on 

prioritizing research efforts and transferring knowledge to forestry professionals 

working in the field. 

USFS R&D Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the backbone of U.S. 

forestry, providing the only national census of forests across all ownerships. 

Through FIA, USFS (partnering with State forestry agencies and the private sector) 

collects and analyzes forest data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and 

management, fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. The 

data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for: identifying trends in 
417 

4 U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. U.S. Forest 

Service Web site. Accessible online at http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml; last 

accessed April 2015. 5 U.S. Forest Service 2014. Fiscal year 2015 President’s Budget Justification. Available online 

at http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2015/FS15-FS-Budget-Justification.pdf; last accessed 

April 2015. 

forest ownership; assessing fish and wildlife habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and 

disease risk; predicting the spread of invasive species; determining capital investment in existing forest products facilities and selecting locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and responding to priorities identified in State Forest 

Action Plans. FIA data also evaluates forest disturbance risks, such as wildfire, insects and disease, and spread of invasive species. SAF members urge this subcommittee to reverse the spending cuts to FIA and requests funding in fiscal year 

2015 at a level of at least $72 million. 

USFS State and Private Forestry (S&PF) allocations support sustainable forestry 

on public and private lands. SAF strongly supports funding S&PF programs to work 

in cooperation with the States to provide assistance to private landowners who own 

more than 50 percent of the forestland in the United States. The consolidated S&PF 

Forest Health Management programs (FHP) manage forest health through direct action on the NFS lands and provide assistance to other Federal agencies, State and 

local agencies, and private landowners to prevent and mitigate insect and disease 

outbreaks as well as the spread of invasive species. SAF recommends funding FHP 

at the fiscal year 2012 enacted funding levels of $111 million to continue monitoring 

and responding to forest health concerns. 

SAF remains committed to the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). CFLRP encourages collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration on priority forest landscapes.4 In 4 years, the 23 selected projects have reduced 

hazardous fuels, generated timber receipts, and provided a boost to rural economies.5 To ensure CFLRP’s continued success, SAF supports a $40 million dollar 

funding level and consideration of additional funds for the program if available. 

In closing, SAF would like to highlight an issue of concern. SAF members were 

delighted with the return of the Bureau of Land Management Public Domain Forestry Program (PD) to fiscal year 2012 funding levels as a part of the 2014 Omnibus 

Appropriations Bill. However, SAF members are troubled by the pending loss of the 

Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund, commonly referred to as the 5900 account. This fund allows PD and BLM Oregon and California Railroad Grant Lands 

(O&C) to use a portion of the receipts from sales of timber and wood products on 

BLM lands not returned to the neighboring counties to fund management activities. 

This permanent operating fund created in the Appropriations Act of 1993 expires 

at the end of fiscal year 2015. 

After fiscal year 2015, all receipts generated from these sales currently used to 

continue management and restoration activities on PD and O&C lands will be returned to the Federal treasury. This loss of revenue will leave few dollars in the 

tight PD budget for planning, preparing, implementing, and monitoring forest ecosystem restoration activities. SAF recognizes that permanent operating fund accounts should be periodically evaluated for continued relevance or possible elimination, but BLM’s use of the 5900 account reduces the budgeted dollars required 

to operate PD. SAF recommends this account be reauthorized and not allowed to 

expire at the end of fiscal year 2015. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of these important requests. SAF and 

its extensive network of forestry and natural resources professionals stand ready to 

assist with further development and implementation of these efforts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE

JANUARY 16, 2015. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 

consistent with the President’s recommended budget. I request that the subcommittee: 
418 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

The tribe requests the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 

funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in 

these two vitally important recovery programs. The tribe recognizes and appreciates 

that the past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated 

the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

JAMES L. OLGUIN, 

Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

APRIL 8, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: The Southwestern Water Conservation District was established by the Colorado legislature to conserve and protect the waters of the San Juan and Dolores Rivers and their tributaries. 

Following this mandate, I am requesting your support for fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program in the amount of $1,392,100.00 consistent with the President’s 

recommended budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

On behalf of our District board, I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize 
419 

and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your subcommittee has 

greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

BRUCE WHITEHEAD, 

Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin Island Tribe, 

thank you for the invitation to submit our funding priorities and recommendations 

for the fiscal year 2015 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian 

Health Service (IHS). Squaxin Island Tribe requests that tribal program funding 

throughout the Federal Government be exempt from future sequestration cuts. Further we ask that the legal obligations to pay full Contract Support Costs (CSC) not 

be at the expense of reducing tribal program funding and that tribal programs not 

be subjected to across the board rescissions not imposed on other beneficiaries of the 

Federal Government. For the fiscal year 2015 budget, we submit the following requests: 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

1. $500,000 Shellfish Management Program—BIA. 

2. $2 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for Southern 

Puget Sound—BIA. 

3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS. 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

1. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program Funding. 

2. ∂$4 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund Contract Support Costs 

(CSC). 

3. ∂$19.3 million over fiscal year 2014 for Tribal Priority Allocations Account. 

4. Fully fund all of the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 that 

authorizes additional funding for law and order programs that affect Indian 

Tribes; 

5. $500,000 for Johnson O’Malley education assistance grants to support a new 

student count in 2015 and provides funding for the projected increase in the 

number of students eligible for grants. 

6. Office of Self-Governance (OSG)—Provide increased funding to the OSG to 

fully staff the office for the increase in the number of Tribes entering Self-Governance. 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

1. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health Services. 

2. Support IHS Mandatory Funding (maintain current services). 

3. ∂$30 million over fiscal year 2015 request to fully fund Contract Support 

Costs (CSC). 

4. ∂$50 million over 2015 request for Purchased and Referred Care. 

5. Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG) to fulfill 

legal requirements under title V of Public Law 106–260 which increased the 

responsibilities of OTSG. 

The Squaxin Island Tribes supports the fiscal year 2015 budgets requests of the 

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health 

Board and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE BACKGROUND

We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold centuries. We are known 

as the People of the Water because of our strong cultural connection to the natural 

beauty and bounty of Puget Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and 

the tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of the first 

30 federally-recognized Tribes to enter into a Compact of Self-Governance with the 

United States. 

Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately 2.2 square 

miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays and inlets of southern 
420 

Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh water, the tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. 

The tribe also owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a 

plot of 36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition, the tribe manages 

roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands. 

The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the largest employer in Mason County with over 1,250 employees. The tribe has a current enrollment of 1,040 and an on-reservation population of 426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin 

has an estimated service area population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor 

Force Report). 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATIONS

1. $500,000—SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT.—The Squaxin Island Tribes faces a 

budget deficit to maintain and operate the shellfish program at the current level. 

To effectively grow and develop the program, an annual minimum increase of 

$500,000 to address the shortfall and ensure the continuance of this program is requested. 

Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people for thousands of 

years and are important today for subsistence, economic and ceremonial purposes. 

The tribe’s right to harvest shellfish is guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek 

Treaty. It is important to remember that these rights were not granted by the Federal Government. They were retained by the tribe in exchange for thousands of 

acres of tribal lands. On December 20, 1994 U.S. District Court Judge Edward 

Rafeedie reaffirmed the tribe’s treaty right to naturally occurring shellfish. Rafeedie 

ruled that the tribe(s) has the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable 

shellfish on Washington beaches. 

The Squaxin Island Natural Resources Department (SINRD) is charged with protecting, managing and enhancing the land and water resources of the tribe, including fish and shellfish habitat and species. In so doing, the Department works cooperatively with State and Federal environmental, natural resources and health agencies. The shellfish management work of the SINRD includes working with private 

tideland owners and commercial growers; surveying beaches; monitoring harvests; 

enhancing supply (prepping, seeding, monitoring beds) and licensing and certifying 

harvesters and geoduck divers. We estimate that 20 percent of treaty-designated 

State lands and 80–90 percent of private tidelands are inaccessible to us due to insufficient funding. 

In fiscal year 2011, the shellfish program represented only $250,000 of the $3.3 

million budget. The result is we are unable to fully exercise our treaty rights due 

to lack of Federal support for shellfish. 

2. $2 Million—Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for Southern 

Puget Sound.—In the past few years, problems with seed production have developed 

in the shellfish industry. These problems have been primarily caused by weather 

and or other environmental factors, and their effects on the industry have resulted 

in the lack of viable and large enough seed for growers. The Squaxin Island Tribe 

recognizes that it is uniquely positioned to develop a new nursery to serve the shellfish growers of the South Puget Sound region. A shellfish nursery is a capital 

project that is both proven and a cost effective technology that takes small oyster 

and clam seeds and provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to 

grow to a size that can survive integration onto a regular beach placement. We have 

an ideal location for a nursery because it will not be disturbed by residents or recreational boaters. 

Our efforts will be an extension of another project that was created through a 

U.S. Department of Agriculture appropriation nearly two decades ago for the Lummi 

Tribe, which created an oyster and clam hatchery in Northern Puget Sound. The 

Lummi project over years has been very successful and they have supplied not only 

their own beaches but other tribes’ in their region as well. The project would benefit 

not just Squaxin Island Tribe. It would further improve the quality and quantity 

of seed and make the seed process more effective for tribal and non-tribal growers. 

The users of the facility would be the Squaxin Island Tribe, other Tribes, and nontribal clam and oyster businesses that have been largely unable to find sites for this 

type of operation. 

The tribe’s project will be a joint venture with the Lummi Nation, in that Lummi 

would be a primary larvae supplier. The project, with the expected grow-out and expansion of the industry attributable to the improved supply of seed, would offer jobs 
421 

in a depressed employment area. Once established, the venture would be fully selfsustaining through sales of the product grown and at the nursery. 

This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2 million. The tribal in-kind 

contribution to the efforts would include land and shoreline and operating costs. 

Comparable land and shoreline, if privately owned, would be easily valued in the 

millions. 

3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS ‘‘D3WXbi Palil’’ meaning ‘‘Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light’’—NWITC has not received an adequate increase in its base Indian 

Health Service budget since the original Congressional set-aside in 1993.—The 

Squaxin Island Tribe has been operating the Northwest Indian Treatment Center 

(NWITC) since 1994. Ingenious in creativity, the center offers a wide variety of cultural activities and traditional/religious ceremonies, making it a natural place to 

heal—body, mind and soul. Fittingly, the center was given the spiritual name 

‘‘D3WXbi Palil’’ meaning ‘‘Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light.’’ 

Since the original Congressional set-aside in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate increase in the base Indian Health Service budget. It is critical to increase 

the NWITC’s annual base in order to sustain the current services to the Tribes of 

the Northwest. An increase of $1.5 million would restore lost purchasing power and 

meet the need to add mental health and psychiatric components to the treatment 

program through other funding agents. This increase would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of Native Americans. 

NWITC is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility designed to serve 

American Indians from tribes located in Oregon, Washington and Idaho who have 

chronic relapse patterns related to unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC is unique 

in its integration of tribal cultural values into a therapeutic environment for co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. It is a 28 bed, 30–60 day residential facility. 

Welcomed and hailed by tribal Leaders who felt the urgent need for such a facility, NWITC is centrally located in Grays Harbor County between Olympia and Aberdeen, on 2.5 acres in the small rural town of Elma, Washington. NWITC accepts 

patients that are referred through outpatient treatment programs, parole and probation services, hospitals, assessment centers and child and family service centers. 

Medical care is provided through local Indian Health Service clinics and other medical service providers. NWITC has responded with an overwhelming success rate of 

nearly 65 percent. 

In 2011, the NWITC served 225 patients from 28 tribes and added intensive case 

management and crisis support to alumni in order to continue to promote positive 

outcomes for clients. Despite funding challenges, NWITC has continued to develop 

and deliver innovative, culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly complex 

demands. 

The Treatment Center’s traditional foods and medicines program is supported 

through a partnership with the Northwest Indian College and is funded through 

grants from the Washington Health Foundation, the National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture, The Potlatch Fund and several tribes. Weekly hands-on classes focus 

on traditional foods and medicines, including methods for growing, harvesting, processing, and preparation. Twice a month, tribal elders, storytellers, and cultural specialists speak as part of the program. A monthly family class allows patients to 

share what they are learning with their loved ones. Patients gain hands-on experience by working in three on-site teaching gardens. This program serves as a model 

for other tribal communities. 

Although we are submitting testimony on the fiscal year 2015 BIA and IHS budgets, we must comment on the fiscal year 2013 sequestration which disproportionately impacted tribal programs. The BIA and IHS tribal funding incurred a disproportionate share of cuts; IHS $220 million and BIA $119 million. This act continues to undermine Indian treaty rights and the Federal obligations and trust responsibility to American Indian and Alaskan Native people. The ongoing contribution of tribal nations to the U.S. economy is the land on which this Nation is built. 

It is ironic that we were forced into a lifestyle and to give up our land, and that 

which we retained or have since regained is threatened by the promises you made 

and have since reclaimed! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE

The requests of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe for the fiscal year 2015 Indian Health 

Service (IHS) budget are as follows: 
422 

1 Congressional Budget Office Glossary, available at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42904 (updated January 2012). 

—Ensure that Contract Support Costs continue to be fully funded by moving the 

program to mandatory entitlement spending. 

—Support reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. 

—Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis. 

The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe is located astride the U.S. Canadian border in northern New York. Traditionally the keepers of the Eastern Door of the Iroquois Confederacy, we have continued as a government for our people since before the arrival 

of Europeans on U.S. shores. We cooperate with the United States on a nation-tonation basis, and today operate our own environmental, social, policing, economic, 

health and educational programs, policies, laws and regulations. We operate our 

own medical clinic, and provide a variety of services from mental healthcare, nutrition care, pharmacy and laboratory services, outpatient services, dental care, pregnancy care, and other services. 

ENSURE CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS RECEIVE FUNDING VIA MANDATORY SPENDING

We are pleased that the administration has sought to fully fund contract support 

costs (CSC) under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) in fiscal year 2015, and we urge Congress to support that goal. We also 

acknowledge that the administration’s request is a direct response to Congress’ actions with regard to fiscal year 2014 appropriations, which removed historical caps 

on CSC funding and rejected the administration’s proposal—put forward without 

consultation and vehemently opposed by tribes—to individually cap contract support 

cost recovery at the contractor level. Contract support costs fund vital administrative functions that allow us to operate programs that provide critical services to our 

members—programs like those described above. If contract support costs are not 

fully funded, however, our programs and services are directly impacted because we 

are forced to divert limited program funding to cover fixed overhead expenses instead. We therefore appreciate Congress’ support in fiscal year 2014 and hope that 

it carries through to fiscal year 2015 and beyond. 

However, the CSC funding problem is not yet solved. Full funding for CSC must 

not come with a penalty—namely, a reduction in program funding or effective permanent sequestration of Indian program funds. That result would have the same 

devastating effect on our service delivery as the failure to fully fund CSC. Yet Congress, in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, noted that ‘‘since [contract support costs] fall under 

discretionary spending, they have the potential to impact all other programs funded 

under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill, including other equally important tribal programs.’’ Moreover, without any permanent measure to ensure full 

funding, payment of CSC remains subject to agency ‘‘discretion’’ from year to year, 

even though tribes are legally entitled to payment under the ISDEAA. Noting these 

ongoing conflicts of law, Congress directed the agencies to consult with tribes on a 

permanent solution. 

In our view, there is a logical permanent solution which Congress is empowered 

to implement: CSC should be appropriated as a mandatory entitlement. The Congressional Budget Office defines ‘‘Entitlement’’ as ‘‘A legal obligation of the Federal 

Government to make payments to a person, group of people, business, unit of government, or similar entity that meets the eligibility criteria set in law and for which 

the budget authority is not provided in advance in an appropriation act.’’ Further, 

‘‘Spending for entitlement programs is controlled through those programs’ eligibility 

criteria and benefit or payment rules.’’ 1 CSC meets every part of this definition except that the budget authority is currently provided and controlled through appropriation acts—as if CSC were a discretionary program. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary, but is a legal obligation of the United States. Indeed, the underlying purpose of the ISDEAA—to end Federal domination of Indian programs and allow for 

meaningful control by Indian tribes over their own destinies in the face of Federal 

bureaucratic resistance—will always be threatened so long as the mechanisms that 

allow the statute to function are considered ‘‘discretionary.’’ 

From an appropriations standpoint, the fiscal year 2014 Joint Explanatory Statement recognized that the current fundamental mismatch between the mandatory 

nature of CSC and the current appropriation approach leaves both the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations in the ‘‘untenable position of appropriating 

discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.’’ 

As the Joint Explanatory Statement also noted, ‘‘Typically obligations of this nature 
423 

are addressed through mandatory spending.’’ The obvious solution then is to bring 

the appropriations process in line with the statutory requirements and to recognize 

CSC for what it is: a mandatory entitlement, not a discretionary program. We therefore strongly urge the Congress to move to appropriate funding for CSC on a mandatory basis. 

REAUTHORIZE THE SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM

While the entitlement funding for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians 

(SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, those funds are administered 

through the IHS. With the recent enactment (Public Law 113–93) of a 1 year extension of the SDPI as part of the Medicare ‘‘doc fix’’ bill, it is funded through fiscal 

year 2015 at $150 million, minus a 2 percent reduction ($3 million) due to the sequestration of non-exempt mandatory programs (Public Law 112–240). This funding 

level has not increased since 2004. The SDPI has proven highly effective in Indian 

Country, and has produced excellent results. For example, in the 4 years preceding 

the last report on the SDPI in 2011, the average blood sugar level dropped nearly 

a percentage point overall, corresponding to a 40 percent decline in the risk of eye, 

kidney, and nerve complications due to diabetes. We ask that you support ongoing 

efforts to reauthorize this program for a 5-year period at increased funding levels. 

FUND THE IHS ON AN ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS BASIS

We support legislation that would place the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. The goal is for the IHS and tribal healthcare providers to have adequate 

advance notice of the amount of Federal appropriations to expect and thus not be 

subjected to the uncertainties of late funding and short-term Continuing Resolutions. Under advance appropriations 2 years of funds is approved in the first year, 

but the second year’s worth of appropriations is not counted against the subcommittee’s allocation nor the Budget Resolution until the year in which it is obligated. 

Thereafter funding is appropriated 1 year at a time, but it is 1 year in advance. 

This contrasts with forward funding which does require a one-time extra (3/4 of a 

year) funding that does count against the subcommittee’s allocation and the Budget 

Resolution. Congress provides advance appropriations for the Veterans Administration medical accounts, and the request is for parity in the appropriations schedule 

for the IHS. Legislation to authorize IHS advance appropriations has been introduced—H.R. 3229 by Representative Young and S. 1570 by Senators Murkowski 

and Begich. We ask that you support the effort to fund IHS on an advanced basis. 

Thank you for your consideration of our requests. We will be glad to provide any 

additional information the Committee may request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

APRIL 29, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propaga-
424 

tion and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

SCOTT A. VERHINES, P.E., 

New Mexico State Engineer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SUQUAMISH TRIBE

Dear Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski: The Suquamish Tribe 

asks that you support economic development, job creation, and our national heritage 

by appropriating increased funding for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) for fiscal year 2015. We agree with the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers that the appropriation needs to be $15 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) and $50 million for State Historic Preservation Officers 

(SHPOs). 

Historic Preservation Officers funded through the HPF form the backbone of our 

Nation’s historic preservation programs. Together these programs provide the tools 

needed to revitalize, rehabilitate, and protect the places that give meaning to our 

great Nation. Funding also leverages investments through local jobs, non-Federal 

contributions, and long-term economic development in communities around the 

country. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers are recognized as the authentic representatives of cultures and societies that have been in existence for countless generations. 

They are an active expression of tribal sovereignty and perform many functions and 

responsibilities in Indian County. THPOs are involved with projects to improve Indian schools, roads, health clinics, and housing, conducting important Federal and 

State compliance work. They are the first responders when a sacred site is threatened; when an ancestral home is uncovered; and when Native ancestors are disturbed by development. They are also responsible for their tribe’s oral history programs and operating tribal museums and cultural centers. 

The amount appropriated in fiscal years 2012–2014 and the President’s fiscal year 

2015 request was $56.4 million. Of that amount, $46.9 million was for the State line 

item and $9.0 million was for the tribal line item. In addition, $500,000 was appropriated for a competitive grant program to help survey and identify historic resources important to underrepresented populations. 

Unfortunately, the amount of HPF funds appropriated is not keeping pace with 

the increase in THPOs. There are now 151 THPOs, compared to only 12 in fiscal 

year 1996 when the program was first funded. There are expected to be at least 156 

THPOs in fiscal year 2015. The addition of new THPOs each year keeps the average 

level of support per THPO suppressed below $60,000, barely enough to operate a 

program to protect cultural resources on and off tribal lands. 

Without adequate funding, America’s national treasures will be forever lost. The 

HPF is the primary, and in many communities the only, means to ensure appropriate implementation of our Nation’s historic preservation laws and the only way 

to adequately safeguard our historic resources. For nearly the past half century, the 

HPF has enabled successful Federal-State, Federal-tribal, and public-private partnerships that have helped preserve historic sites and communities throughout the 

Nation. Thank you for your continued support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SUSTAINABLE URBAN FORESTS COALITION

Dear Chairman Jack Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and honorable members 

of the subcommittee: The Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC) represents 

nonprofits, national associations, nursery and landscape professionals, public works 

professionals, arborists, and others nationwide. Working together since 2004, these 

diverse professionals monitor, care and advocate for urban trees and green infrastructure. Collectively, we are asking for your support for several programs under 

the Interior Subcommittee’s jurisdiction that support urban forests and green infrastructure. 
425 

Urban forests are vital to creating and maintaining healthy, livable communities 

of all sizes. Trees growing in populated areas are a key component of community 

infrastructure and provide proven benefits to more than the 80 percent of Americans who live there. Urban forests enhance air and water quality, reduce energy 

use, increase property values, and provide quantifiable health and wellness benefits 

to people. Creating and maintaining a healthy tree canopy also creates a substantial 

demand for green collar jobs in a sector poised for rapid growth. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE

Since the passage of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1990, the Urban 

and Community Forestry (U&CF) program has been a catalyst and provided important technical assistance for promoting healthy forests in our communities. In addition, the U&CF program provides critical assistance to help communities manage 

risk, respond to storms and disturbance, and contain threats from invasive pests. 

In 2013, the U&CF program delivered technical, financial, educational, and research 

assistance to 7,292 communities and nearly 198 million people, over 60 percent of 

the U.S. population. Urban forests are integral to any community striving to reinvest in itself, encourage active, healthy citizens, and create a healthier and more 

sustainable environment with smart green infrastructure. The SUFC understands 

the current economic conditions of the country and recommends fiscal year 2015 

funding be allocated at fiscal year 2012 enacted levels for the Urban and Community Forestry program at $31.3 million. 

The Forest Service’s Forest and Rangeland Research program is essential in providing support for urban forestry research activities focused on understanding conditions and trends in our Nation’s urban and community forests and in providing tools 

and best management practices to community groups and urban forestry practitioners. Forest Service researchers and partners have made huge strides in recent 

years in developing new technologies and tools, such as the i-Tree program, for mapping the urban forest and to understand the current situation and future trends. 

Similarly, agency researchers have been helping policymakers and practitioners to 

understand the environmental, economic, and social services that trees and forests 

provide. The SUFC urges Congress to provide funding for the Forest and Rangeland 

Research line item at $303 million. This reflects $231 million for basic forest research, consistent with the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, and $72 million for Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA). We also call the subcommittee’s attention to our collaborative efforts with the Forest Service to make progress toward incorporating 

urban forest assessments into the agency’s FIA program. We urge the subcommittee 

to encourage the Forest Service to make strong efforts to integrate urban forests 

into FIA so that its critical data-collection efforts on our Nation’s forests include the 

estimated 100 million acres of urban forest lands. 

Finally, the SUFC wishes to thank Congress for the report language it included 

with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, which encourages the Forest 

Service to maintain a strong urban forest research program. While there is no budget line item for urban forestry research, the Forest Service has recognized Urban 

Natural Resources Stewardship as one of seven Priority Research Areas within its 

overall Forest and Rangeland Research program. We urge the subcommittee to continue including such language in its Interior Appropriations reports as a reflection 

of Congress’ interest in strong urban forestry research in the absence of a budget 

line item. 

Exotic pests and invasive species are among the greatest threats to urban forests. 

Trees in our towns and cities are at risk from non-native insects and diseases such 

as the emerald ash borer and Asian longhorned beetle. Non-native pests already 

cost city governments $2 billion each year to remove and replace trees they have 

killed. Homeowners in these communities pay another $1 billion per year to remove 

dead trees from their own properties. The substantial loss of trees in our communities also impacts the quality of life and property values. Funding for the Forest 

Health Program supports activities related to prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring 

through pest surveys. SUFC supports no less than fiscal year 2012 funding levels 

of $111 million (of which $48 million was directed to cooperative lands) in fiscal year 

2015 for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Management Program. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

All forests play vital roles in delivering clean water to communities of every size. 

Urban and rural forests offer fiscally-sound green solutions to the management of 

stormwater, water storage, groundwater recharge, and pollutant reduction. Green 

infrastructure is a cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure 
426 

needs that provides many community benefits: improving water and air quality; reducing energy use and mitigating climate change; improving habitat for wildlife; reducing a community’s infrastructure cost and promoting economic growth. 

SUFC supports the EPA’s goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to 

further sustainability goals by incorporating green infrastructure and enhancing 

stormwater management. SUFC also supports efforts to expand the use of green infrastructure to meet Clean Water Act goals through the Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF). SUFC supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $5 

million to strengthen green infrastructure activities, and the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $1.449 billion for CWSRF. 

The Urban Waters Federal Partnership is a 13 interagency coordinated effort 

helps stimulate local economies, create jobs, improve quality of life, and protect 

health by revitalizing urban waterways and the communities around them, focusing 

on underserved urban communities of all sizes. SUFC supports appropriating fiscal 

year 2015 funding to the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

SUFC supports full and dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF), including funding for the State and Local Assistance Program. We 

support the fiscal year 2015 budget request which calls for permanent authorization 

of $900 million in mandatory funding for LWCF programs in the Departments of 

Interior and Agriculture beginning in 2016. During the transition to permanent 

funding in 2015, the budget proposes $350 million in discretionary and $550 million 

in permanent funding, shared by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. This 

includes discretionary funding for State Assistance grants at $48.1 million, which 

includes $3 million for ‘‘Competitive Grants.’’ 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The reestablishment of the Urban Parks Recreation and Recovery (UPARR) program within the National Parks Service, proposed to be funded through the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, is essential to bring nature to the urban communities. These competitive grants focus on engaging and connecting communities, especially young people, to their neighborhood parks through projects that would revitalize and rehabilitate park and recreation opportunities. SUFC supports the President’s fiscal year 2015 request of $25 million from LWCF for the Urban Park and 

Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). 

Sincerely, 

Alliance For Community Trees 

American Forests 

AmericanHort 

American Planning Association 

American Public Works 

American Rivers 

American Society of Landscape 

Architects 

Arbor Day Foundation 

Davey Tree Foundation 

Keep America Beautiful 

International Society of Arboriculture 

National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

National Association of State Foresters 

National Recreation and Parks 

Association 

Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory 

Committee 

Outdoor Power Equipment Institute 

Professional Landcare Network 

Sacramento Tree Foundation 

SavATree Consulting Group 

Society of American Foresters 

Society of Municipal Arborists 

The Nature Conservancy 

Tree Care Industries Association 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE STEERING COMMITTEE

This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following members of the national 

Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee: 

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 

Association of Zoos & Aquariums 

Izaak Walton League of America 

National Wildlife Federation 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wildlife Society 

Wildlife Conservation Society 

Wildlife Management Institute 

Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to provide recommendations on the fiscal 
427 

year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The 

6,414 organizations and businesses that are part of the Teaming With Wildlife coalition represent millions of birders, fish and wildlife professionals, hunters, anglers, 

boaters, hikers and other nature enthusiasts. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

program was created in response to this diverse coalition. We encourage the subcommittee to provide a minimum of $58.695 million for the State & Tribal Wildlife 

Grants program in fiscal year 2015, which would avoid further cuts to this program. 

Funding for the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been reduced by 35 

percent since fiscal year 2010. 

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the only Federal program with 

the singular purpose of preventing Federal endangered species listings. It is achieving success as highlighted in the State Wildlife Grants Success Stories Report which 

showed how partnerships in every State are conserving vulnerable fish and wildlife, 

including many that are candidates for Federal endangered species listing. The program is providing needed capacity to assess and implement actions to conserve 

many of the hundreds of species that have been petitioned for Federal endangered 

species listing. 

Preventing new endangered species listings is a goal shared by conservationists, 

business, farmers and ranchers and has broad bipartisan support. Through early 

and strategic action, we can be successful in preventing new endangered species. 

Adequate and consistent funding for the program is essential to fulfillment of the 

shared Federal-State responsibility for keeping our Nation’s wildlife from becoming 

endangered. Now more than ever, we should be focusing limited resources on this 

kind of smart, effective investment in conservation. 

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program has been cut by 1⁄3 since 2010. The 

reduction in funding is impacting States’ and their partner’s ability to restore habitat, protect land, incentivize private lands conservation, monitor species, conduct research and mitigate threats like invasive species and disease. Past cuts are slowing 

conservation work which is leading to a higher probability for future endangered 

species listings. There is no other program that can take the place of the State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants program. 

Although the need is much greater, continued funding will help maintain essential capacity to conserve the more than 12,000 species that States have identified 

as at-risk in their State Wildlife Action Plans. These plans were developed collaboratively by leading scientists, conservationists, sportsmen and private landowners 

and identified the most effective and practical means to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered in every State, territory and the District of Columbia. The plans 

are up for a critical 10-year review and revision in 2015. Funding is needed to ensure States and their partners have the resources needed to update the plans to ensure the best science is available to inform the plans so that successful implementation can be achieved. 

We understand and appreciate the fiscal constraints that face our Nation. However, the investment in the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants program is relatively 

modest compared to the scope of work it funds (proactive conservation in all 56 

States, territories and the District of Columbia) and the importance of that work 

(recovery of some of our Nation’s most imperiled fish and wildlife). We appreciate 

the subcommittee’s past support for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program 

and hope the highest level of funding possible will be realized for the program in 

fiscal year 2015. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THEATRE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre Communications Group—the national service organization for the American theatre—is 

grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our 494 not-for-profit 

member theatres across the country and the 36 million audience members that the 

theatre community serves. We urge you to support funding at $155 million for the 

National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2015. 

Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the economy, creates jobs 

and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit arts generate $135.2 billion annually 

in economic activity, support 4.13 million jobs and return $9.59 billion in Federal 

income taxes. Art museums, exhibits and festivals combine with performances of 

theatre, dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for each Federal dollar awarded, and 

is clearly an investment in the economic health of America. In an uncertain economy where corporate donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished, 
428 

and increased ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced. Maintaining the strength of 

the not-for-profit sector, along with the commercial sector, will be vital to supporting 

the economic health of our Nation. 

Our country’s not-for-profit theatres develop innovative educational activities and 

outreach programs, providing millions of young people, including ‘‘at-risk’’ youth, 

with important skills for the future by expanding their creativity and developing 

problem-solving, reasoning and communication abilities—preparing today’s students 

to become tomorrow’s citizens. Our theatres present new works and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities. These theatres also nurture— 

and provide artistic homes for the development of—the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors, directors and designers working in regional theatre, on 

Broadway and in the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have 

become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing forces in 

difficult times, and producing work that reflects and celebrates the strength of our 

Nation’s diversity. 

NEA GRANTS AND THEIR IMPACT

Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact: 

With a $10,000 Art Works grant from the NEA, Trinity Repertory Company in 

Providence, Rhode Island, will produce a new production of Oliver, directed by Sharon and Richard Jenkins. Audience members will experience a production which offers fresh insights to a classic work, giving prominence to character and narrative, 

and introducing updated orchestrations that reveal the beauty of the music. Postshow discussions will encourage audiences to immediately reflect on their ideas. 

Outreach activities will include a free performance for constituents served by social 

service agencies, and a pay-what-you-can performance. Six matinees will welcome 

3,000 school children, and workshops will bring actors and other teaching artists 

into the region’s classrooms for 50 customized pre- and post-show sessions. Fifteen 

actors and musicians will be employed, as well as designers, artisans and a 100- 

member staff. Nine local children will also receive the enriching experience of working in a professional theatre while living at home and staying in school. 

In order to create a lasting impact on the field and promote burgeoning playwrights, South Coast Repertory (SCR) based in Costa Mesa, California received a 

$50,000 Art Works grant to support the 17th annual Pacific Playwrights Festival 

which brings together artists, local audiences and theatre professionals from across 

the country. Audiences will enjoy seven previously unproduced works and the world 

premieres of Samuel D. Hunter’s Rest, Rachel Bonds’ Five Mile Lake and Adam 

Rapp’s The Purple Lights of Joppa Illinois. Additionally, the festival will include 

staged readings of Theresa Rebeck’s Zealot, Eliza Clark’s Future Thinking, Rajiv Joseph’s Mr. Wolf and Melissa Ross’ Of Good Stock. All five readings from last year’s 

festival went on to full productions at SCR and other theatres. This NEA grant will 

help support all seven projects and advance new American playwrights across the 

American stage. In addition to programming like this festival SCR annually serves 

more than 15,000 Orange County students and teachers through ticketing programs 

and bus subsidies that make professional theatre accessible to underserved youth 

and free after-school dramatics workshops available for at-risk children in Title One 

elementary schools. 

Weston Playhouse Theatre based in Weston, Vermont, received a $20,000 grant 

to support a production of Pulitzer-Prize winning author, Annie Baker’s adaptation 

of Anton Chekhov’s ‘‘Uncle Vanya.’’ The production is being complemented by a series of engagement and learning opportunities. In the spring, a teachers’ workshop 

was held that provided more than a dozen educators with a wealth of knowledge 

about the playwright, the play, the art of translation, and the creative process of 

production development. In the early fall, these educators will bring their students 

to a matinee performance of this masterpiece for just $9 a ticket. Teachers will have 

the opportunity to engage with their students after the show, with carefully-prepared study guides. Last year’s Mockingbird matinee series brought in 1,365 students and 75 educators. Similar numbers are expected this year. For adults this 

summer, there will be a gallery showing of the 1994 film ‘‘Vanya on 42nd Street,’’ 

and plans are in place for a pre-show reception for a group from the Vermont Land 

Trust, igniting the environmental themes explored in all of Chekhov’s work and giving members of the community the opportunity to have a voice in addition to a deep 

artistic experience. 

Not only did the NEA’s funding contribute to realizing this production, but it also 

helped to further Weston Playhouse Theatre Company’s mission to enrich the lives 

of a broad rural population with theatre of national quality and significance sup-
429 

ported through education and outreach. To do this, a year-round staff of seven 

swells to more than a hundred during the summer months. Every summer, more 

than 20,000 ticket-holders take a seat in one of Weston’s three performance spaces. 

Each production is enhanced with show notes, director notes, pre-show director 

talks, and post-show talkbacks. In building audiences and performers for the future, 

Weston runs a Student Ambassador program, as well as residency programs in local 

schools and classes. 

The NEA has awarded Shakespeare Festival St. Louis in Missouri a $15,000 

grant to support Shakespeare in the Streets (SITS), a grassroots theatrical experience that invites St. Louis’ diverse neighborhoods to tell their unique community 

stories. Under the guidance of a creative team, community residents contribute to 

developing an original play based on Shakespeare’s works—a play whose themes reflect the community’s social and economic ‘‘character.’’ Their partnership results in 

three free street performances that showcase the combined talents of professional 

actors performing alongside local residents. The project uses techniques in community co-creation to inspire regional collaboration and conversation. 

The audience for the three free performances was over 2000 people in 2013. Over 

130 local area residents participated in the production aimed to reclaim St. Louis 

city streets as places of community, conversation, and collaboration. The program 

employs dozens of artists, teaching artists, and provides stipends for neighborhood 

young people to work professionally with the Festival and gain transferable skills 

to other disciplines. SITS involves dozens of corporate, foundation, and community 

partners and provides educational workshops at all three area schools, followed by 

free Summer Shakespeare Camps for neighborhood students, allowing them the 

chance to create their own version of the Shakespeare production while fostering an 

understanding of Shakespeare’s universal themes. The Festival annually employs 

over 80 artists and craftsmen, serves over 25,000 young people at 125 schools, and 

performs for more than 60,000 patrons each year through its main stage and community programs. In 2013 the Festival entertained its 600,000th patron in Forest 

Park. 

These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary programs supported 

by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the Endowment’s Theatre Program is able to fund only 50 percent of the applications it receives, so 50 percent 

of the theatres are turned away because there aren’t sufficient funds. Theatre Communications Group urges you to support a funding level of $155 million for fiscal 

year 2015 for the NEA, to maintain citizen access to the cultural, educational and 

economic benefits of the arts, and to advance creativity and innovation in communities across the United States. 

The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the Nation’s well-being 

and its economic vitality. It is supported by a remarkable combination of government, business, foundation and individual donors. It is a striking example of Federal/State/private partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure of 

stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when other sources 

of funding are diminished. Further, the American public favors spending Federal 

tax dollars in support of the arts. The NEA was funded at $146 million in the fiscal 

year 2014 budget; however, it has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in 

fiscal year 1996 and its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee 

to fund the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural programs reaching Americans across the country. 

Thank you for considering this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TOWN OF BALDWIN, FLORIDA

This outside witness testimony is being submitted by the Town of Baldwin, Florida to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies for consideration of fiscal year 2015 appropriations within the U.S. Department 

of the Interior and/or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the amount of 

$1,000,000. 

I. PROJECT SYNOPSIS

The Town of Baldwin is presently under a Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) Administrative Order (AO 160 NE) that calls for an investigation 

and monitoring of the effluent wastewater discharge at the Baldwin Waste Water 

Treatment Facility (WWTF), as FDEP does not have reasonable assurance the discharge will meet the State of Florida’s numeric nutrient criteria (NNC). Because the 

WWTF will not likely meet these NNC requirements, the town will look to completely eliminate all effluent surface water discharge. 
430 

This project aims to eliminate the WWTF surface water discharge by piping reclaimed/reuse water from the WWTF to the Brandy Branch Generating Station 

owned and operated by the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for use as cooling 

water. Approximately 0.25 millions of gallons per day (MGD) annual average daily 

flow (AADF) of wastewater effluent will be reused, resulting in the complete elimination of surface water discharge into the unnamed ditch that flows to Deep Creek. 

The Brandy Branch Generating Station currently uses up to 1.0 MGD of groundwater for cooling water, and this project would reduce JEA’s groundwater withdrawals by 0.25 MGD. 

II. PROJECT EVALUATION

JEA owns and operates the Brandy Branch Generating Station which is located 

east of Baldwin. This facility is a gas-fired power plant which utilizes 1.0 to 1.5 

MGD of groundwater for cooling purposes, which far exceeds the Baldwin WWTF 

average day design flow of 0.4 MGD and maximum day design flow of 0.8 MGD. 

Discussions with JEA representatives have indicated that they would be willing to 

accept the WWTF effluent for use as cooling water. The facility typically only utilizes cooling water during daylight hours. Effluent would be discharged at the base 

of existing cooling towers which are located approximately 7 ft. above grade. The 

facility has no onsite storage. Currently, the facility utilizes Floridan Aquifer wells 

to supply 100 percent of their cooling water needs. This alternative would have the 

added benefit of reducing groundwater withdrawals, in addition to eliminating a 

surface water discharge. 

The following facilities would be required to convey reclaimed water to the Brandy 

Branch Generating Station: (1) effluent transfer pump station to pump reclaimed 

water into an onsite ground storage tank; (2) 1.25 MG domed-top ground storage 

tank at the WWTF site; (3) two high service pumps with variable frequency drives 

(VFD); (4) 19,000 linear feet (LF) of 10-inch force main to convey reclaimed water 

to Brandy Branch Generating Station; (5) two jack & bores of the CSX railroad and 

two directional drills; (6) yard piping; (7) sitework and; (8) electrical/instrumentation. 

Operation of the transfer pumps would be liquid level controlled. Operation of the 

high service pumps would be flow and/or pressure controlled. The high service 

pumps would shut off upon encountering high pressure resulting from a closed valve 

at the Brandy Branch Generating Station. The ground storage tank would be 

equipped with an overflow discharging to the existing surface water outfall in the 

event that the tank filled to capacity. It is anticipated that an emergency discharge 

to the surface water outfall would have to be maintained for those infrequent events 

when the generating station was not taking cooling water for maintenance reasons. 

No new treatment facilities would be required at the Baldwin WWTF, only storage 

and pumping facilities. 

A. Technical Feasibility 

This project is technically feasible. Further evaluation of effluent quality by JEA 

will be necessary to see what effects the blending with groundwater may have on 

their facilities. Also, control logic for the high service pumps will need to be developed to coincide with JEA’s operational requirements. 

B. Design Criteria 

Design criteria for the proposed facilities are summarized in Table B–1, as follows: 
431 

TABLE B–1—DESIGN CRITERIA 

Effluent Transfer Pump Station 

Type .................................................................................. Submersible 

Number ............................................................................. 2 

Design Point ..................................................................... 700 gpm @ 40 ft. TDH 

Horsepower ....................................................................... 20 HP 

Effluent Ground Storage Tank 

Type .................................................................................. Domed-Top Circular Pre-Stressed 

Number ............................................................................. 1 

Effective Capacity ............................................................ 1.25 MG 

Diameter ........................................................................... 93 ft. 

Height ............................................................................... 25 ft. 

High Service Pumps 

Type .................................................................................. Self-Priming 

Number ............................................................................. 2 

Design Point ..................................................................... 833 gpm @ 80 ft. TDH 

Horsepower ....................................................................... 40 HP 

Effluent Force Main 

Size ................................................................................... 10 in. 

Length .............................................................................. 19,000 LF 

Material ............................................................................ PVC 

C. Environmental Impact 

This project would have significant positive effects on the environment. It would 

result in the elimination of a surface water discharge, thereby improving the water 

quality of the receiving stream. It would also result in the reduction of groundwater 

withdrawals at the generating station, thereby conserving precious groundwater. 

The only potential deleterious effect would be that an emergency discharge to the 

existing outfall would need to be maintained for those infrequent times that the 

generating station was not taking reclaimed water. It is anticipated that the emergency discharge would be needed for less than two weeks per year. 

D. Economic Evaluation 

An economic evaluation of this project has been conducted, to include estimated 

capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and present worth analysis. 

1. Capital Cost 

The capital cost for this project has been developed utilizing bid pricing from similar work, manufacturers price quotes, and engineering judgment. All costs presented 

are in 2014 U.S. dollars. A construction contingency of 10 percent and non-construction costs of 15 percent will be included. The capital cost for the proposed project 

is summarized in Table D–1, as follows: 

TABLE D–1—ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE PROJECT COST 

Description Estimated Cost 

a. Mobilization and General Conditions ............................................................................................................ $100,000 

b. Effluent Transfer Pump Station .................................................................................................................... 150,000 

c. Effluent Storage Tank (1.25 MG) .................................................................................................................. 750,000 

d. Reuse High Service Pumps ........................................................................................................................... 100,000 

e. Yard Piping .................................................................................................................................................... 100,000 

f. Sitework .......................................................................................................................................................... 50,000 

g. Electrical/Instrumentation ............................................................................................................................. 150,000 

h. 19,000 LF of 10 in. Reuse Main .................................................................................................................. 950,000 

i. Two (2) Jack & Bore of CSX Railroad ........................................................................................................... 100,000 

j. Two (2) Directional Drills of 12 in. HDPE ..................................................................................................... 50,000 

Subtotal—Estimated Construction Cost .................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

Construction Contingency (10 percent) ........................................................................................... 250,000 

Total—Estimated Construction Cost ....................................................................................................... 2,750,000 

Estimated Non–Construction Cost .................................................................................................. 412,000 

Total—Estimated Capital Cost .............................................................................................. 3,162,000 
432 

2. O&M Cost 

An annual O&M cost for this project will be developed, assuming the following: 

current average daily WWTF flow of 0.25 MGD; power costs of $0.10/kWh; equipment maintenance costs equivalent to 3 percent of equipment capital cost, and; pipe 

and tank maintenance costs equivalent to 0.2 percent of capital cost. Labor costs are 

assumed to remain the same as existing as this alternative will not require increased staffing. The O&M cost for the proposed project is summarized in Table D– 

2, as follows: 

TABLE D–2—PROJECTED ANNUAL O&M COSTS 

Description Projected Annual 

Cost 

Power .................................................................................................................................................................. $7,100 

Equipment Maintenance .................................................................................................................................... 7,500 

Tank & Pipeline Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 3,400 

Total—Projected Annual O&M Cost ..................................................................................................... 18,000 

3. Present Worth Analysis 

A present worth analysis of the alternative will be performed, taking into account 

the estimated capital cost, projected O&M cost, and salvage value. The 2013 EPA 

discount rate of 4.125 percent will be used in determining the present worth of the 

corresponding O&M costs and salvage value of the alternative. A period of analysis 

of 20 years will be utilized. 

(P/A, 4.125 percent, 20 yrs) = 13.44 

(P/F, 4.125 percent, 20 yrs) = 0.446 

i. Estimated Capital Cost 

$3,162,000 

Present Value = ($3,162,000) 

ii. Projected O&M Cost 

$18,000 

Present Value = ($18,000) x 13.44 = ($241,900) 

iii. Salvage Value 

Piping (50 yrs.) = $1,200,000 x 0.446 x (50 yrs.¥20 yrs.)/50 yrs. = $321,100 

Structures (30 yrs.) = $825,000 x 0.446 x (30 yrs.¥20 yrs.)/30 yrs. = 

$122,700 

Equipment (20 yrs.) = $425,000 x 0.446 x (20 yrs.¥20 yrs.)/20 yrs. = $0 

Present Value = $443,800 

iv. Total Present Worth 

($3,162,000) + ($241,900) + $443,800 = ($2,960,100) 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRI-COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

APRIL 11, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 
433 

1The Education Trust, The State of Education for Native American Students at 3 (August 

2013), available at: http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/NativeStudentBriefl0.pdf. 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

MIKE BERRY, 

General Manager. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS NATIONAL

ASSEMBLY

Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Cochran and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Quinton Roman Nose and I am the Executive Director of the Tribal 

Education Departments National Assembly (‘‘TEDNA’’). TEDNA is a national nonprofit membership organization for tribal education agencies/departments (‘‘TEAs’’), 

which are executive branch agencies of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal 

governments responsible for Tribal education matters. There are an estimated 200 

TEAs, located in 32 States, serving over 700,000 American Indian and Alaska Native (‘‘Native American’’) students. TEDNA respectfully requests $2 million to support TEAs in the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 

appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015 to conduct much needed Indian education activities. Further, TEDNA supports the President’s request through his Opportunity, 

Growth and Security Initiative for $3 million to be directed toward incentives for 

Bureau of Indian Education grant-funded schools, capacity-building and Tribal control of those schools. 

AUTHORIZATION FOR FUNDING

Federal funding for TEAs is authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, 

title X, section 1140 (25 U.S.C.§ 2020). 

JUSTIFICATION FOR FUNDING

Federal education policy is failing Native American students. Native American 

students drop out of high school at a higher rate and score lower on achievement 

tests than any other student group. The national dropout rate of Native American 

students is double that of their non-Indian peers. Likewise, the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Office of Civil Rights (‘‘OCR’’) March 2014 Data Snapshot recognized 

that Native American elementary and secondary students in public schools are disproportionately suspended and expelled. OCR also found that Native American kindergarten students are among those held back a year at nearly twice the rate of 

white kindergarten students, and that 9 percent of Native American ninth grade 

students repeat ninth grade. 

In achievement, Native American 8th grade students are 18 percent more likely 

to read or perform in mathematics at a ‘‘below basic’’ level. Only a quarter of Native 

American high school graduates taking the ACT score at the ‘‘college-ready’’ level 

in math and only about one-third score at the ‘‘college-ready’’ level in reading. A 

2013 report issued by the Education Trust pointed out: 

Unlike achievement results for every other major ethnic group in the 

United States, those for Native [American] students have remained nearly 

flat in recent years, and the gaps separating these students from their 

white peers have actually widened.1

At the same time, tribal government involvement in the education of Native 

American students is severely restricted. Since 1988, Congress has authorized fund-
434 

ing specifically to build tribal capacity to directly serve Native students in Bureau 

of Indian Education (‘‘BIE’’) schools. However, funds have never been appropriated 

to fulfill this crucial need. A similar authorization for tribal capacity building aimed 

at public schools on Indian reservations has been funded since fiscal year 2012, resulting in the Department of Education’s pioneering State-Tribal Education Partnership Program (‘‘STEP’’). Though very important, STEP only addresses one aspect of 

the existing need. While the corresponding funding opportunity for BIE schools has 

gone unutilized, our Native American students in BIE schools have continued to be 

underserved. 

TEAs are in a unique position to halt and reverse the negative outcomes for Native students. TEAs have already proven that they are capable of improving Native 

American student outcomes. For example, the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, one 

of the STEP grantees, has a science, technology, and math program, among many 

other education programs, that serves approximately 250 Chickasaw students. Ninety percent of senior students participating in the program enroll in college. Through 

the STEP grant, Chickasaw has already put in place the framework to improve student outcomes and attendance. For example, before the co-governance model was in 

place, several Native American students were falling through the cracks and being 

expelled. Now, the Chickasaw Nation has stepped in to move expelled students into 

other alternative high school programs. Through this process, Local Education 

Agencies (‘‘LEAs’’) now understand that this is exactly the type of situation that the 

Chickasaw Nation TEA can address before the expulsion stage so intervention services can be provided, such as counseling, to students that are at risk. Thus, the 

STEP Program put in place a process allowing the TEAs and LEAs to proactively 

flag at risk students and provide the necessary intervention services. 

The work of the Nez Perce Tribe’s TEA is another good example. The most current research indicates that Native American academic achievement must include 

effective teaching strategies. Also, researchers studying the achievement of Native 

American students have found a connection between low achievement and low cultural relevance. The Nez Perce Tribe, another STEP grantee, has made a large inroad to providing teacher training on the integration of cultural pedagogy, tribal 

education standards, and common core standards. In addition, technical assistance 

is provided by the Nez Perce TEA to their partner LEA’s on use of the Native Star 

Culture and Language Indicators which address culturally-responsive school leadership, community engagement, and infusion of culture and language into the school’s 

curriculum and instruction. 

The State of Idaho’s State Education Agency (‘‘SEA’’) acknowledged that it does 

not have the expertise to provide training or technical assistance in meeting the 

unique educational and cultural needs of Native American students. Nez Perce’s 

STEP grant has provided a platform for the Tribe’s TEA and the local LEAs and 

SEA to work together to improve Native American student performance in this 

manner vis-a`-vis the three Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs (title I, part A; title II, part A; and School Improvement Grants). Nez Perce 

also has a family engagement piece to their STEP grant that recognizes the role of 

the family as the first educator and organizes the parents and school staff to work 

together to assess parent involvement programs, policies, and practices. The end 

goal is to improve the educational experience and college/career readiness of the students. 

A final example is The Hoopa Valley Tribe of California, which operates a learning center that works with at risk students. The Hoopa Valley TED identifies K– 

12 students at risk, pairs the students with mentors, and develops student-learning 

plans. Students are tutored in target academic areas and coached in life skills. This 

program alone has improved student academic performance by two letter grades in 

core academic areas. 

These examples of success demonstrate the positive impact tribal involvement has 

on Native American students. This type of successful tribal involvement in the education of Native American students should be expanded and replicated in BIE 

schools. Congress has identified in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

several areas of focus in meeting this worthy objective. If appropriated by this subcommittee, these funds would be used to facilitate tribal control in all matters relating to Native American education on reservations. More specifically, there are three 

areas of particular focus. First, TEAs can use this funding to support early education initiatives and develop culturally relevant curriculum and assessments. Second, increased tribal participation will include TEAs providing coordination, administrative support services and technical assistance to schools and education programs on Indian reservations. This would include maintaining and sharing electronic data regarding Native American students, and implementing programs to increase graduation rates and post-secondary school readiness. This would foster 
435 

much-needed cooperation and coordination with entities carrying out education on 

Indian reservations. Third, this appropriation would fund the development and enforcement of tribal educational codes, including tribal educational policies and tribal 

standards applicable to curriculum, personnel, students, facilities, and support programs. As Congress has already recognized, these three areas are core educational 

functions that are most appropriately left to tribes. 

We applaud President Obama’s request in his Opportunity, Growth and Security 

Initiative that Congress invest in ‘‘incentivizing schools funded through the Bureau 

of Indian Education to introduce reforms that improve student outcomes.’’ TEDNA 

supports the President’s approach to provide incentives to tribally controlled schools 

so that they voluntarily adopt certain research-based reforms rather impose mandates and sanctions. Further, TEDNA suggests that this funding be modeled on the 

discretionary grants used by the U.S. Department Education to foster competition 

among applicants and build tribal capacity, particularly the capacity of tribal educational agencies, to operate schools. At a low cost to taxpayers, such a competition 

would bring much-needed reform to many of the tribally controlled schools in the 

BIE-funded system, one of the lowest-achieving school systems in the Nation. 

Moreover, tribal governments, acting through their TEAs, should have a central 

role in a reformed BIE school system. Therefore, the President’s initiative should 

restructure the administration of BIE schools and have TEAs act as school boards 

for BIE grant schools. This is the type of administrative and governance reform 

TEDNA has encouraged for many years. We believe that TEDNA’s request today for 

the appropriation of capacity-building dollars complement the President’s initiative 

well. 

Investment in TEAs is sound Federal policy. Direct tribal involvement in education eliminates undue bureaucratic barriers and streamlines administration. 

Moreover, encouraging and supporting tribal control in education begins to implement the policy of Tribal self-determination in education and further the United 

States’ trust responsibility to Native American students. Thus, this subcommittee 

is presented with a unique opportunity to increase tribal involvement and leverage 

the expertise of TEAs in educating Native students. 

REQUEST

TEDNA respectfully requests $2 million TEAs in the Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015. TEDNA 

also supports the President’s request in the Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative to foster competition in tribally controlled grant schools funded by the BIE 

and we urge Congress to appropriate $3 million for fiscal year 2015 for that purpose. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of The Trust for Public Land in support of programs under your jurisdiction 

for the fiscal year 2015 appropriations process. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is 

a national nonprofit land conservation organization working to protect land for people in communities across the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support 

that you have shown for Federal conservation programs during these challenging 

fiscal times. We recognize that the subcommittee will again face enormous challenges in meeting the broad range of priority needs in the Interior and Environment 

bill this year. Our work in many States around the country shows that there is tremendous support for conservation and access to recreation at the local, State and 

Federal level, and the programs under your jurisdiction play a critical role in bringing those community visions to reality. Thank you for your support. 

Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the land conservation toolbox and 

provides manifold benefits to the American people. Given the limited public conservation funding at all levels of government, TPL works to leverage Federal conservation dollars, bringing to bear private philanthropic support as well as State 

and local funding to forge solutions to sometimes complex conservation funding challenges. The major programs under your jurisdiction that we count on year in and 

year out are the entire suite of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs—including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS) and the United States Forest 

Service (USFS) acquisitions, NPS State and local grants, the Forest Legacy Program 

and the Cooperative Endangered Species Act Fund—as well as the United States 
436 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North American Wetlands Conservation Act and 

the USFS Community Forest Program. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

For almost 50 years the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been the cornerstone that sustains our Federal public lands heritage and remains today a compelling and urgently needed program. When Congress created LWCF in 1964, it dedicated specific revenues to ensure that funds would be available for annual land conservation and outdoor recreation needs. The major source of these revenues has 

been offshore oil and gas development in Federal waters. LWCF does not rely at 

all on taxpayer dollars. Instead, revenues generated from energy development and 

natural resource depletion are used for the protection of other natural resources 

such as parks, open space, and wildlife habitat for the benefit of current and future 

generations. We (and, polls show, most of America) believes it is both logical and 

necessary that this principle—using a small percentage of annual Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS) receipts (which average over $6 billion) as a conservation offset—be 

fully honored. 

Investments in conservation and outdoor recreation make sound economic sense, 

too. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that active outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports nearly 6.1 million jobs 

across the U.S., and generates $39.9 billion in annual national tax revenue. 

For these and many other reasons we strongly support the fiscal year 2015 President’s budget proposal to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 

million, with $350 million from discretionary sources and $550 million in mandatory 

funds, for the various component programs funded under LWCF. In the fiscal year 

2015 bill, we respectfully request that you allocate at least $350 million in discretionary funding as the budget proposes to support essential community-based conservation. We recognize that the mandatory funding request requires additional legislative action, and that you face significant challenges in addressing the many competing demands covered in your bill. We believe that continued investment in the 

entire suite of LWCF programs as proposed in the budget is essential and are ready 

to work with the subcommittee to ensure that dollars invested are well spent on our 

Nation’s most urgent needs. We greatly appreciate the key role your subcommittee 

plays in ensuring that program dollars are used for high-priority strategic investments. 

LWCF’s programs bring specific and complementary conservation benefits to the 

American public. These key programs are: 

FEDERAL LAND ACQUISITIONS

Every year tens of millions of Americans, as well as visitors to our country, visit 

our Federal public lands—national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and BLM conservation lands. Strategic inholding and other acquisitions in these Federal areas 

through LWCF ensure recreation access and nature education; foster vital economic 

growth; protect clean water and other community resources; enhance the incomparable natural and scenic treasures that belong to all Americans; and frequently 

resolve complex land-use conflicts and produce management savings. Without adequate funding, the unfortunate alternative often is an irretrievable loss of public use 

and enjoyment of these areas and irreversible damage to the resources we all care 

about. 

This is precisely the choice for numerous outdoor recreation and natural resource 

protection projects budgeted in fiscal year 2015, including lands in the San 

Bernardino and Tahoe national forests in California, the newly-designated Rio 

Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico, the Black Hills National Forest in South Dakota, the Appalachian Trail in New Hampshire, , and within the 

Yakima River Watershed in Washington State. The Trust for Public Land is working in these and other areas identified in the President’s budget and looks forward 

to working with the subcommittee as you consider these critical needs. 

At the same time that incompatible development within Federal units is a mounting concern for the public, we have found that many private inholding owners are 

open to and quite often eager to find a conservation solution. Faced with uncertainty 

about the availability of LWCF dollars, however, many landowners find that they 

cannot afford to wait for that win-win outcome. Adequate and timely acquisition of 

inholdings through the LWCF is critical to efforts to protect the Nation’s public 

lands heritage when these time-sensitive acquisition opportunities arise. As the subcommittee evaluates the myriad programmatic needs and measures for making programs more efficient for the fiscal year 2015 Interior and Environment Appropria-
437 

tions Bill, we look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure that funds 

are spent wisely on strategic and urgent conservation priorities. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE/STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Since 1965, the State and local assistance grant program has provided formula 

funds to States and local communities for 43,000 projects that create and expand 

State and local parks or improve recreation facilities. This program reaches deep 

into communities across our Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places 

of local importance and opportunities for close-to-home recreation. As TPL continues 

our work with many of these communities to meet these needs, we hope the subcommittee will fully fund the administration’s request for stateside grants. We also 

support the allocation of LWCF funds to a new nationwide competitive State and 

local grants program, which was first funded in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill and is proposed for additional funds in the President’s fiscal year 2015 

budget. This proposal is generating substantial interest in cities and towns across 

the Nation and we look forward to working with you and others to make it a success. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE/URBAN PARK AND RECREATION FUND

The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2015 proposes $25 million (included in the 

mandatory LWCF proposal) to fund the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Funding UPARR in fiscal year 2015 would enable the National 

Park Service to issue competitive grants for improved recreational opportunities in 

parks and along trails in metropolitan areas throughout the country. From 1978 to 

2002, UPARR grants helped bring improvements to parks and playgrounds in 380 

communities in 43 States as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

Grants have gone to places as diverse as Providence, Rhode Island; San Francisco, 

California, Knoxville, Tennessee; Springfield, Missouri; Omaha, Nebraska; and Meridian, Mississippi. Through our Parks for People Program, The Trust for Public 

Land works closely with cities to meet a goal of providing safe access to recreation 

within a 10 minute walk from home or school. We work with schools and communities to design, fund and care for improved parks and playgrounds. The restoration 

of UPARR funding in the fiscal year 2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations 

bill would be a sound investment in the health and well-being of our Nation’s children. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE/FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

The Forest Legacy Program provides extraordinary assistance to States and localities seeking to preserve important working forests. Since its inception in 1990, the 

Forest Legacy Program has protected over 2.3 million acres of forestland and has 

leveraged more than the required 25 percent match. For fiscal year 2015, the President’s budget recommends projects that provide multiple public benefits through forest protection—clean water, wildlife protection, climate change adaptation and mitigation, public access to recreation, economic development and sustainable forestry. 

We urge your continued support for sustained investment in this strategic and successful program. Included in the fiscal year 2015 budget proposal are numerous 

projects where TPL is working in partnership with the States to protect recreation 

access for snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs in the woods, buffer important Federal and State conservation areas and provide strategic land conservation that fits 

a larger goal. Among these are the program’s top priority project in Montana, which 

will protect the primary water supply for the community of Whitefish; a 2,085-acre 

addition to Camel’s Hump State Park in the Green Mountains of Vermont; the second-phase of a project protecting an important watershed adjacent to Eureka, California; an 1800-acre property 2 miles from Zion National Park; a 6,700 acre working 

forest project on the Olympic Peninsula along Puget Sound; and a working forest 

project in Maine that represents 22 percent of the State’s entire maple syrup production and 4 percent of the entire national output. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE/COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION

FUND

We are grateful for the subcommittee’s historic support for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service grant programs, including the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), which leverages State and private funds and has protected 

threatened and endangered species habitat across the Nation. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) land acquisition program within CESCF is critical to communities like Whitefish, Montana where landowners and public wildlife managers are 
438 

working together through integrated HCP’s to foster species recover and appropriate 

economic development. In TPL’s work with these and other communities, we have 

seen how essential CESCF Federal cost-share dollars are to species conservation 

and local economies. In addition, the Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) program 

under CESCF aids species recovery where there is no HCP—as, for instance, with 

the proposed protection of a ranch along the Lower Deschutes River in Wasco County, Oregon. 

Beyond LWCF, we urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding to other 

conservation programs including: 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE/NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

(NAWCA)

We respectfully request your support for program funding at the President’s budg- et level of $34.1 million in fiscal year 2015. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation, restoration and enhancement projects. Our recent work through 

the NAWCA program will ensure protection of fast-disappearing coastal habitat in 

Connecticut and support restoration along the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. 

This is a highly-leveraged program with a substantial record of success and is another important Federal conservation tool to support critical wetland habitat. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE/COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM

Last but not least, we urge your continued support for the Community Forest Program (CFP), which the subcommittee has funded since fiscal year 2010. This program complements existing conservation programs by helping local communities 

and tribes identify, purchase, and manage important forestlands that are threatened with development. These locally led efforts can be tailored to the needs of each 

community, from timber revenue for local budgets to recreation access and outdoor 

education. Every Federal dollar from CFP is evenly matched by funding from State, 

local, and private sources. The Forest Service has now approved 13 grants to innovative local and tribal projects in 9 States, and the program has generated significant interest from local entities concerned about the future of their close-to-home 

forests. Our successful projects using CFP grants include the Barre Town Forest in 

Vermont and the Thurston Hills Community Forest in Oregon. Given the strong interest in community forests from coast to coast, we urge you to include $5 million 

in the fiscal year 2015 bill for this innovative conservation tool. 

The programs highlighted here are critical to the future of conservation at the 

local, State and Federal levels; reflect the continued demand on the part of the 

American people for access to outdoor recreation; and help sustain our economy and 

reflect the true partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we 

are deeply thankful for the subcommittee’s recognition of the importance of these 

programs and urge you to maintain robust funding for them in the fiscal year 2015 

Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TUBA CITY BOARDING SCHOOL—GOVERNING BOARD

Hon. SALLY JEWELL, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. KEVIN WASHBURN, Assistant 

Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Interior, 

Washington, DC. 

AMERICAN INDIAN EDUCATION STUDY GROUP TRIBAL CONSULTATION: PROPOSAL TO

REDESIGN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR’S BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION

Dear Secretary Jewell and Assistant Secretary Washburn: As the Navajo Nation 

Local Control Education Governing Board we are very thankful to be given the opportunity to provide additional comments on the ‘‘Draft Proposal to Redesign the 

U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (Dated: April 17, 2014).’’ 

In many respects, we are very supportive of the goals, objectives, and statements 

contained in the draft proposal, especially with its emphasis on promoting tribal 

control, achieving high performing schools, as well as and increasing and improving 

services and support that builds tribal capacity. In line with these goals, the Navajo 

Nation reiterates its prior position regarding the American Indian Education Study 

Group and expresses strong support for a Navajo Nation State Education Agency, 

the Navajo Nation’s alternative definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (‘‘AYP’’), and 
439 

Navajo Nation’s Alternative Accountability Workbook. A copy of the Navajo Nation’s 

position (Dated: January 10, 2014) is attached to this letter. 

In particular, we strongly support the goals contained in the working draft because 

it: 

1. Promotes Tribal Control 

—Align BIE’s path forward with President Obama’s policy of self-determination 

for tribes because tribes understand the unique needs of their communities 

best. 

—With a careful transition plan in place, gradually transform BIE’s mission 

from running schools to serving tribes to conform with the reality that most 

BIE schools are now operated by tribes. 

2. Achieve High-Performing Schools 

—Ensure BIE meets its responsibility that all students attending BIE-funded 

schools receive a world-class and culturally appropriate education, are prepared for college and careers, and can contribute to their tribe and country. 

—Provide necessary resources and support (e.g., facilities and human capital) to 

schools so that they can meet the demands of 21st century teaching and learning. 

3. Increase and Improve Services and Support that Tribal Build Capacity 

—Scale up best practices in successful tribally controlled schools to other schools. 

—Support chronically failing schools with adequate support and research-based 

interventions, if necessary. 

—Provide pathways for tribes that wish to take over control of remaining BIEoperated schools by providing technical assistance and guidance on operating 

high-achieving schools. 

—In the December 2011 White House Tribal Nations Conference Progress Report, the Obama administration expressed strong support for a proposal to enhance the role of tribal educational agencies through a new pilot authority, 

called the State Tribal Education Partnership (STEP) grant, which would support tribal educational agencies in working closely with public school districts 

and schools located on reservations. This pilot authority and grant presently 

allows the Navajo Nation to enter into collaborative agreements with State of 

New Mexico and two of the largest public school districts serving Native American students in the United States and to assume responsibility for some 

State-level functions in administering ESEA programs. 

We also agree with key priorities highlighted in the draft proposal because it also 

provides for: 

—World Class Instruction for all BIE Students.—Challenge each student to maximize his or her potential and be well-prepared for college, careers and tribal/ 

global citizenship. 

—Highly Effective Teachers and Principals.—Help tribes to identify, recruit, retain and empower diverse, highly effective teachers and principals to maximize 

the highest achievement for every student in all BIE-funded schools. 

—Agile Organizational Environment.—Build a responsive organization that provides the resources, direction and services to tribes so that they can help their 

students attain high-levels of student achievement. 

—Budget that Supports Capacity Building Mission.—Develop a budget that is 

aligned with and supports BIE’s new mission of tribal capacity building and 

scaling up best practices. 

—Comprehensive Supports through Partnerships.—Foster parental, community 

and organizational partnerships to provide the emotional and social supports 

BIE students need in order to be ready to learn. 

In line with those goals, we also recommend: 

1. In line with identifying, recruiting, retaining highly effective teachers/principals, 

and building teacher/principal capacity (human capital) we strongly recommend 

that the BIE and other appropriate government agencies to enact a teacher/principal scholarship program that is very similar to the Indian Health Service 

(‘‘IHS’’) scholarship program. Ever since the IHS Scholarship Program’s creation 

in 1977, the program has successfully supported thousands of American Indian 

and Alaska Native students in their quest for a health/medical professions degree 

leading to a career in Indian health. A scholarship program that is specifically 

targeted to identify, recruit, and support teachers, including principals, especially 

in hard-to-fill Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics (‘‘STEM’’) areas, 

would significantly help our schools to meet the demand and need for highly effective teachers/principals. Not only would such a scholarship program enable 
440 

tribes to build capacity, because scholarship recipients would be committed to 

serving several years on the Navajo Nation or in other Native American schools. 

2. Changing, amending, or waiving rules, regulations that negatively impact rural 

schools such as the regulation [25 C.F.R. § 36.11(a)(5)] that limits the number of 

days that schools can employ long-term substitute teachers. Because of extreme 

remoteness and difficultly hiring highly effective and fully qualified and licensed 

teachers, many of our schools have little to no choice but hire long-term substitute teachers who may need to teach students much longer than the existing 

regulation allows. Changing, amending, or waiving this regulation may allow our 

schools to provide the continuity in instruction that students need until a fully 

qualified and licensed teacher can be hired to fill that position. 

3. Any education plan to reform and restructure the BIE must also provide strong 

support, including funding, to identify, recruit, and enhance the role and capacity 

of highly effective bilingual teachers. There is statistically significant research 

that shows that students who are educated in their language and culture perform 

better academically, while also reinforcing their self-identity, and preserving 

their language and culture. At the moment, many of the existing bilingual teachers who possess strong content knowledge, including the ability to effectively 

teach Navajo language and culture, are on the verge of retirement or leaving our 

schools, which further complicates attempts by tribes to preserve and maintain 

our language and culture. The Navajo Nation has lead the way in many respects, 

by working with 3 different States to enact alternative teacher licensing regulations, which presently allows persons who are knowledgeable and competent in 

Navajo language and culture to teach in our schools. We have also enacted the 

Navajo Nation’s Five (5) Content Standards (Navajo Language, Culture, 

History, Government, ( Character), which can readily be incorporated into many 

school’s curriculums because it also complements the Common Core State Standards 

(‘‘CCSS’’). 

4. In light of the recommendations provided in the draft proposal to build tribal 

control of education and capacity, we also recommend that the BIE (or other appropriate government entities), to consult and meet with tribes such as the Navajo Nation to conduct an evaluation/assessment of a tribe’s existing capacity or 

provision of funding to accomplish that objective. 

As we move forward with redesigning/transforming the Bureau of Indian Education (‘‘BIE’’) and improving the quality of education that our Navajo/Native American students receive, it is extremely important to remember that we are fighting 

for the lives of our children and that we can no longer afford to lose another generation of young people to a failing education system or to continue to make excuses 

for failure and low expectations. We must always put the needs of our children and 

students first; not adults, special interests, or politics. When we put the needs of 

our students first, it will make many of the tough decisions that must inevitably 

be made, easier, clearer, and worth the fight. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

MARIE B. ACOTHLEY, Tuba City WNA 

Board President. 

JUANITA BURNS-BEGAY, Vice-President. 

SARANA RIGGS, Secretary. 

FRANK BILAGODY, Member. 

IRVIN BEGAYE, Member. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COALITION

SUMMARY

The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony about the 

fiscal year 2015 budget for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The administration’s budget requests $1.073 billion for the USGS. This level represents an increase of $41 million over the fiscal year 2014 level. The request, however, also includes $41 million in cuts to on-going programs and does not include $75 million 

in important research and development initiatives that have been identified by the 

agency as priorities should funding be available. Thus, the USGS Coalition respectfully requests that Congress work to provide the USGS with $1.189 billion for fiscal 

year 2015, which would allow the agency to sustain current efforts and make strategic new investments that will produce the knowledge and decision-support tools 

needed by decision-makers across the country. 
441 

The USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and inform responses to 

many of the Nation’s greatest challenges. Few modern problems can be addressed 

by a single scientific discipline. The USGS is an agency that has a unique capacity 

to deploy truly interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research, 

and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem management, 

ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and quantity, reduce risks from 

natural and human-induced hazards, deliver timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide emergency responders with accurate geospatial data and 

maps. 

ABOUT THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COALITION

The USGS Coalition is an alliance of over 70 organizations united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. The Coalition supports increased Federal investment in 

USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve 

resilience to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term 

health, security, and prosperity of the Nation. 

ESSENTIAL SERVICES FOR THE NATION

Established by Congress as a branch of the Department of the Interior in 1879, 

the United States Geological Survey has a national mission that extends beyond the 

boundaries of the Nation’s public lands to positively impact the lives of all Americans. The agency plays a crucial role in protecting the public from natural hazards, 

assessing water quality and quantity, providing geospatial data, and conducting the 

science necessary to manage our Nation’s biological, mineral, and energy resources. 

Through its offices across the country, the USGS works with partners to provide 

high-quality research and data to policymakers, emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil and environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A 

few examples of the USGS’ valuable work are provided below. 

The Survey collects scientific information on water availability and quality to inform the public and decision makers about the status of freshwater resources and 

how they are changing over time. During the past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data at over 21,000 sites, water-level data at over 1,000,000 wells, 

and chemical data at over 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites. This information is needed to effectively manage freshwaters—both above and below the land 

surface—for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and 

ecological purposes. 

The USGS plays an important role in reducing risks from floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other natural hazards that 

jeopardize human lives and cost billions of dollars in damages every year. Seismic 

networks and hazard analysis are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and 

to establish building codes. USGS monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about 

impending eruptions that are used by aviation officials to prevent planes from flying 

into volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS network of stream gages enable the 

National Weather Service to issue flood and drought warnings. The bureau and its 

Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and provide maps of current fire locations and the potential spread of fires. USGS research on ecosystem structure informs fire risk forecasts. 

USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources—including rare earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal—are essential for making decisions about the Nation’s future. The Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic 

supplies of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new energy 

technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The USGS is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential, production, and consumption. 

USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts research and monitoring 

of fish, wildlife, and vegetation—data that informs management decisions by other 

Interior bureaus regarding protected species and land use. Ecosystems science is 

also used to control invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of 

dollars in economic losses. The Survey provides information for resource managers 

as they develop adaptive management strategies for restoration and long-term use 

of the Nation’s natural resources in the face of environmental change. 

Research conducted by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts of land use 

and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and ecosystems. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive of remotely sensed land data in the world, 
442 

allowing for access to current and historical images that are used to assess the impact of natural disasters and monitor global agriculture production. The USGS also 

assesses the Nation’s potential for carbon sequestration. Other Interior bureaus use 

USGS research on how climate variability affects fish, wildlife, and ecological processes to inform natural resource management decisions. 

FUNDING

Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to provide essential 

funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging questions facing decision-makers across the country. 

Through careful management and deferring staff travel and training, the USGS 

has survived the recent budget cuts resulting from sequestration. Staff training and 

participation in scientific meetings, however, are necessary investments that help 

USGS maintain its technical capacity. It is through exchanges at scientific meetings 

and workshops that new ideas emerge and scientific analyses are shared, challenged 

by colleagues, and honed prior to submitting research for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We encourage Congress to work with the USGS to ensure that scientists are able to fully participate in scientific meetings. 

As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to salaries and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure the continuity of data acquisition and that the data gathered are reliable and available for future scientific investigations. We believe that the leadership of the USGS is doing all it can, and has 

been for a number of years, to contain costs while continuing to deliver high quality 

science. The budget request for fiscal year 2015 includes cuts to scientific support, 

which includes information technology and administration and management functions. Although efficiencies can often be found through innovation in these areas, 

we encourage Congress to ensure that these cuts do not hinder the provision of services and support that agency personnel require to complete research, gather data, 

and provide the information needed by the public for informed decisionmaking. 

The USGS has offset some new investments by eliminating a significant number 

of full time equivalent positions. Research progress and the communication of research findings to end-users will be slowed or disrupted as a result of the reduction 

in staffing. Rebuilding scientific and technical expertise can be challenging. Thus, 

the loss of any positions can have long-term implications for USGS programs. 

Among the programmatic reductions the scientific community is concerned about 

are: 

—$13.0 million in cuts to Core Science Systems, such as the Bio-Science Data synthesis, Urban Area assessments, National Atlas, and other programs. 

—$11.3 million in cuts to various water research and monitoring programs. 

—$4.5 million in cuts to Administrative Services. 

—$2.5 million in cuts to the National Civil Applications Program. 

—$1.0 million in cuts to the Coastal Vulnerability program. 

—$5.4 million in cuts to Fisheries, Wildlife and Environments Research. 

—$1.9 million in cuts to Energy Research, Oil and Gas Assessments, and Wastewater contaminants research. 

We recognize and appreciate that budget conditions remain challenging and the 

work before the subcommittee is not easy. Yet, we believe that sustained and strategic new investments in the USGS promise significant long-term benefits. Should 

funds be available, we hope that Congress will restore proposed cuts and provide 

new funds for research and development priorities that USGS has identified but 

lacks resources to pursue. The agency has identified at least $75 million in research 

and development opportunities in the areas of (1) energy and mineral development; 

(2) climate resilience; (3) landscape scale ecosystem management, restoration and 

protection; (4) water resources management; and (5) species protection and health. 

CONCLUSION

We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing irreplaceable 

data can increase costs to society today and in the future. Data not collected and 

analyzed today is data lost forever. This is particularly significant for environmental 

monitoring systems, where the loss of a year’s data can limit the scope and reliability of long-term dataset analysis. The USGS Coalition requests that Congress 

work to provide $1.189 billion for fiscal year 2015. 

The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee’s past leadership in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. 
443 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

For 45 years, with the most basic of funding, United Tribes Technical College 

(UTTC) has provided postsecondary career and technical education, job training and 

family services to some of the most impoverished, high risk Indian students from 

throughout the Nation. Despite such challenges we have consistently had excellent 

retention and placement rates and are a fully accredited institution. We are proud 

to be equipping our students to take part in the new energy economy in North Dakota and to be part of building a strong middle class in Indian country by training 

the next generation of law enforcement officers, educators, medical technicians and 

‘‘Indianpreneurs.’’ We are governed by the five tribes located wholly or in part in 

North Dakota. We are not part of the North Dakota State college system and do 

not have a tax base or State-appropriated funds on which to rely. The requests of 

the UTTC Board for the fiscal year 2015 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)/Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) are: 

—$6.8 million in BIE funding for our Indian Self-Determination Act contract 

which is in the Tribal Technical Colleges BIE line item and is $2.5 million over 

the administration’s request for UTTC. 

—One-time BIE funding to forward fund United Tribes Technical College and the 

few other tribal colleges who are not forward funded. 

—Congressional support for a tribally administered law enforcement training center at UTTC and/or more involvement in law enforcement training initiatives. 

Base Funding.—UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so for 37 years. BIE funds requested above 

the fiscal year 2014 level are needed to: (1) maintain 100-year-old education buildings and 50-year-old housing stock for students; (2) upgrade technology capabilities; 

(3) provide adequate salaries for faculty and staff who are in the bottom quartile 

of pay for comparable positions elsewhere; and (4) fund program and curriculum improvements. 

We appreciate that the administration is requesting a $200,700 increase for UTTC 

for a total of $4,564,000 but our need is so much more than that. We request that 

the UTTC portion of the Tribal Technical Colleges line item be $6.8 million and that 

the total line item of Tribal Technical Colleges be at least $11 million. 

Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has significantly increased its number of students within the past 10 years while actual base funding 

for educational services, including Carl Perkins Act funding, have not increased 

commensurately. Our BIE funding provides a base level of support while allowing 

us to compete for desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants. Very little 

of the other funds we receive may be used for core career and technical educational 

programs; they are competitive, often one-time supplemental funds which help us 

provide support services but cannot replace core operational funding. 

We highlight several relatively recent updates of our curricula to meet job market 

needs: The ramifications of the North Dakota Bakken oil boom are seen throughout 

the State. We saw the need for more certified welders in relation to the oil boom 

and so expanded our certified welding program. We are now able to train students 

for good paying, in-demand welding jobs. Similarly, our online medical transcription 

program was designed to meet the growing need for certified medical support staff. 

Other courses reflect new emphasis on energy auditing and Geographic Information 

System Technology. And we recently opened a distance learning center in Rapid 

City where there are some 16,000 American Indians in the area. We are also working toward the establishment of an American Indian Specialized Health Care Training Clinic. 

Forward Funding.—We have wanted BIE forward funding for some time and the 

experience these past several years with the continuing resolutions, sequestration 

and inexcusably slow and insufficient allocation of funds really brings home this 

issue. 

There was a glitch in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process which resulted 

in UTTC (and Navajo Technical University (NTU)) not receiving BIE forward funding. There is authority for forward funding for tribal colleges under the Tribally 

Controlled Colleges and Universities Act, 25 U.S.C. 1810(b)(1) and (2). This authority applies to all colleges funded under that act, including UTTC and NTU. 

When the administration requested $50 million for forward funding its fiscal year 

2010 budget, they asked for it under the line item of ‘‘tribally controlled colleges and 

universities’’—that line item includes 27 tribally controlled colleges. However, we 

are funded under the line item of ‘‘tribal technical colleges’’ and Haskell, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), and the Institute of American Indian 

Arts (IAIA) are funded under other authorities, and thus when Congress provided 

the requested $50 million for forward funding, UTTC and NTU, Haskell, SIPI, and 
444 

the IAIA were left out. The American Indian Higher Education Consortium has estimated $22 million is needed to forward fund these schools. This does not increase 

the Federal budget over the long run. It simply provides funds for vital education 

programs before the start of each school year, which is critically important when 

appropriations are delayed and the Government is funded under continuing resolutions. 

The manner of distribution of fiscal years 2013 and 2014 BIE funds has been a 

disaster. Between having funding provided via continuing resolutions and held back 

due to the prospects of a sequestration, planning has been very difficult. Six months 

into fiscal year 2013 we had been allocated only 37 percent of our BIE funding and 

in the current (fiscal year 2014) year only about 25 percent of funds were allocated 

in the first 6 months. The unprecedented uncertainty in terms of timing and 

amount of funding has taken a toll. New faculty feel vulnerable because of the appropriations situation, and prospective candidates are reluctant to accept positions 

due to the same uncertainty. We have significantly reduced off-campus professional 

development activities for faculty, and held back on upgrading technology resources 

for our faculty and students. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

We have: 

—Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, for July 2011 through 2021, with authority to offer all of our 

full programs online. We have 23 associate degree programs, 19 certificate and 

3 bachelor degree programs (Criminal Justice; Elementary Education; Business 

Administration). Six courses are offered online. 

—Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy program, 

wellness center, area transportation, K–8 elementary school, tutoring, counseling, family and single student housing, and campus security. 

—A projected return on Federal investment of 20–1 (2005 study). 

—A semester retention rate of 85 percent and a graduate placement rate of 77 

percent. Over 45 percent of our graduates move on to 4-year or advanced degree 

institutions. 

—Students from 75 tribes; 85 percent of our undergraduate students receive Pell 

grants. 

—An unduplicated count of undergraduate degree-seeking students and continuing education students of 1,391. 

—A dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school students, 

providing them an introduction to college life and offering high school and college credits. 

—A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at least $34 million 

annually to the economy of the Bismarck region. A North Dakota State University study reports that the five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct 

and secondary economic contribution to the State of $181,933,000 in 2012. 

A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.—We ask Congress to seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian country with an eye toward 

the establishment of a campus-based academy for training of law enforcement officers in the Northern Plains area of Indian country. There are cultural and legal reasons why such training should be tribally directed in order to be appropriate for the 

realities of tribal communities. With the advent of expanded tribal authorities under 

the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act, 2013, the need 

has grown. State and national training resources would have an important role in 

this new endeavor. 

Our Criminal Justice program offers 2- and 4-year degrees, and prepares graduates for employment as Federal, State or tribal law enforcement, correction, parole 

and probation, and transportation safety officers; victim advocates; U.S. Customs, 

Homeland Security, and Military Investigative services; and private security agents. 

We point out that the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act 

contains requirements regarding background checks and character investigations. 

We want to expand our endeavors to help meet law enforcement needs in Indian 

country. Given our Criminal Justice program, our location and our campus resources, we propose the establishment of a Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy. 

Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the BIA’s Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico. The BIA Academy can train only three classes 

of 50 persons annually. The BIA is depending on the basic training provided by 

State academies to supplement what is provided at Artesia. We firmly believe UTTC 

is well positioned with regard to providing both basic and supplemental law enforce-
445 

ment training. An academy at UTTC would allow tribal people in the Great Plains 

and other nearby regions a more affordable choice of training locations, minimizing 

the distance and long separation of trainees from their families. 

The fiscal year 2015 Indian Affairs budget justification (p. IA–PSJ–12) notes that 

training initiatives for the Indian police academy includes developing a pre-academy 

training program for candidates prior to their attending the academy; developing a 

mid-level manager training program; and establishing an online distance learning 

program for recertification, among other things. These are things that UTTC could 

do as part of an academy at UTTC or in partnership with the Indian Police Academy. 

In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources of UTTC to 

make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in Indian country. We can 

offer college credit to trainees, and our facilities include the use of a state-of-theart crime scene simulator. Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of 

economic development for our tribal nations, and local control of law enforcement 

training resources is a key part of that effort. 

The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.—As you know, in March 2011 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued two reports regarding Federal programs 

which may have similar or overlapping services or objectives (GAO–11–474R and 

GAO–11–318SP). Funding from the BIE and the Department of Education’s Carl 

Perkins Act for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Education 

were among the programs listed in the reports. The full GAO report did not recommend defunding these programs; rather, it posed the possibility of consolidation 

of these programs to save administrative costs. We are not in disagreement about 

possible consolidation of our funding sources, as long as program funds are not cut. 

BIE funds represent over half of UTTC’s core operating budget. The Perkins funds 

supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE funds. It takes both sources of funding 

to frugally maintain the institution. In fact, even these combined sources do not provide the resources necessary to operate and maintain the college. We actively seek 

alternative funding to assist with academic programming, deferred maintenance, 

and scholarship assistance, among other things. The need for postsecondary career 

and technical education in Indian country is so great and the funding so small, that 

there is little chance for duplicative funding. 

There are only two institutions targeting American Indian/Alaska Native career 

and technical education and training at the postsecondary level—UTTC and NTU. 

Combined, these institutions received less than $15 million in fiscal year 2014 Federal operational funds ($7.7 million from Perkins; $7 million from the BIE). That 

is not an excessive amount for two campus-based institutions who offer a broad (and 

expanding) array of programs geared toward the educational and cultural needs of 

their students and who teach job-producing skills. 

Closing.—UTTC offers services that are catered to the needs of our students, 

many of whom are first generation college attendees and many of whom come to 

us needing remedial education and services. Although BIE and Perkins funds do not 

pay for remedial education, we make this investment through other sources to ensure our students succeed at the postsecondary level. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UTAH WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

APRIL 3, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 
446 

—Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

CARLY B. BURTON, 

Executive Director. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE

APRIL 3, 2014. 

Hon. JACK REED, Chairman, 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your support for 

fiscal year 2015 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program consistent with the President’s recommended 

budget. I request that the subcommittee: 

—Appropriate $706,300 in ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Conservation and Restoration Subactivity within the $124,253,000 item entitled ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allow FWS for fiscal 

year 2015 to continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program. —Appropriate $200,000 in FWS ‘‘Conservation and Restoration’’ funds for the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred 

by FWS’s Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program’s diverse recovery activities. 

—Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations Subactivity; within the $48,617,000 item entitled ‘‘National Fish Hatchery System Operations’’) for endangered fish propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the Upper Colorado Recovery Program’s stocking program. 

I request the subcommittee’s assistance in assuring fiscal year 2015 funding to 

allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I recognize and appreciate that the past support 

and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

MANUEL HEART, 

Tribal Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT A. VERHINES, P.E. 

SUMMARY

This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2015 appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I 

urge that at least $5,200,000 be appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management 
447 

within the Soil, Water, and Air Program for general water quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River Basin, and an additional $1,500,000 be appropriated specifically for salinity control related projects and studies. 

STATEMENT

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by the respective 

Governors of the States. The Forum has examined the features needed to control 

the salinity of the Colorado River. These include activities by the States, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Salinity Control Program has been adopted by the seven Colorado 

River Basin States and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as a part 

of each State’s water quality standards. 

About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River Basin is owned, administered 

or held in trust by the Federal Government. The BLM is the largest land manager 

in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands that are heavily laden with 

naturally occurring salt. When salt-laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and enter 

the river system, affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the 

Lower Basin States and Mexico. 

I support past Federal legislation that declared that the Federal Government has 

a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt discharge from 

public lands. Congress has charged the Federal agencies to proceed with programs 

to control the salinity of the Colorado River Basin with a strong mandate to seek 

out the most cost-effective solutions. The BLM’s rangeland improvement programs 

are some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. In addition, 

these programs are environmentally acceptable and control erosion, increase grazing 

opportunities, produce dependable stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat. 

The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin States contain 

a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM participation in the salinity control program 

is critical and essential to actively pursue the identification, implementation and 

quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public lands. 

Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from Colorado River 

salinity to United States water users are about $376 million per year. Modeling by 

Reclamation indicates that these quantified damages would increase to $577 million 

per year by 2030 if the Salinity Control Program was not continued. Unquantified 

damages already increase the total damages significantly. 

Control of salinity is necessary for the Basin States, including New Mexico, to 

continue to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The 

Basin States are proceeding with an independent program to control salt discharges 

to the Colorado River, in addition to cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and 

Department of Agriculture salinity control programs. It is important that the BLM 

pursue salinity control projects within its jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of salinity control projects that 

will help avoid unnecessary damages in the United States and Mexico. 

At the urging of the Basin States, the BLM created a position to coordinate its 

activities among the BLM State offices and other Federal agencies involved in implementation of the salinity control program. The BLM’s Budget Justification documents have stated that BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of 

Agriculture, and report salt retention measures to implement and maintain salinity 

control measures of the Federal salinity control program in the Colorado River 

Basin. The BLM is to be commended for its commitment to cooperate and coordinate 

with the Basin States and other Federal agencies. The Basin States and I are 

pleased with the BLM administration’s responsiveness in addressing the need for 

renewed emphasis on its efforts to control salinity sources and to comply with BLM 

responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as 

amended. 
448 

To continue these efforts, I request the appropriation of at least $5.2 million in 

fiscal year 2015 for general water quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River 

Basin by the BLM within the Soil, Water, and Air Program, and that an additional 

$1.5 million be appropriated specifically for salinity control related projects and 

studies. I appreciate consideration of these requests. I fully support the statement 

of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum submitted by Don Barnett, the 

Forum’s Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River 

salinity control activities. 

SCOTT A. VERHINES, P.E. 

New Mexico State Engineer 

Secretary, New Mexico Interstate 

Stream Commission 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to submit testimony on behalf of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA). My 

name is James D. Ogsbury and I am the Executive Director of the WGA. WGA is 

an independent, non-partisan organization representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3 U.S.-flag islands. We are pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the appropriations and activities of the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency. 

Western Governors recognize that certain agencies within this subcommittee’s jurisdiction are especially impactful to the West. These Federal agencies have rich potential to supplement State efforts or impinge on State authority. They can exercise 

vital leadership or they can interfere with well-managed State activities. Accordingly, it is critical that State and Federal agencies develop and maintain positive 

and cooperative working relationships. Western Governors believe that such cooperation is only possible when States are regarded as full and equal partners of 

the Federal Government in the development and execution of programs for which 

both have responsibility. 

As you consider appropriations and policy directives for Federal agencies, Western 

Governors urge you to take cognizance of States’ authority in resource management 

and their potential to enhance the delivery of government services and protections 

to our citizens. Western Governors are strong and pragmatic chief executives, committed to judicious exercise of their power within constitutional and practical constraints. The following requests and recommendations are thematically related in 

that they commonly call for greater recognition of State authority and better utilization of State capabilities by the Federal Government. 

With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA recommends the 

enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable funding mechanism for the 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes program administered by the Department of Interior. As 

you know, these appropriations do not represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather 

they represent important (if inadequate) compensation for the disproportionate acreage of non-taxable Federal lands in the West. Similarly, continued funding of the 

Secure Rural Schools program will help compensate communities whose timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and acquisitions of the Federal 

Government. 

Western States are investing enormous amounts of time, money and manpower 

in species conservation. It is only appropriate that Federal agencies likewise commit 

sufficient resources for species protection, particularly on Federal lands. If Federal 

lands are inadequately managed, no amount of effort on State and private property 

will be sufficient to assure species’ success. Federal agencies should demonstrate 

their commitment to species preservation and recovery by committing adequate 

funding for conservation efforts on Federal lands. 

Part of the Federal commitment to species conservation involves financial support 

for species management by State agencies through the State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grant program. Because State responsibilities for species conservation are increasing in number and complexity, the subcommittee is urged to reject the $8.7 million 

reduction to this program proposed by the administration. 

The subcommittee is well informed regarding the pressing problem of ‘‘fire borrowing,’’ pursuant to which resources necessary for the reduction of wildfire threats 

are transferred to emergency firefighting activities, perpetuating a cycle of high fire 

risk and elevated emergency expenditures. Be advised that WGA is on record as 

supporting legislation that would solve the budgetary issue of fire borrowing by cre-
449 

ating a funding structure similar to that used by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in its response to natural disasters. 

During last year’s Government shutdown, certain national parks were kept open 

through the initiative of States which undertook responsibilities of park management. The subcommittee is encouraged to provide the resources necessary to compensate those States for the costs they incurred in shouldering a Federal obligation. 

WGA understands that this subcommittee is as interested in how funds are spent 

as it is in how much money agencies spend. The following recommendations are intended to help ensure that the taxpayer realizes a better return on the investment 

of limited discretionary resources. This goal will be more readily achieved to the extent that Federal agencies better leverage State authority, resources and expertise. 

Last year this subcommittee included language in its report directing Federal 

land managers to use State fish and wildlife data and analyses as sources to inform 

land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions. Federal and State 

agencies need data-driven science, mapping and analyses to effectively manage wildlife species and their habitat. States possess constitutional responsibilities for wildlife management, as well as intimate knowledge of wildlife habitat and resources. 

In addition, they often generate the best available wildlife science. The use of State 

science should be more effectively utilized to both reduce total costs and increase 

the efficacy of Federal wildlife management efforts. Accordingly, the subcommittee 

is encouraged to reiterate and strengthen its report language regarding this issue 

for fiscal year 2015. 

Western Governors believe that States should be full and equal partners in the 

implementation of the Endangered Species Act and should have the opportunity to 

participate in pre-listing and post-listing ESA decisions. The ESA is premised on a 

strong State-Federal partnership. Section 6(a) of the ESA states that, ‘‘In carrying 

out the program authorized by the Act, the Secretary shall cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States.’’ WGA submits that such cooperation 

should include partnership with States in the establishment of quantifiable species 

recovery goals, as well as in the design and implementation of recovery plans. 

It is axiomatic that ESA listing decisions have dramatic impacts on vital State 

interests. Consequently, States should have the right to intervene in proceedings regarding the ESA. The subcommittee is urged to support the legal standing of States 

to participate in administrative and judicial actions involving ESA that, by their nature, implicate State authority and resources. 

Several Federal statutes—including the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—vest the States with the role of co-regulator 

with the Environmental Protection Agency. That role would be significantly enhanced by greater State representation on the Science Advisory Board (SAB), on 

which the agency relies to provide the scientific underpinnings of regulatory decisions. 

The SAB was established by the Environmental Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 in accordance with the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) and has a broad mandate to advise EPA on scientific, technological, and social and economic issues. The SAB Charter defines the 

SAB as a scientific and technical advisory committee. Sections 5(b)(2) and 5(c) of 

FACA require the membership of an advisory committee to be ‘‘fairly balanced in 

terms of points of view represented and the functions to be performed.’’ 

Despite the foregoing mandates and the tremendous value that would be added 

to SAB processes by State participation, States are woefully and demonstrably 

under-represented on the SAB, as well as on its standing and ad hoc committees. 

States are equipped and prepared to contribute their regulatory expertise, as well 

as their scientific resources and data, to SAB deliberations. Consequently, the subcommittee is urged to ensure that EPA achieves more balanced SAB representation, 

to include State participation that constitutes no less than 10 percent of the membership of SAB committees, subcommittees and subject matter panels. 

On March 25, the administration unveiled a proposed rule of the Environmental 

Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intended to clarify the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act. Many States have indicated concern that 

the proposed rule significantly expands the definition of ‘‘waters of the United 

States’’ and could impinge on State authority over the regulation of waters within 

their borders. WGA is concerned that States were insufficiently consulted in the development of this proposal and played no role in the creation of the rule, which has 

such major implications for States. 

Congress intended that the States and EPA would implement the CWA in partnership, delegating authority to the States to administer the law as co-regulators 

with EPA. Accordingly, WGA encourages congressional direction to EPA to engage 

the States in the creation of rulemaking, guidance, or studies that threaten to rede-
450 

1The WSWC is a government entity created by the Western Governors, which advises the 

Governors of 18 Western States on water policy matters and is affiliated with the Western Governors’ Association. NARF is a non-profit 501c(3) organization that provides legal representation 

and technical assistance to Indian tribes, organizations and individuals nationwide—a constituency that often lacks access to the justice system. 2 Available at: http://www.westgov.org/wswc/336%20indian%20water%20rights%20settlements 

%207oct2011.pdf. 

fine the roles and jurisdiction of the States. State water managers should have a 

robust and meaningful voice in the development of any rule regarding the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act or similar statutes. 

Solving many of the West’s challenges will require a broad view of the interrelated nature of natural resource problems. For example, Federal underinvestment 

in the eradication of invasive species (like cheatgrass) and in the active management of national forests can result in increased severity of wildfires. This greater 

wildfire threat in turn poses greater peril to the crucial of habitat of species (like 

the greater sage grouse) that States are working diligently to conserve. 

Western Governors appreciate the enormity of your job, as well as your commitment to the provision of cost-effective government services. The foregoing recommendations are offered in a spirit of cooperation and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you as appropriate as you discharge your critical and challenging responsibilities. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL AND NATIVE

AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND

I. INTRODUCTION

The Western States Water Council (WSWC) and the Native American Rights 

Fund (NARF) submit the following joint testimony in support of adequate funding 

for the Secretary of the Interior’s Indian Water Rights Office (SIWRO) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to carry out their responsibilities in support of Indian 

water rights settlements.1 This testimony is based on WSWC Policy Resolution 

#336.2

For over 30 years, the WSWC and NARF have worked together to support the 

negotiated resolution of Indian water rights claims. Our organizations believe there 

is a need to quantify Indian water rights, that negotiated settlements are preferable 

to litigation as a means of quantifying those rights, and that the Federal Government should encourage and facilitate settlements. As discussed below, the SIWRO 

and the BIA play a key role in the settlement process, and Congress should ensure 

they receive sufficient funding to carry out their settlement efforts. 

II. PRIOR APPROPRIATION AND INDIAN WATER RIGHT CLAIMS

The doctrine of prior appropriation governs the allocation of water in most Western States. Under this system, the first parties to physically divert and put water 

to a ‘‘beneficial use’’ have priority over subsequent water users. Thus, senior water 

right holders with earlier priority dates (the date the water was first put to beneficial use) can seek curtailment of uses with junior priority dates in times of shortage. 

Most non-Indian water development in the West occurred after the Federal Government finalized treaties and executive orders to establish reservations for tribes, 

and after Congress severed land and water rights in the West and directed that 

water rights be obtained under State law. In addition, most tribal treaties and executive orders creating Indian reservations did not specify the tribes’ water rights. 

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the resulting conflict in Winters v. United 

States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), finding that tribal treaties and executive orders 

impliedly reserved water rights necessary to meet the purpose(s) of a tribe’s reservation. These reserved rights differ from State-issued water rights because they: (1) 

arise independently of beneficial use; (2) are not limited by beneficial use; (3) are 

measured by present and future supplies needed to fulfill the reservation’s purpose(s) instead of past uses; and (4) have priority dates that correspond to the date 

the tribe’s reservation was established. 

III. THE NEED TO RESOLVE TRIBAL WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS

Resolving Winters rights claims is critical for Western States because tribal rights 

typically have priority dates that are senior to non-Indian uses, and therefore have 
451 

3 Concerning S. 1771—Northwest New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act: Hearing on S. 1771 

Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 110th Cong. 8 (2007) (statement of Joe 

Shirley, Jr., President, Navajo Nation). 4Testimony of John Echohawk on behalf of the Native American Rights Fund: Oversight 

Hearing on Indian Water Rights Settlements Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the 

H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 110th Cong. 7–8 (2008) (statement of John Echohawk, Executive Director, NARF) [hereinafter Echohawk Testimony]. 5 In Support of S. 789, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act: Hearing to Receive Testimony on S. 637, S. 789, S. 1080, and S. 1453 Before the Subcomm. on Water and Power of the 

S. Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 111th Cong. 7 (2009) (statement of Ryan Garfield, 

Chairman, Tule River Tribe); Echohawk Testimony, supra note 6, at 7. 

the potential to displace established State-issued rights. This is especially problematic where tribal rights pertain to river systems that are fully appropriated by nonIndian users. The un-quantified nature of many tribal rights creates great uncertainty with regard to existing State-based uses and can impede local, State, and regional economic development. As a result, quantifying tribal water right claims is 

essential for Western States to address increasing water demands related to the 

West’s growing population, and to allocate water supplies that continually change 

and are often scarce due to drought, reduced snowpacks, and other factors. 

At the same time, tribes often lack the resources to develop their water rights. 

This lack of a reliable water supply and related infrastructure throughout Indian 

Country sometimes prevents tribes from protecting the health, welfare, and safety 

of their communities. For example, over 40 percent of tribal members in the Navajo 

Nation haul water for domestic use. This lack of potable water has caused various 

illnesses.3 Members of the Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas, the Chippewa Cree Tribe of 

Montana, and others also haul water for basic domestic needs.4

The absence of adequate and reliable potable water supplies also contributes to 

unemployment, poverty, and mortality rates on reservations that are much higher 

than those of neighboring non-Indian communities. In California, the lack of an adequate water supply has prevented the Tule River Tribe from providing fire protection, housing, and economic opportunities to tribal members. The tribe also has unemployment and mortality rates that are 50 percent higher than Tulare County as 

a whole and has been unable to act on hundreds of housing applications.5

Settlements are the preferred manner of resolving tribal water rights claims because they allow States and tribes to address these issues in ways that are not 

available through litigation. Specifically, settlements: (1) enable tribes to turn quantified rights into ‘‘wet water,’’ while litigation typically provides tribes with ‘‘paper 

rights’’ only; (2) allow tribes and non-Indian parties to craft mutually-beneficial solutions tailored to their specific needs; (3) are often less costly and time-consuming 

than litigation, which can last for decades and be extremely expensive for all parties, including the Federal Government; (4) give States and tribes control over the 

resolution of water rights claims; and (5) build positive relationships between 

States, tribes, and the Federal Government, which are essential because water is 

a shared resource that all parties must cooperatively manage after adjudication. 

For example, the Federal Government holds Indian water rights in trust for the 

tribes and has a fiduciary duty to protect tribal water rights. Because the Federal 

Government has not always protected tribal water rights, tribes often have significant breach of trust claims against the United States. At the same time, many tribal 

water rights claims in the arid West involve fully-appropriated stream systems. To 

address these issues, tribes will often waive their breach of trust claims against the 

Federal Government as well as a portion of their claimed water rights in consideration for Federal funding to build needed drinking water infrastructure, water supply projects, and tribal fishery restoration projects. These projects generally enable 

tribal and non-tribal water users to use existing water supplies more efficiently and 

advantageously and do not take water from existing non-Indian water users. Moreover, these types of mutually-acceptable outcomes are simply not available through 

litigation. 

IV. THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN SETTLEMENTS

The Federal Government is joined in all water rights adjudications involving 

tribes because it holds the tribes’ rights in trust. This means that it has a fiduciary 

duty to help tribes resolve their rights and ensure that settlements are funded and 

implemented, in addition to its obligation to protect tribal water rights. It also 

means that Congress and the President must approve each settlement. 

The Federal Government has long supported a policy of resolving Indian water 

rights claims through negotiation rather than litigation. To this end, the Department of the Interior’s Indian Water Rights Settlement Program facilitates Federal 
452 

involvement in the settlement process. The SIWRO leads this program in consultation with Interior’s Officer of the Solicitor, facilitating inter-agency participation and 

cooperation needed to achieve and implement comprehensive settlements. 

In particular, the SIWRO coordinates and supports Federal settlement activities 

through 38 Federal assessment, negotiation, and implementation teams that are 

working throughout the West. These teams consist of representatives from agencies 

and bureaus within Interior, including the BIA, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Solicitor’s Office, the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the Department of Justice 

and other Federal departments. These teams also provide a unified Federal voice 

that helps further the settlement process, a matter of crucial importance for the 

States as well. However, the legitimate need for these teams far outstrips the number of teams available. 

Furthermore, Interior and its agencies and bureaus provide critical monetary, personnel, and technical support that tribes need to effectively participate in the settlement process. As part of these efforts, the BIA provides technical assistance to 

tribes and coordinates the process of soliciting water-related funding proposals from 

tribes. It also identifies funding needs for studies required in ongoing Indian water 

rights litigation and negotiations. For instance, the BIA’s Water Rights Negotiation/ 

Litigation Program provides necessary documentation, technical studies, and other 

materials needed for the United States to further the negotiation of tribal water 

right claims. 

Appropriating insufficient funds for these purposes hinders the resolution of tribal 

water right claims. Therefore, Congress should ensure that the SIWRO and the BIA 

receive adequate appropriations to carry out their responsibilities in support of Interior’s water rights settlement program. 

V. THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT SUPPORTING SETTLEMENT EFFORTS

Tribes require the resources that the SIWRO and the BIA provide to participate 

effectively in the settlement process. Failure to provide adequate appropriations for 

these programs could postpone the negotiation and implementation of Indian water 

rights settlements. Ultimately, this makes the resolution of many tribal water rights 

claims more expensive for the Federal Government in the long-run because increasing water demands, decreasing water supplies, and other factors will only increase 

the costs of resolving these claims. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The United States has a trust obligation to the tribes that includes ensuring that 

they can participate in the settlement process. Failure to provide sufficient funding 

to fulfill this obligation will only increase Federal costs, perpetuate hardships to 

tribes, and prolong resolution of conflicts between reserved water rights and Statecreated water rights. This, in turn, could potentially disrupt established economies 

and hinder effective State and regional water planning and development. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS LAND TRUST

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Reid Haughey and I am the president of the Wilderness Land Trust. 

We are a small not-for-profit organization focused on protecting designated wilderness. To do this, we work in partnership with landowners who own private property 

within designated and proposed wilderness areas and the agencies that manage 

these areas. We acquire properties from willing sellers with the intent to transfer 

ownership to the United States. My testimony focuses on a very small portion of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund—funding for the Inholding Acquisition Accounts for the four land management agencies. Continued modest funding of the 

Inholding Accounts is vital to the success of securing and preserving wilderness already designated by Congress, while treating private landowners within these areas 

fairly. 

The management of human development activities in wilderness is expensive for 

the agencies. The potential resource damage to the protected lands and waters is 

enormous. By contrast, the cost of acquiring these properties when they are offered 

for sale is relatively small. That is why it is so important to continue the modest 

appropriations needed for the inholding acquisition program. 

As we approach the 2014 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act, I am before you 

today to thank you for funding the Inholdings Accounts in fiscal year 2014 and to 

ask for that support once again. An appropriation of between $3 and 5 million to 

each of the land management agencies, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
453 

Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, is sufficient to enable the agencies to acquire high priority inholdings from willing sellers. 

Support for these accounts: 

—Saves money by eliminating management inefficiencies that frequently exceed 

the cost of acquisition; 

—Helps private landowners within federally designated wilderness and other conservation areas; 

—Allows the agencies to act when opportunities occur to acquire inholdings, often 

only once a generation; and 

—Completes designated wilderness areas, removing threats from incompatible 

and harmful development within their boundaries. 

We are not asking Congress to undertake a new acquisition program or to significantly increase current appropriation levels. As 2014 is the 50th Anniversary of The 

Wilderness Act, we ask Congress to continue its 50-year commitment to complete 

the wilderness areas it has designated, and to provide private landowners who wish 

to sell the opportunity to transfer their land within those wilderness areas to public 

ownership by prioritizing the use of the inholding accounts for the acquisition of 

inholdings within and adjacent to designated wilderness areas. Focusing the 

inholding accounts on designated wilderness and funding the Forest Service Wilderness Inholdings core project will be money well spent, completing established congressional designations and taking care of landowners who still own lands within 

these now-designated wildernesses. 

So, why worry? Aren’t wilderness areas secured when Congress designates them? 

All designations include language that authorize the Federal acquisition of private 

lands within these areas and, once acquired, automatically protect them as part of 

the designated wilderness that surrounds them. As part of our celebration of the 

50th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the Trust has commissioned an inventory of private lands within wilderness. The results are startling. The report determined that within the lower 48 States, 180,000 acres of private lands still remain. 

There are also 440,000 acres of State owned lands. 

This represents tremendous progress reducing private inholdings in wilderness 

over the last 20 years. When the Trust last estimated the amount of private land 

within designated wilderness in the lower 48 States, we estimated there were 

400,000 acres of private lands. It has taken decades of steady work to reduce that 

by more than half. During the same timeframe, 507 new or additional areas were 

congressionally designated, adding close to 29 million acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. So, true progress indeed. Large appropriations for the 

inholding accounts did not accomplish this success—just steady, modest funding so 

that lands can be purchased when landowners want to sell. This is the level of funding we are hoping to continue. 

These designated lands are worthy of completion. Landowners who are ready to 

sell deserve to have their properties purchased. Their isolated properties are primarily the result of 19th century congressional policy when homesteads, mining operations and timber production were encouraged without the balance of conservation. As a result, wilderness areas now dedicated by Congress are pockmarked with 

islands of private ownership that compromise the wilderness resource, where ’’even 

man is a visitor who shall not remain’’, become expensive management issues for 

the agencies and often befuddle landowners who wish to sell these properties for the 

benefit of their companies or families. 

Why is consistent funding for the inholding accounts vital? We have learned that 

these lands become available about once a generation. Our 20 years of steady work 

has shown that about 5 percent of the properties within wilderness come up for sale 

in any 1 year. If the opportunity to acquire these when offered is lost, the management issues and inefficiencies that result from private lands remaining within designated wilderness continue. Without consistent funding, numerous opportunities to 

acquire these private parcels will be lost. Not for a year, but often for at least another generation. 

Many inholding acquisitions secure access. However, the Forest Service fiscal year 

2015 budget request to alter the purpose of the inholdings acquisition program to 

focus solely on recreational access would undermine the success of the program. Acquiring inholdings secures access where it is now blocked by private land within the 

Forest Service boundary—in our case within designated wilderness. The Recreational Access idea is a new program that aims to expand Federal ownership to 

include access easements outside current Forest Service boundaries. We do not have 

a position on the merits or need for such an expansion of Forest Service management responsibilities. We are here to simply to say that the aim of the new program 

is not the same as the inholdings acquisition program and should be evaluated on 

its own merits, not substituted for a 50-year proven effort specifically authorized by 
454 

Congress. We urge you to assure the continued success of the inholdings acquisition 

program by maintaining the traditional use of the accounts for all four land management agencies and prioritizing wilderness acquisitions in any fiscal year 2015 

appropriations legislation. 

This year, critical acquisitions will not be completed without a commitment to 

fund the inholding accounts. In 2013, critical project examples we worked to acquire 

included: 

—The only inholding within the Hells Canyon Wilderness in Idaho was offered 

for sale by the family that long owned it. We bought it and are in the process 

of transferring it to Federal ownership. Buying this key 10 acre mining claim 

parcel completed the wilderness, helped the family with its generational change 

and kept the promise that when wilderness inholders want to sell, the United 

States will acquire their properties. 

—East Fork High Rock Canyon Wilderness in Nevada includes historic reminders 

of the settlement of the west in the mid-19th Century. It also included one remaining 320 acre inholding. Now transferred to Federal ownership, this wilderness is complete and the family ranching operation that used to own it successfully reorganized so the next generation will continue their ranching business 

and tradition. 

—The Elkhorn Ridge Wilderness is less than one quarter of a mile from Highway 

101 in Northern California. But ‘‘you can’t get there from here’’. The access to 

the wilderness is blocked by 40 acres of private land. When acquired by BLM, 

this beloved wilderness that stretches toward the sea from Highway 101 will 

be accessible to the many youth groups that covet this summit to sea hiking 

and educational wilderness experience. We bought it and are now working 

through the transfer to BLM to create much needed public access and preserve 

the 50-year tradition of wilderness education at the summer camp on the property. 

We’ve also been able to help other private landowners and secure other wilderness 

areas. Among them— 

—A timber company in northern California that is re-aligning its landownership 

and has worked with the Trust to sell its property, opening access to the Castle 

Crags Wilderness from the east and the nearby freeway. The newly created access to the nearby wilderness has the potential to provide significant new economic opportunities for the nearby hard-hit community of Dunsmere to develop 

recreation-based businesses. 

—And, a landowner who built a cabin at a former gold mine on the banks of the 

Salmon River within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. We will 

work over the next year to clean up the mine site to protect the river. The 

transfer of this property to Federal ownership will further consolidate protection 

of the wilderness and enhance the recreational opportunities so economically 

important to Idaho and as a resource for the Nation. 

The expenses of managing these isolated private lands do not fall solely on the 

Federal Government. Tax revenues received by local governments do not offset the 

cost of providing fire protection, emergency and general government services to 

these isolated and far flung properties. It costs more to serve these isolated single 

properties than the tax revenue they generate. If you fund the inholding accounts, 

we will be back next year with more stories of success: 

—Success completing already designated wilderness; 

—Success helping those private landowners, who often feel trapped within designated wilderness, but were promised that their land would be purchased at 

a fair market price if they chose to sell; 

—Success helping local governments control costs; and 

—Success helping land management agencies reduce costs of management and 

fire suppression. 

In summary, continued consistent funding of the inholding accounts is vital. Without such funding, significant opportunities to acquire private parcels within our designated wilderness areas will be lost for at least another generation. We urge your 

support of continued funding for these accounts and for the Forest Service’s Wilderness Inholdings core project. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration and the support of the subcommittee in securing these appropriations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 500,000 members and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care 
455 

for our wild places. We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2015 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. 

When deciding on funding that affects hundreds of millions of Americans, we urge 

you to take into account the full economic, social, environmental and cultural value 

of the many programs managed by this subcommittee. Our public lands and waters 

contribute significantly to the U.S. outdoor recreation economy. The Outdoor Industry Association’s latest report shows that outdoor recreation alone generates $646 

billion in direct consumer spending, supports 6.1 million direct jobs and generates 

$79.6 billion in Federal, State and local tax revenue. 

Investments in these critical programs will provide jobs and protect the health 

and economic wellbeing of local communities. We urge bold, immediate action in 

support of conservation funding for fiscal year 2015. Specifically, TWS recommends: 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT

The 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act is September 3rd, 2014. This provides 

a unique and valuable opportunity to highlight the role wilderness plays in protecting ecosystems, wildlife, and primitive outdoor recreation opportunities across 

the country. America’s National Wilderness Preservation System is a world renowned model for land conservation, yet our wilderness areas are suffering from a 

lack of funding. Trail maintenance, law enforcement, monitoring, and user education are all significantly underfunded, leading to an erosion of wilderness values 

and a diminution of the experience for wilderness visitors. We recommend that each 

of the agency wilderness management accounts be increased to provide trails maintenance, update signage, remove fencing, fight invasive species, restore degraded hydrology, and monitor effects of climate change, among other critical wilderness preservation system needs. Specifically: 

—Crosscutting.—Adequately fund the Carhartt Training Center, the Leopold Research Institute, and the Interagency Wilderness Character Monitoring Team to 

complete wilderness character baseline assessments using Wilderness Fellows. 

—Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness.—The budget proposal of 

$18.435 million for BLM wilderness management is strong, but still 7 percent 

lower than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, the funding level necessary to ensure resource and visitor safety in the 221 BLM wilderness areas. TWS supports restoring BLM Wilderness funding to the fiscal year 2011 level of $19.663 

million. 

—Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage.—Recreation is the most 

ubiquitous use of our forest lands, connecting with more people and occurring 

on more acres than any other use, as well as accounting for more than half of 

all job and income affects attributable to Forest Service programs (over 190,000 

jobs and $11 billion in spending effects by visitors). We urge Congress to support wilderness and recreation by restoring funding to the fiscal year 2010 level 

of $285.1 million for the Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program. 

—National Park Service Wilderness.—Provide a funding increase for the base wilderness program from its current level of $450,000 as well as 2 years of total 

funding at $520,000 to highlight and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act. Additional funding would eliminate the backlog of Wilderness 

Stewardship Plans, support training for all wilderness park superintendents, 

improve coordination with interagency Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 

and reduce the likelihood of litigation due to management inconsistencies. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Now in its 50th Anniversary year, LWCF remains the premier Federal program 

to conserve our Nation’s land, water, historic, and recreation heritage. It is a critical 

tool to acquire inholdings and protect national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests, BLM lands, and other Federal areas. The companion LWCF State 

grants program provides crucial support for State and local park acquisitions, recreational facilities, and trail corridors. LWCF also funds two other important State 

grant programs—the Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species 

programs—that ensure permanent conservation of important forest lands and 

threatened and endangered species’ habitat, as well as important wildlife and recreational habitat and ensures that public lands stay public for hunters, anglers, and 

other outdoor recreationists for generations to come. 

—TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the proposed $900 million. Full 

funding for LWCF will allow land management agencies to manage our public 

lands more efficiently and cost-effectively. This is achieved through strategic 
456 

inholdings acquisition which reduces internal boundary line surveying, right-ofway conflicts and special use permits. 

EMERGENCY WILDFIRE FUNDING

For years U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) 

have had to divert funds away from vital conservation and wildfire mitigation programs to cover wildfire suppression costs. This is having long term negative effects 

on conservation and land management, especially where these funds are diverted 

from programs aimed at reducing fire risks and costs, which creates a vicious cycle. 

With longer and more severe fire seasons the Forest Service has seen its wildfire 

management activities rise from 13 percent of the agency’s budget in fiscal year 

1991 to almost 50 percent for the past several fiscal years. 

—TWS strongly supports the President’s proposal of $954 million in new budget 

authority for wildfire suppression under the FLAME Suppression Cap Adjustment. This will eliminate the need to rob other accounts to pay for the worst 

1 percent of wildfires. 

CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCY

Wilderness, public lands, connected wildlife habitats and other types of ‘‘green infrastructure’’ are some of the most cost-effective investments that can be made to 

increase climate change resiliency. Connected wild landscapes allow species and 

habitats to adapt more easily to changes in climate, buffer local communities from 

storms and natural disasters and our national forests can be effective carbon sinks. 

—TWS supports the President’s $1 billion climate change fund to safeguard not 

only our public lands but our communities and our economy. 

BLM ONSHORE OIL AND GAS POLICY

The BLM is implementing important management reforms of its oil and gas program that is leading toward a better balance between oil and gas development on 

public lands and the protection of the numerous natural resource values that were 

put at risk by previous policies. The administration has proposed these reforms of 

the BLM’s oil and gas program, which TWS supports: 

—A fee on onshore Federal operators sufficient to provide for a $48 million per 

year inspection and enforcement program to implement recommendations made 

by the Government Accountability Office; Continuation of the $6,500 APD fee; 

A $4.00 per acre fee on non-producing onshore leases. 

SAGE GROUSE INITIATIVE

The Wilderness Society supports the administration’s $15 million request for the 

BLM’s National Greater Sage Grouse Planning Strategy. If successful, implementation of this strategy will lead to recovery of this important western game species 

without the necessity of a listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

BLM’S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands) comprises 

some 27 million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands and 

waters, including National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness 

Areas and other designations. Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs 

for thousands of Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in 

surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide immeasurable public 

values from modest investments: outstanding recreational opportunities, wildlife 

habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open space near cities. We ask Congress to: 

—Support the administration’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation of $66.5 million 

to ensure the natural, cultural, and historical resource protection provided by 

the Conservation Lands for the American public. 

—Restore the Challenge Cost Share Program at full funding of $19 million. This 

is a cross-cutting program within DOI, which provides a 1:1 match for volunteer 

activities. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean energy economy 

by developing our renewable energy resources responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and necessary use of the public lands when sited in areas 
457 

screened for habitat, resource, and cultural conflicts. TWS hopes the Department 

will continue to support a program that ensures our public lands can play an important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure through environmental review, suitability screening, and energy zone identification to find suitable places for 

needed renewable energy projects. TWS is also a supporter of Secretarial Order 

3330 on Mitigation that would ensure that any impacts are avoided or offset. TWS 

urges Congress to: 

—Support increased funding for renewable energy programs across Interior from 

fiscal year 2014 enacted. 

—Support the Department’s request to fund BLM’s renewable energy activity at 

no less than $29 million to make up for the impact of sequestration. 

—Increase funding for the FWS to review and permit renewable energy projects 

on public lands. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM FUNDING

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world’s finest network of protected 

lands and waters. Designed to conserve our fish and wildlife resources, refuges are 

located in every State and territory and provide enormous economic benefit for their 

local communities. Every year, the System attracts 45 million tourists, hunters, fishermen, and other recreationists, generating $1.7 billion in sales, sustaining nearly 

27,000 jobs annually, and contributing over $185 million in tax revenue. The Refuge 

System has been under increasing fiscal strain, however, with a maintenance backlog of over $3 billion. 

—We urge Congress to support funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System 

at the President’s recommendation of $476.4 million. 

NATIONAL FOREST RESTORATION

The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) and Collaborative Forest Restoration Programs (CFLR) provide essential funding to restore watersheds, improve recreational 

access by focusing on roads and trails where water quality and aquatic species are 

at risk and advance collaborative restoration projects. Despite its success, the LRT 

program was slashed 50 percent in fiscal year 2011 and again in fiscal year 2014 

by 22 percent. We look forward to the results of the 3-region test pilot for Integrated 

Resource Restoration (IRR). However, we do not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded until the test regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration outcomes without a loss of program transparency and accountability. To achieve 

restoration goals in fiscal year 2015, TWS recommends that Congress: 

—Restore Legacy Roads and Trails funding to $45 million within Capital Improvement and Maintenance; 

—Fully fund the CFLRP at the President’s recommendation of $60 million; and 

—Extend the IRR pilot program, and works closely with the Forest Service and 

stakeholders to ensure transparency and accountability for the activities and 

outcomes of the pilot program. 

FOREST SERVICE INVENTORY & MONITORING AND PLANNING

The Inventory and Monitoring is integral to forest planning serving both as the 

baseline data and trigger for course correction. The Planning Program funds amendments and revisions to Land Management Plans, the overarching documents that 

guide the management of individual forests and grasslands. By providing adequate 

and consistent funding to both these programs, we advance plans and projects, and 

avoid bad decisionmaking, unnecessary costs, and more risks to water quality and 

quantity, wildlife, and recreation. TWS recommends that Congress: 

—Support Inventory & Monitoring and Planning by restoring funding to the running 10-year average of $163,689,000 and $48,254,000, respectively. 

NATIONAL FOREST ROADS

Over the past 4 years, Forest Service roads funding has been cut by 30 percent 

adding even more strain to a road system where the collective cost continues to far 

outstrip the Forest Service’s financial capacity. Roads are one of the most significant 

stressors on watersheds and ecosystems, contributing to water pollution and declines in salmon, trout and other fish. Adequate funding for the road system is needed to address public safety issues, the negative effects of roads on wildlife and 

water, and provide high quality recreational access to the American public. Ade-
458 

quate funding will also ensure that previous taxpayer investments in our forest infrastructure are not squandered through lack of maintenance. 

—We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads at the running 10-year average of $207,383,000 in fiscal year 2015. 

—We recommend that Capital Improvement and Maintenance Roads funds are 

available for maintenance and operations, reconstruction, limited construction, 

and decommissioning. 

NATIONAL FOREST TRAILS

There are 155,600 miles of trails in the National Forest System. These trails provide 50 million visitor days of cross-country skiing, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and off-road vehicle use each year. The number of annual visitor days 

has grown 376 percent since 1977, and the total mileage of trails has grown 56.9 

percent to accommodate this use. In fiscal year 2014 the trails budget was cut nearly 9 percent to $75 million, despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office reported in June 2013 that the agency has more than a $500 million trail maintenance backlog. Currently, the Forest Service is able to maintain only a third of 

its trail miles to a minimum standard condition. 

—In light of the history and conditions we describe above, we urge Congress to 

fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Trails at its fiscal year 2010 level 

of $85,381,000 in fiscal year 2015. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee: 

The Wildlife Conservation (WCS) was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt 

in 1895 with the mission of saving wildlife and wild places worldwide. Today, WCS 

manages the largest network of urban wildlife parks in the United States led by 

our flagship, the Bronx Zoo. Globally, WCS works to protect 25 percent of the 

world’s biodiversity and address four of the biggest issues facing wildlife and wild 

places: climate change; natural resource exploitation; the connection between wildlife health and human health; and the sustainable development of human livelihoods. While taking on these issues, we manage more than 200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing more than 4,000 staff including 200 Ph.D. 

scientists and 100 veterinarians. 

The American conservation tradition is based on promoting sustainable use of our 

natural resources in order to preserve the world’s species and environment for future generations. In recognition of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to 

note that effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through tourism and other 

means. 

Domestically, the story of the American bison is an excellent example of how longterm conservation and management of a natural resource can have a very positive 

economic impact. Brought to the edge of extinction at the end of the 19th century, 

a few bison were saved, mostly through the actions of private ranchers. Conservationists, led by Roosevelt and William Hornaday, brought some of the few remaining 

bison to the Bronx Zoo to breed the animals for eventual reintroduction. Within 2 

years, 15 bison bred in captivity at the Zoo were returned to their natural habitat 

under Federal control in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Congressman 

Cole’s district in Oklahoma, the very first wildlife refuge in the United States. This 

is the first known instance of a nearly-extinct mammal being successfully reestablished. 

Today, more than 20,000 bison are in federally-managed herds and serve as major 

tourist attractions at Yellowstone, Grand Teton, and other jewels of the National 

Park system. States are also successfully managing herds, with the Henry Mountains herd in Congressman Stewart’s district being particularly notable because, in 

addition to being a tourist attraction, it generates revenues through hunting concessions. And in every State in the country, private producers manage 200,000 bison, 

sustaining thousands of jobs and generating more than $280 million in revenue. 

Clearly, the rescue, reestablishment and conservation of bison is a great success, 

both environmentally and economically. 

Internationally, by supporting conservation, the U.S. is increasing capacity and 

governance in developing nations and improving our own national security as a result. And these efforts are absolutely critical, as we have reached a crisis with regard to the trafficking of wildlife. U.S Government estimates compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) last summer show that illegal trade in endan-
459 

gered wildlife products, including elephant ivory, rhino horns, and turtle shells, is 

worth at least an estimated $7 to $10 billion annually. When the trade in illegal 

logging, plants and fisheries are also included, CRS states that some estimates exceed $100 billion, which would place the illegal wildlife trade among the 10 largest 

criminal activities worldwide. Because of the lucrative nature of this industry, evidence is showing increasingly that transnational criminal organizations and terrorist groups that are involved in other major trafficking operations—drugs, humans 

and weapons—are engaged in wildlife trafficking as well. 

On the ground in Africa and elsewhere, WCS scientists are seeing, first-hand, the 

devastating impact poaching is having on elephants, rhinos, tigers, and other iconic 

species. In 2012 alone, we estimate that 35,000 African elephants were killed for 

their ivory—that is an average of 96 elephants per day or one killed every 15 minutes. The subspecies of African forest elephants has seen a decline of 65 percent 

since 2002, dwindling to less than 80,000 today. Continued poaching at these rates 

may mean the extinction of forest elephants within a decade. Action must be taken 

now, so that we do not end up where we were with bison 100 years ago. Although 

that story continues to be a happy one, there is no guarantee that story of the elephant will not, ultimately, be a tragedy. 

The Federal Government recently announced the National Strategy for Combating 

Wildlife Trafficking (National Strategy), which is designed to provide a framework 

for a whole-of-government approach to addressing wildlife trafficking. Several programs within this bill form the basis upon which that strategy is built. This testimony will touch on several of those programs, beginning with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, which plays a key role in the National Strategy and U.S. 

antitrafficking efforts. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF).—Global priority species—such 

as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants, great apes, and marine turtles—face 

constant danger from poaching, habitat loss and other serious concerns. MSCF programs have helped to sustain wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing 

human-wildlife conflict, and protecting essential habitat—all while promoting U.S. 

economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the world. These programs 

are highly efficient, granting them an outsized impact because they consistently leverage three to four times as much in matching funds from corporations, conservation groups, and national governments. WCS requests that $10 million be appropriated for the MSCF for fiscal year 2015, equal to the fiscal year 2009 funding 

level. 

WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF. In 2009, with 

support from the African Elephant Conservation Fund, WCS launched a new project 

in collaboration with Bauchi State Government to improve levels of protection and 

reduce rates of elephant poaching in Yankari Game Reserve. Yankari contains the 

largest surviving elephant population in Nigeria and one of the largest remaining 

in West Africa. WCS has been able to make substantial progress in building the capacity of the ecoguard staff and empowering local authorities to manage this population. Despite years of extreme poaching pressure, the number of elephants killed 

this year has been kept to a minimum through constant effort and surveillance. A 

strong team of ecoguards is now using durable, GPS-enabled technology to detect 

illegal activities and report back to authorities in an efficient way, utilizing realtime data and illustrative maps. 

Wildlife Without Borders Global and Regional Programs.—These programs are a 

great investment in addressing cross-cutting threats to ecosystems and wildlife such 

as disease outbreaks, human-wildlife conflict, and the bushmeat trade. Wildlife 

Without Borders (WWB) is making lasting impacts through capacity building, technical support and training, local community education and citizen science. In fiscal 

year 2015, WCS recommends funding the WWB Global and Regional Programs commensurate with the President’s request of $7.2 million. 

Created in 2010, the WWB Critically Endangered Animals Fund provided over 

$300,000 in grants in fiscal year 2013 to protect the most imperiled species on the 

planet. This funding was matched more than 2 for 1 by non-Federal contributions. 

A portion of this funding is supporting a successful WCS project in Myanmar to ensure a genetically diverse, self-sustaining, wild population of the Burmese roofed 

turtle. I urge you to include language in the report to accompany the bill that would 

ensure this small but important program for critically endangered species remains 

open. 

Office of Law Enforcement.—The U.S. remains one of the world’s largest markets 

for wildlife and wildlife products, both legal and illegal. A small group of dedicated 
460 

officers at the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) 

are tasked with protecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources by investigating wildlife crimes—including commercial exploitation, habitat destruction, and industrial 

hazards—and monitoring the Nation’s wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and facilitate legal commerce. 

Many of the new responsibilities placed on the FWS by the National Strategy will be enforced by the OLE, and WCS supports the President’s request for $65.8 million. Most of the proposed increase will go to strengthening forensic capabilities 

needed to address wildlife trafficking and expanding the capacity of the Special Investigations Unit so that it can maximize the scope and effectiveness of FWS efforts 

to respond to the elephant poaching crisis and shutdown trafficking in elephant 

ivory. This funding, in concert with full implementation of the effort to deploy OLE 

personnel at key embassies overseas, will increase investigations involving species 

that are victimized by illegal trade. 

The National Strategy calls for the Federal Government to ‘‘increase coordination 

among law enforcement and intelligence agencies to enhance the effectiveness of 

Federal efforts to combat wildlife trafficking.’’ For no agency is this increased coordination with the intelligence community more important than for the OLE. We 

strongly encourage the Committee to include language in the report that would facilitate increased coordination between the OLE and the intelligence community. 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.—The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

program gives States and tribes funding to develop and implement comprehensive 

conservation plans to protect declining wildlife and habitats before protection under 

the Endangered Species Act is necessary. This important program is supported by 

more than 6,200 organizations that have formed a national bipartisan coalition 

called Teaming with Wildlife of which WCS is a steering committee member. WCS 

recommends Congress provide $58.7 million, equal to the fiscal year 2014 level, for 

the program to implement State Wildlife Action Plans. 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

International Programs.—The Forest Service International Programs (FSIP) level 

the playing field in international trade for U.S. timber producers and reduce illegal 

logging by providing specialized experience. This improves the sustainability and legality of timber management overseas which translates to less underpriced timber 

undercutting U.S. producers. FSIP, through partnerships with USAID and the Department of State, helps to improve the resource management in countries of strategic importance to U.S. security. Resource scarcity and unregulated extraction of 

natural resources—whether water, food, timber, or minerals—is often a root cause 

of unrest and corruption, both of which undermine democracy, the rule of law and 

political stability. FSIP has increasingly leveraged modest funding from Congress to 

make a big impact for the U.S. taxpayer. For every Federal dollar invested in FSIP, 

four additional dollars is leveraged in matching funds and other contributions from 

partners. WCS requests that the fiscal year 2014 enacted level of $8 million for the 

FSIP is maintained in fiscal year 2015. 

With technical and financial support from FSIP, WCS has been working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called the Primorye in the Russian 

Far East. The region hosts over a hundred endangered species as well as numerous 

threatened species, including the Far Eastern leopard and Amur tiger. Habitat conservation for these animals, which are dependent on large tracts of intact forest ecosystem, benefits associated species and biodiversity in the region. FSIP works with 

us to exchange information and methodologies with Russian scientists, managers, 

and students on a variety of wildlife-related topics to support conservation and capacity building efforts and ensure the sustainable management of forests and wildlife habitat. 

UNITED STATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Office of International Affairs.—In 1961, the U.S. Government initiated its first 

international conservation program with the creation of the Office of International 

Affairs (OIA). Since then, this office has facilitated technical assistance and exchange projects with counterpart agencies globally building on the legacy of American leadership in national parks management. OIA is also the managing agency 

for World Heritage Sites located in the United States. Thanks to this program, NPS 

is working on collaborative areas of trans-frontier concern, including at the Beringia 

Shared Heritage Initiative (U.S.-Russia), which WCS has been involved with as part 

of our ongoing conservation efforts in Arctic Alaska. WCS is currently studying the 

behavior and survivorship of migratory birds that travel to Teshekpuk Lake in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to nest each year, as well as the impacts climate 
461 

change is having on Alaska’s walrus populations. The international work conducted 

by NPS is not only about helping other countries protect their parks and heritage. 

It is about bringing home best practices and learning from international engagement that could benefit the American parks. WCS recommends including the President’s request of $897,000 for the OIA in fiscal year 2015. 

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to share WCS’s perspectives and make 

a case for increased investment in conservation in the fiscal year 2015 Interior, EPA 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Conservation of public lands is an American tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that the 

management of our natural resources requires coordination between all nations. 

Continued investment in conservation will reaffirm our global position as a conservation leader, while improving our national security and building capacity and 

good governance in developing countries. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal 

year 2015 budget for the Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society was founded in 1937 and is a non-profit scientific and educational association representing nearly 10,000 professional wildlife biologists and 

managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education. Our mission is to represent and serve the professional community of scientists, managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively 

to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and habitats worldwide. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal program that 

supports States in preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. It is also the primary program supporting implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans, which detail on the ground conservation actions in each State to keep common species common. Funding assistance for State wildlife agencies is one of the highest priority 

needs to prevent further declines in at-risk species in every State. Previous budget 

reductions and sequestration have had a serious and disproportionate impact on 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. Compounding these impacts is a decrease in funding recommended in the President’s budget, to $50 million in fiscal year 2015. We 

recommend Congress appropriate at least $58.7 million for State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants to maintain level funding in fiscal year 2015. We also ask that Congress not 

shift additional funds directed to States through formula grants to a competitive allocation. This funding is critical for maintaining wildlife diversity programs at the 

State level and a further reduction in the formula grants may have dramatic negative consequences. 

As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, or CARE, The 

Wildlife Society supports the President’s request for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s operations and maintenance accounts at $476.4 million for fiscal year 

2015. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900 million in annual 

operations and maintenance funding to properly administer its 562 refuges and 38 

wetland management districts spanning over 150 million acres. Given current fiscal 

realities, we understand that funding at $900 million is not currently possible. However, at its highest funding level in fiscal year 2010, the Refuge System received 

only $503 million—little more than half the needed amount. Since that time, congressional appropriations have not only failed to account for rising costs, but have 

been steadily backsliding resulting in the loss of 324 employees since 2011, or 9 percent of all staff. Yet the Refuge System actually pays for itself several times over 

by generating $4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated by Congress to 

run the Refuge System. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-regulatory, 

incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations. This program has remained 

drastically underfunded despite its demonstrated effectiveness. We support the 

President’s request of $34.1 million and encourage Congress to match this request 

for fiscal year 2015. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the U.S., Latin America and the Caribbean, 

where approximately 5 billion birds representing 341 species spend their winters, 

including some of the most endangered birds in North America. This program 

should be funded at or above $6.5 million to achieve maximum success. However, 

recognizing the current fiscal climate, The Wildlife Society recommends Congress 
462 

maintain level funding for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at $3.7 

million in fiscal year 2015. 

The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all three subactivities 

within the Ecological Services Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting, resulting in significant benefits to species through State 

management efforts. FWS, with the help of Federal and State agency partners, has 

been working to implement new strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of this program and to reduce the regulatory burden on private landowners and 

industry partners. To support these actions and the increased emphasis on consultation and recovery, we recommend Congress match the President’s request and provide $28 million for Listing, $105 million for Planning and Consultation, and $124 

million for Conservation and Restoration in fiscal year 2015. 

The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW) provides financial 

and technical assistance to private landowners across the country to restore degraded habitat and to safeguard against potential regulatory burdens associated 

with endangered species listings. With over two-thirds of our Nation’s lands held as 

private property, and up to 90 percent of some habitats lost, private lands play a 

key role in preserving our ecosystem. For example, working under a new MOU with 

the Natural Resource Conservation Service, PFW has been critical in engaging private landowners to restore and maintain habitat for the Greater-sage Grouse in 

States like Idaho and Nevada; potentially removing the need for a future listing. We 

urge Congress to provide $60 million in support of the PFW Program in fiscal year 

2015 in order to allow landowners to help contribute to land and wildlife preservation. 

Through its International Affairs office, FWS works with many partners and 

countries in the implementation of international treaties, conventions, and projects 

for the conservation of wildlife species and their habitats. International trade, import, and transportation of wildlife species can have a huge impact on America’s security, economy, and environment. Careful regulation of imports and implementation of international policies is an important task. We ask Congress to match the 

President’s request of $14.6 million in support of FWS International Affairs in fiscal 

year 2015. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands support over 3,000 species of wildlife, more than 300 federally proposed or listed species, and more than 1,300 sensitive plant species. Historically, the Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) 

and the Threatened and Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have 

been forced to pay for the compliance activities of BLM’s energy, grazing, and other 

non-wildlife related programs, eroding both their ability to conduct proactive conservation activities and their efforts to recover listed species. Given the significant 

underfunding of the BLM’s wildlife programs, combined with the tremendous expansion of energy development across the BLM landscape, we recommend Congress appropriate $52.6 million for BLM Wildlife Management in fiscal year 2015. This will 

allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and habitat by monitoring habitat conditions, conducting inventories of wildlife resources, and developing cooperative 

management plans. We support the proposed increase of $15 million for sage grouse 

conservation efforts; this kind of broad-scale, landscape based conservation is exactly what is needed to manage and conserve sage grouse across their range. 

Increased funding is also needed for the Threatened and Endangered Species 

Management Program, to allow BLM to meet its responsibilities in endangered species recovery plans. BLM’s March 2001 Report to Congress called for a doubling of 

the Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 million and an additional 70 

staff positions over 5 years. This goal has yet to be met. In light of this, we strongly 

encourage Congress to increase overall funding for BLM’s endangered species program to $48 million in fiscal year 2015. 

The Wildlife Society, part of the National Horse and Burro Rangeland Management Coalition, appreciates the commitment of BLM to addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro Management. We support the requested increase of $2.8 million for implementation of the National Academy of Sciences recommendations and findings and continued research and development on contraception and population control. However, with more than 12,000 horses above BLM’s 

stated Appropriate Management Levels on the range and nearly 50,000 horses in 

off-site long- and short-term holding facilities The Wildlife Society is concerned 

about BLM’s emphasis on fertility control alone. The current language limiting the 

use of humane euthanasia for unwanted or unadoptable horses should be removed 

to allow BLM to use all necessary management tools to bring populations of on- and 
463 

off-range wild horses and burros within manageable range and additional funding 

should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has occurred due to overpopulation of these animals. The requested $80.2 million should be provided to BLM 

if they continue removing excess horses from the range at a reasonable rate and 

focus additional resources on habitat restoration. 

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research that is supported by 

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is necessary for understanding the 

complex environmental issues facing our Nation today. This science will play an essential role in the decisionmaking processes of natural resource managers, and it 

will help protect our water supply and conserve endangered species. More investment is needed to strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring, produce 

high-quality geospatial data, and deliver the best science to address critical environmental and societal challenges. The Wildlife Society supports funding of at least 

$1.1 billion for USGS in fiscal year 2015. 

The Ecosystems Program of USGS contains programmatic resources for fisheries, 

wildlife, environments, invasive species and the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Ecosystems program strives to maximize research and support for 

comprehensive biological and ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society supports 

the President’s request of $162 million for USGS’s Ecosystems Department in fiscal 

year 2015. Within Ecosystems, we support the request of $45.1 million for the Wildlife Program. Additionally, we appreciate the requested addition of $300,000 for pollinator research and of $1 million for research on the impacts of future energy development on wildlife sustainability. 

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) are managed under 

the Ecosystems Department and conduct research on renewable natural resource 

questions, participate in the education of graduate students, provide technical assistance and consultation on natural resource issues, and provide continuing education for natural resource professionals. In fiscal year 2001, Congress fully funded 

the CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since then, budgetary shortfalls have continued to cause an erosion of available funds, resulting in 

a current staffing vacancy of nearly one quarter of the professional workforce. In 

order to fill current vacancies, restore seriously eroded operational funds for each 

CFWRU, and enhance national program coordination, the fiscal year 2015 budget 

for the CFWRUs should be increased to $18.5 million, the level requested by the 

President. This would restore necessary capacity in the CFWRU program and allow 

it to meet the Nation’s research and training needs. The Wildlife Society appreciates the fiscal year 2014 funding of $25.5 million for 

the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center. This center plays a pivotal role in addressing the impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife by providing essential scientific support. In order for this role to be fully realized, The 

Wildlife Society recommends that Congress fund the National Climate Change and 

Wildlife Science Center at the requested $35.3 million in fiscal year 2015. 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the conservation of our Nation’s wildlife and habitat, and are home to about 425 threatened and endangered 

species, and another 3,250 at-risk species. In fiscal year 2011, the Forest Service 

combined several programs and budgets, including Vegetation and Watershed Management, Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management, and Forest Products into a 

single Integrated Resource Restoration activity budget. We continue to be concerned 

with this merger because it makes accountability to stakeholders and Congress 

more difficult. However, with these reservations noted, we urge Congress to support 

the request of $820 million for the Integrated Resource Restoration program in fiscal year 2015. 

Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep understanding of the 

biological and geological forces that shape the land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by the USFS is at the forefront of science, and 

essential to improving the health of our Nation’s forests and grasslands. Furthermore, it will play a key role in developing strategies for mitigating the effects of 

climate change. We urge Congress to match the President’s request of $275 million 

in fiscal year 2015 for Forest and Rangelands to support this high-quality research. 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

The Wildlife Society supports the request for $30.0 million to establish a new ‘‘Resilient Landscapes’’ activity to improve the integrity and resilience of forests and 
464 

rangelands by restoring natural vegetation landscapes to specific conditions and 

maintaining fire resiliency. 

Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife professionals. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee, 

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) requests your support for a number of important conservation programs within the Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). WWF is the largest private conservation organization working 

internationally to conserve wildlife and nature. WWF currently sponsors conservation programs in more than 100 countries with the support of 1.2 million members 

in the United States and more than 5 million members worldwide. We respectfully 

request that the subcommittee fund the following programs at the following levels 

in fiscal year 2015: 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement at no less than the 

administration’s request of $66.7 million, including additional funding to support implementation of the National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking and at 

least $4.8 million for Lacey Act enforcement. 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of International Affairs at the administration’s request of $14.6 million, including additional funding to support implementation of the National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking. —U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Multinational Species Conservation Funds at $10 million, $900,000 above the administration’s request. 

One of WWF’s top priorities is supporting efforts to combat wildlife trafficking and 

the current global poaching crisis. The illegal trade in wildlife, including timber and 

fish, is worth $10–20 billion annually and is ranked among the top five most lucrative criminal activities worldwide. Wildlife trafficking is strongly linked to 

transnational organized crime organizations and other criminal activities, such as 

arms and drug trafficking. Large-scale illegal trade in wildlife, driven largely by 

soaring demand in Asia for wildlife products, has sparked a poaching crisis that is 

pushing some of our most iconic species towards extinction, including elephants, tigers and rhinos. This crisis is also having a devastating impact on local communities and undermining regional security and economic growth in the developing 

world, including in countries of strategic importance to the United States. According 

to an assessment released by Federal intelligence agencies in September 2013, there 

is also significant evidence that wildlife trafficking is helping to finance armed 

insurgencies and groups with ties to terrorism, including the Lord’s Resistance 

Army, the Janjaweed, and al-Shabaab. Last year alone, an estimated 30,000–35,000 

elephants were killed illegally throughout Africa. In the past 10 years, the number 

of forest elephants in Central Africa has dropped by two-thirds, putting them on the 

path to extinction within the next 10 years. East Africa is also being hit hard: in 

January, the Tanzanian Government released numbers showing that the population 

of elephants in that country’s Selous Game Reserve had fallen 66 percent in just 

4 years—a shocking decline for a reserve that until recently was home to Africa’s 

second largest concentration of elephants. In South Africa, the number of rhinos lost 

to poaching has jumped 7000 percent between 2007 and 2013. A record 1004 South 

African rhinos were illegally killed for their horns in 2013—up 50 percent from the 

year before and a stunning increase from only 13 poaching incidents in 2007. As 

few as 3200 tigers remain in the wild in all of Asia, due in large part to poachers 

killing the animals for their skins, bones and other body parts. Several of the agencies and programs that this subcommittee helps to fund play essential roles in combating this crisis, which is robbing developing countries of natural resources and 

economic opportunities, harming American businesses by flooding global markets 

with cheap illegal forest and fish products, and threatening U.S. security interests. 

Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, the President issued an Executive 

Order on July 2013 and mandated a National Strategy for Combatting Wildlife Trafficking, released in February 2014, which calls on all relevant agencies to work together as part of a whole-of-government response to the crisis. The Department of 

Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service will carry a large part of the responsibility for implementing the Strategy, and we believe they should be provided with 

the necessary resources to be successful. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

The USFWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) investigates wildlife crimes, enforces regulation of wildlife trade, helps citizens comply with the law, and works 

with other international and U.S. Government entities to carry out its mission. Its 
465 

agents and investigators also have a central role in implementing the new National 

Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking and enforcing new domestic regulations on elephant 

ivory. OLE wildlife inspectors are on the front lines in the fight against wildlife trafficking, working in nearly 40 designated and non-designated ports of entry around 

the country. In fiscal year 2011, they processed 179,000 declared shipments of wildlife and wildlife products worth more than $2.8 billion. OLE’s special agents are expert investigators that break up smuggling rings, stop commercial exploitation of 

protected U.S. species, and work with States to protect U.S. game species from 

poaching. ‘‘Operation Crash’’ is an ongoing nationwide criminal investigation led by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that is addressing all aspects of U.S. involvement 

in the black market rhino horn trade. The first phase of this probe, focused on unlawful purchase and outbound smuggling of rhino horn from the U.S., has resulted 

in 15 arrests and nine convictions to date, involving charges include conspiracy, 

smuggling, money laundering, tax evasion, bribery, and making false documents, as 

well as violations of the Endangered Species Act and Lacey Act (the primary domestic law against wildlife trafficking). Eight arrests were made in February 2012 as 

part of a nationwide ‘‘takedown’’ that involved more than 140 law enforcement officers executing search warrants in 13 States; 2013 has seen the arrests and indictments of several other individuals (including Chinese and U.S. antiques dealers) 

who were operating a second large-scale rhino horn and elephant ivory smuggling 

network. In spite of successes such as this one, OLE is severely underfunded to 

meet the rapidly growing challenges it faces, including the need to place agents at 

key posts around the world to assist in shutting down global wildlife smuggling 

rings. OLE’s budget has suffered a 17.8 percent reduction in real dollars since fiscal 

year 2010, limiting its ability to investigate and prosecute wildlife crimes and help 

citizens to comply with the law. Budget cuts through fiscal year 2013 have caused 

cancellation of plans to hire 24 more special agents and prevented vacancies from 

being filled for 14 front line inspectors as well as 3 forensics experts for the Clark 

R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, Oregon—the 

only laboratory in the world dedicated to solving wildlife crimes and a unique asset 

in efforts to crack down on ivory and rhino horn smuggling. USFWS OLE is also 

responsible for enforcing of the Lacey Act and its expansion to cover plants and 

plant products, and additional funding is needed to carry out enforcement activities 

against those actors that choose to trade in illegal timber and timber products. The 

illegal timber trade is estimated to cost U.S. industry $1 billion annually. With public enforcement cases, FWS sends a message that illegal activities will not be tolerated. Due to pressing needs and enhanced responsibilities under the National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking, WWF recommends at least $66.7 million for the USFWS 

Office of Law Enforcement, consistent with the administration’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request, including at least $4.8 million for Lacey Act enforcement. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The USFWS International Affairs (IA) program supports efforts to conserve our 

planet’s wildlife and biodiversity by protecting habitat, combating illegal wildlife 

trade and building capacity for landscape-level wildlife conservation around the 

world. The program’s three divisions—the Division of International Conservation, 

the Division of Management Authority and the Division of Scientific Authority— 

manage various components of international wildlife conservation. The Division of 

Management Authority and the Division of Scientific Authority run the International Wildlife Trade (IWT) program, which provides oversight of domestic laws 

and international treaties that promote the long-term conservation of plant and animal species by ensuring that international trade and other activities do not threaten 

their survival in the wild. IWT works to prevent illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife 

products, which threatens vulnerable wildlife populations, undermines U.S. foreign 

policy and security objectives by financing criminality and corruption, and transmits 

diseases and invasive species, which negatively impact public health and economic 

productivity in the U.S.—one of the largest importers and exporters of wildlife products. IWT ensures trade is legal and does not harm species in the wild while implementing scientific and management requirements of laws and treaties for traded 

species and issuing 15,000–20,000 permits per year. Working with governments, industry and experts around the world, IWT also strives to establish conservation programs that include sustainable use, supporting economic opportunity while also conserving species. IWT also leads the U.S. Government’s active engagement on the 

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora 

(CITES), which is one of the most important tools for combating the global illegal 

wildlife trade. The Division of International Conservation provides critical support 

to on-the-ground species conservation through its Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) 
466 

programs and signature initiatives. The WWB Regional program supports species 

and habitat conservation in priority regions, including Africa, Latin America and 

the Caribbean and Mexico, through capacity building, outreach, education and training. This includes training African wildlife professionals to combat the bushmeat 

trade and working to bolster wildlife laws and increase enforcement capacity in African countries. The WWB Global program targets crosscutting, global threats to wildlife, supports signature initiatives to maximize long-term impact, and address declines of critically endangered species, such as amphibians. From 2007 to 2013, the 

WWB Regional and Global Programs supported more than 940 conservation 

projects, awarded over $31 million in grants and leveraged an additional $46 million 

in matching funds for on-the-ground wildlife conservation programs, education, 

training and outreach. We recommend $14.6 million for the Office of International 

Affairs, consistent with the administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION

FUNDS

Through the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF), the United 

States supplements the efforts of developing countries struggling to balance the 

needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. These modest Federal programs, administered by USFWS, make targeted investments in conservation of several global priority species. In 1989, Congress passed the African Elephant Conservation Act authorizing a dedicated fund in response to the threat posed to that 

species by rampant ivory poaching. Four more Funds have since been authorized to 

support the conservation of Asian elephants, great apes, marine turtles, and tigers 

and rhinos. Each of the funds is authorized at $5 million, with the exception of the 

Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund, which was intended as a double fund to address 

both sets of species, and is therefore authorized at $10 million. Appropriated funds 

for the programs have consistently remained roughly 30 percent or less of the authorized level. MSCF programs have played a critical role in saving wild populations 

of these species by controlling poaching, reducing human-wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat. In light of the resurgence of a severe poaching crisis in 

Africa, these funds are just as important and relevant now as they were when Congress passed them. 

Support from the Rhino-Tiger Conservation Fund (RTCF) and the Asian Elephant 

Conservation Fund (AsECF) to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and its local partners 

has contributed to incredible successes in protecting endangered wildlife in Nepal. 

The funds have supported anti-poaching, habitat restoration and species monitoring 

that, combined with community-level engagement and strong government support, 

helped to ensure that no rhinos, tigers or elephants were poached in Nepal between 

February 2012 and February 2013. This is the second time Nepal has celebrated a 

year of zero-poaching (the first was in 2011) in spite of rising demand for rhino horn 

and ivory on Asian black markets and a sharp increases in the number of rhinos 

and elephants killed in Africa over the same period. In addition, RTCF funding has 

supported efforts that have led to a 63 percent increase in Nepal’s tiger population 

from 2009 to 2013 and is supporting the creation and expansion of tiger reserves 

and protected areas in Malaysia, India and Thailand as well as anti-poaching and 

enforcement efforts on the Indonesian island of Sumatra. Also on Sumatra, AsECF 

support to World Wildlife Fund has helped to established ‘‘Flying Squads’’—teams 

of rangers equipped with noise and light-making devices and trained elephants that 

drive wild elephants back into the forest whenever they threaten to enter villages. 

The Squads have reduced losses suffered by local communities and prevented retaliatory killings. In 2009, they helped reduce elephant mortality in the Riau region 

by 27 percent in 2009 compared to the previous 4 years. The African Elephant Conservation Fund (AfECF) is supporting improved protected area enforcement in several African countries, including hiring and training of local ‘‘ecoguards’’ to protect 

populations of elephants and other threatened wildlife. In Cameroon’s Campo Ma’an 

National Park, the AfECF supported a large-scale anti-poaching operation involving 

village and forest patrols, soldiers and game guards that flushed out four suspected 

poachers, including two notorious elephant poachers, and resulted in the seizure of 

450 lbs. of bushmeat. Since 2008, the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF) has 

been supporting conservation efforts in Virunga National Park—Africa’s oldest national park (established in 1925), which contains some of the richest biodiversity of 

any protected area on the continent and one of the largest populations of endangered mountain gorillas. GACF funding has helped to improve law enforcement and 

training for park rangers, develop alternative fuel sources to reduce the destructive 

practice of charcoal creation from the park’s forests, increase aerial surveillance capacity, and grow the park’s tourist revenue through a chimpanzee habituation and 
467 

tourism project that generated nearly $1 million in 2011 alone. In the Solomon Islands of the Pacific, the Marine Turtle Conservation Fund (MTCF) has supported 

WWF conservation activities on important nesting beaches for endangered sea turtles, including turtle tagging, DNA sampling, nesting beach cleanups, hatchery construction, workshops on community-based monitoring, and active monitoring of 

nests during the turtles’ nesting seasons. Hatchling success has grown each year 

since the program began. 

These programs have proven remarkably successful, generating enormous constituent interest and strong bipartisan support in Congress. Since 1989, they have 

awarded over 2,300 grants and actively engaged with nearly 600 domestic and foreign partners, working in over 54 foreign countries. From 2007 to 2013, MSCF programs provided $77 million in grant funding for on-the-ground conservation, 

leveraging nearly $117 million in additional matching funds. WWF recommends $10 

million for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, an increase of $900,000 

over the Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget request. 

Thank you for considering these requests. 

(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 189 

Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................... 75 

Alliance for Community Trees, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 192 

American: 

Alliance of Museums, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 194 

Cultural Resources Association (ACRA), Prepared Statement of the .......... 197 

Forest: 

And Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 198 

Foundation, Prepared Statement of the .................................................. 200 

Forests, Prepared Statement of ....................................................................... 202 

Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 205 

Hiking Society, Prepared Statement of the .................................................... 208 

Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the .............. 208 

Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 211 

Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 213 

Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 217 

APS Four Corners Power Plant, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 219 

ASME Environmental Protection Agency Task Force, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 220

Association of: 

Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the ....................................... 222 

State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of the ............. 225 

Zoos and Aquariums, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 228 

Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri, Questions Submitted by ...... 78 

Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 229 

Bushnell, Jay, Prepared Statement of ................................................................... 231 

Center for Biological Diversity, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 233 

Central: 

Arizona Project, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 236 

Utah Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the .................... 238 

Children’s Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of the ............ 238 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 241 

Choose Clean Water Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 243 

City of: 

Aurora, Prepared Statement of the ................................................................. 245 

Farmington, Prepared Statement of the ......................................................... 245 

Civil War Trust, Prepared Statement of the ......................................................... 246 

Coalition Against Forest Pests, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 247 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions Submitted 

by ......................................................................................................................... 75, 122 

Colorado: 

River: 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the ................... 249 

District—Colorado River Water Conservation District, Prepared 

Statement of the .................................................................................... 250 

Springs Utilities, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 251 

Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement of the ...... 251 
Page

ii 

Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs, and the National Volunteer Fire Council, Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 254 

Connor, Hon. Mike, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 1 

Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 255 

Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement of the ...... 258 

Corps Network, Prepared Statement of the .......................................................... 261 

Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments, Prepared Statement of the ........... 263 

Cowlitz Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 265 

Dance/USA, Prepared Statement of ....................................................................... 268 

Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of ....................................................... 270 

Denver Water, Prepared Statement of ................................................................... 273 

Dixon, Tony, Director, Strategic Planning, Budget, and Accountability, United 

States Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ............................................ 127 

Edison Electric Institute, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 274 

Entomological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the ........................... 276 

Federal Forest Resource Coalition, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 278 

Federation of State Humanities Councils, Prepared Statement of the ............... 281 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................. 53, 163 

Fire Suppression Funding Solutions Partner Caucus, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 284

Friends of: 

Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the ............... 287 

Maine’s Seabird Islands (FOMSI), Prepared Statement of the .................... 288 

Rachel Carson NWR, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 290 

The: 

Florida Panther Refuge, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 291 

Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of 

the ........................................................................................................... 293 

Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared Statement of 

the ........................................................................................................... 294 

Froehlich, Maryann, Acting Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 83 

Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 296 

Great Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 298

Haze, Pamela K., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget, Finance, Performance 

and Acquisition, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior ............. 1 

Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, Prepared Statement of .................. 299 

Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................. 79, 186 

Hopi Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ................................................................. 302 

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Prepared Statement of the ....... 302 

Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the ............... 305 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................ 307 

Intertribal Timber Council, Prepared Statement of the ....................................... 310 

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 313 

Jewell, Hon. Sally, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of the 

Interior .................................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 10 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 6 

Jicarilla Apache Nation, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 316 

Johanns, Senator Mike, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 81 

Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions Submitted by ............................................................................................................. 63, 165 

King, Mrs. Barbara, Prepared Statement of ......................................................... 316 

League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the .............................. 319 

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont: 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 86 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 115 
Page

iii 

Maniilaq Association, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 322 

McCarthy, Hon. Gina, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ......... 83 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 88 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 87 

Meineck, Dr. Peter, Prepared Statement of .......................................................... 324 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 327 

Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska: 

Questions Submitted by ......................................................................... 64, 117, 166 

Statements of .............................................................................................. 3, 84, 129 

National: 

Association of: 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the .............. 328 

Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 333 

State: 

Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the ................................... 335 

Foresters, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 337 

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared Statement 

of the .............................................................................................................. 340 

Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 343 

Indian: 

Child Welfare Association, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 346 

Education Association, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 348 

Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 351 

Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the ....................... 353 

Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 356 

Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the ........................ 359 

Wildlife: 

Federation, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 362 

Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 365 

Native: 

Hawaiian Education Council, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 368 

Village of Barrow, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 370 

Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 371 

Navajo Nation, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................... 374 

New England Forest Policy Group, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 375 

Nez Perce Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ......................................................... 378 

Northern Water—The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of ............................................................................................... 381 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................ 382 

Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 384 

OPERA America « The National Opera Center, Prepared Statement of ............. 387 

Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 389 

Outdoor Industry Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 391 

Outdoors Alliance for Kids, Prepared Statement of the ....................................... 393 

Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the ..................................... 394 

Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of the ........... 396 

Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 399 

Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of ......................................................... 402 

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Prepared Statement of the ..... 404 

Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island: 

Opening Statements of............................................................................... 1, 83, 127 

Questions Submitted by ......................................................................... 48, 111, 160 

Restore America’s Estuaries, Prepared Statement of ........................................... 405 

Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the .................................................. 407 

San Juan Water Commission, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 409 

Seattle Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 410 

Shoalwater Bay Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 413 

Society: 

For Historical Archaeology (SHA), Prepared Statement of the .................... 414 

Of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 415 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 417 

Southwestern Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement of the ............ 418 

Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ................................................ 419 

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ........................................... 421 
Page

iv 

State of New Mexico, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 423 

Suh, Hon. Rhea, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Office 

of the Secretary, Department of the Interior ..................................................... 1 

Suquamish Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ....................................................... 424 

Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition, Prepared Statement of the ...................... 424 

Teaming With Wildlife Steering Committee, Prepared Statement of the .......... 426 

Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the ............................. 427 

Tidwell, Tom, Chief, United States Forest Service, Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 127 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 133 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 131 

Town of Baldwin, Florida, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 429 

Tri-County Water Conservancy District, Prepared Statement of the ................. 432 

Tribal Education Departments National Assembly, Prepared Statement of 

the .......................................................................................................................... 433 

Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of the ............................................... 435 

Tuba City Boarding School—Governing Board, Prepared Statement of the ...... 438 

Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Question Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 116 

United: 

States Geological Survey Coalition, Prepared Statement of the .................. 440 

Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of .......................................... 443 

Utah Water Users Association, Prepared Statement of the ................................. 445 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Prepared Statement of the ........................................... 446 

Verhines, Scott A., P.E., Prepared Statement of ................................................... 446 

Western: 

Governors’ Association, Prepared Statement of the ...................................... 448 

States Water Council and Native American Rights Fund, Prepared Statement of the .................................................................................................... 450 

Wilderness: 

Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the ......................................................... 452 

Society, Prepared Statement of the ................................................................ 454 

Wildlife: 

Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 458 

Society, Prepared Statement of the ................................................................ 461 

World Wildlife Fund, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 464 
(v) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

Page 

Aircraft Received From the Coast Guard For Firefighting—Table of What 

Work Remains to be Accomplished and the Earliest and Latest Date the 

Aircraft Will be Available for Firefighting ......................................................... 182 

Airtankers..................................................................................................... 144, 154, 159 

Aviation Questions .................................................................................................. 181 

Big Thorne: 

Current Schedule for the Remaining Administrative Processes for the 

Timber Sale Project ...................................................................................... 152 

Information About the: 

Final Environmental Statement .............................................................. 151 

Forest Supervisor................................................................................... 151, 152 

Record of Decision ..................................................................................... 151 

Supplemental Information Report ........................................................... 152 

Sale................................................................................................................. 143, 151 

Budget: 

Challenges ..................................................................................................... 141, 152 

Request and Focus Areas ................................................................................. 135 

Building Thriving Communities ............................................................................. 136 

C–130H Model Aircraft Received From the Coast Guard for Firefighting ......... 182 

Challenges to Conservation .................................................................................... 135 

Collaborative Forest Landscape: 

Program ............................................................................................................. 183 

Restoration ........................................................................................................ 150 

Program ...................................................................................................... 146 

Cost Savings ............................................................................................................. 140 

Current Projects—How Much Each Project Has Received to Date, and Would 

be Expected to Receive in Fiscal Year 2015 if Funded at the $40 Million 

Level and $60 Million Level ................................................................................ 184 

Farm Bill .................................................................................................................. 158

Fire Suppression Cap Adjustment ..................................................... 131, 132, 141, 148 

Fiscal Year: 

2009–2013 Stewardship Contracting Collections and Spending .................. 176 

2014 Next Generation Airtankers ................................................................... 181 

2015 Budget................................................................................................... 132, 150 

Forest Jobs and Recreation Act .............................................................................. 158 

Future Outlook ........................................................................................................ 140 

Key Authorities ........................................................................................................ 131 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ...................................................................... 160 

Managing Wildland Fires ........................................................................................ 138 

Next Generation Airtankers Fiscal Year 2014 ...................................................... 181 

Percent of all Sawtimber Sold Under Stewardship Authority in Fiscal Year 

2013 ....................................................................................................................... 173

Plan Revision—Tongass .......................................................................................... 157 

Projects ..................................................................................................................... 184 

Recreation and Tourism ...................................................................................... 152, 153 

Renewable Energy Resources ................................................................................. 156 

Restoring Resilient Landscapes .............................................................................. 135 

Roadless Rule....................................................................................... 142, 153, 155, 185 

Safety and Inclusion ................................................................................................ 139 
Page

vi 

Sawtimber Sold Under Stewardship Authority in Fiscal Year 2013 ................... 173 

Secure Rural Schools ............................................................................................... 181 

Stewardship Contracting ........................................................................................ 173 

Collections and Spending ................................................................................. 176 

Timber: 

Harvest .............................................................................................................. 155 

Sales .................................................................................................................. 149 

Tongass ..................................................................................................................... 166 

Plan Revision .................................................................................................... 157 

Roadless Rule................................................................................ 142, 153, 155, 185 

Value of the Forest Service ..................................................................................... 134 

Wildfire Cap Adjustment ........................................................................................ 184 

Wildfire Disaster Funding Act ............................................................................ 131, 150 

Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................... 140 

Wildland-Urban Interface ....................................................................................... 149 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

2015 Budget ............................................................................................................. 11 

Alaska: 

Funding Schedules for the Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), the Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP, the Central Yukon RMP, 

and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A) ......................... 70 

Land Conveyance .............................................................................................. 74 

Volcano Observatory Funding ......................................................................... 72 

Arctic: 

Outer Continental Shelf ................................................................................... 46 

Programs ........................................................................................................... 26 

Strategy ............................................................................................................. 25 

Beaufort and Chukchi Leases ................................................................................. 47 

Building a Landscape Level Understanding of Our Resources ........................... 14 

California Drought ................................................................................................... 31 

Celebrating and Enhancing America’s Great Outdoors ....................................... 12 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 10 

Contract Support Costs ..................................................................................... 44, 45, 66 

Drought ..................................................................................................................... 36

Energy ...................................................................................................................... 9 

Engaging the Next Generation ............................................................................... 13 

Ensuring Healthy Watersheds and Sustainable, Secure Water Supplies ........... 13 

Fire Suppression and the Discretionary Budget Cap ........................................... 21 

Fish Hatcheries ........................................................................................................ 29 

Foregone Pumping ................................................................................................... 33, 55 

Funding Schedule for the Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan 

(RMP), the Bering Sea/Western Interior RMP, the Central Yukon RMP, 

and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A) ................................ 70 

Greater Moose’s Tooth—National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska ............................ 67 

Heritage Areas ......................................................................................................... 24 

Hurricane Sandy Funding ...................................................................................... 41 

Indian: 

Affairs ................................................................................................................ 8 

Funding ...................................................................................................... 45 

Joint Curatorial Facility at Great Smoky Mountains National Park ................. 29 

Katmai/Brooks Camp Bridge .................................................................................. 71 

King Cove Road.................................................................................................. 24, 42, 46 

Lake Cumberland .................................................................................................... 29 

Land and Water Conservation Fund ..................................................... 8, 27, 38, 50, 74 

Projects in South Dakota ................................................................................. 39 

Landsat ..................................................................................................................... 38

Landscape Level Approach ..................................................................................... 9 

Legacy Well Cleanup ............................................................................................... 70 

Letter From the San Joaquin River Water Authority .......................................... 32, 53 

Maintenance Backlog .............................................................................................. 40 

Major Changes in the 2015 Request ...................................................................... 14 

Mandatory Proposals ............................................................................................... 20 

Bureau of Land Management Foundation ..................................................... 21 

Centennial Initiative ........................................................................................ 20 
Page

vii 

Mandatory Proposals—Continued 

Discontinue AML Payments to Certified States ............................................ 21 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act .................................................... 21 

Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps ........................ 21 

Federal Oil and Gas Reforms .......................................................................... 20 

Geothermal Energy Receipts ........................................................................... 21 

Land and Water Conservation Fund .............................................................. 20 

Palau Compact .................................................................................................. 20 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes .............................................................................. 20 

Reclamation of Abandoned Hardrock Mines .................................................. 21 

Recreation Fee Program ................................................................................... 21 

Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands .................................................. 21 

Return Coal Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Fees to Historic Levels .. 21 

National Park: 

Centennial ........................................................................................................... 8, 23 

Service Centennial ............................................................................................ 49 

Initiative ..................................................................................................... 70 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Land Planning/Other Land Plan 

Costs ...................................................................................................................... 69 

Offsetting Collections and Fees .............................................................................. 22 

Oil and Gas Development on Public Lands ........................................................... 67 

Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative ....................................................... 9 

Oregon: 

And California Grant Lands ............................................................................ 26 

Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument ............................................... 36 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes ...................................................................................... 36 

Pilot Offices .............................................................................................................. 37 

Powering Our Future .............................................................................................. 13 

Projected Operations Beginning March 26 Through April 9, 2014...................... 34, 56 

Red Devil Mine/Native Land Contamination ........................................................ 72 

Reimbursing States During Shutdown .................................................................. 30 

San Joaquin River Water Authority Letter Regarding Request for Emergency 

Relief Due to Impending Storm Events.............................................................. 32, 53 

Science ...................................................................................................................... 9 

Sequestration ........................................................................................................... 36 

Site Contamination at Transferred Lands............................................................. 43, 44 

Strengthening Tribal Nations ................................................................................. 12 

Upcoming Storms Commencing March 23, 2014................................................... 33, 55 

Water ........................................................................................................................ 10 

Pumping ............................................................................................................ 31 

White-nose Syndrome .............................................................................................. 75 

Wildfire Cap Adjustment Emergency Proposal ..................................................... 64 

Wildland Fire ........................................................................................................... 7 

Cap Adjustment ................................................................................................ 22, 28 

Youth........................................................................................................................... 9, 40 

And Veteran Programs ..................................................................................... 48 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Abandoned Uranium Mines Settlement ................................................................ 94 

Aerial Over Flights .................................................................................................. 99 

Agricultural Community ......................................................................................... 103 

Beach Act Grant Program ....................................................................................... 106 

Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants ............................................. 103 

Clean Water Act ...................................................................................................... 107 

Rulemaking on Power Plant Water Intake Structures ................................. 120 

Climate Change ....................................................................................................... 99 

Cutting the Workforce ............................................................................................. 111 

Discharges from Offshore Fish Processors ............................................................ 118 

E-Enterprise Initiative ............................................................................................ 112 

EPA Furloughs—Payroll Discrepancies ................................................................. 112 

Forest Roads ............................................................................................................. 93 

Greenhouse Gas New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)—New Units ...... 117 

Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water ........................................................... 109 

Inspector General (IG) Report Concerning EPA Credit Card Abuse .................. 121 

Lake Champlain Geographic Program ................................................................... 91 

Maps of Streams and Wetlands .............................................................................. 108 

National: 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Geotechnical 

Discharges/Arctic Oil and Gas Development .............................................. 119 
Page

viii 

National—Continued 

Resilience Task Force ....................................................................................... 92 

Pebble Mine .............................................................................................................. 96 

Pesticide Registration Improvement Act 1, 2, and 3—Total Number of Actions 

Completed and the Number of Those Actions Completed Late ........................ 123 

Radon ........................................................................................................................ 116 

Program ............................................................................................................. 106 

Renewable Fuel Standards ..................................................................................... 105 

Small Remote Incinerators ..................................................................................... 117 

Southern New England Estuaries .......................................................................... 105 

State Revolving Fund .............................................................................................. 98 

Funds ................................................................................................................. 93 

Waste Isolation Pilot Project .................................................................................. 95 

Waters of the United States ................................................................................... 100 

Æ